If you could change one thing.

Csa_Survivor

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

If you've had a letter stating your liability to pay ended in Sept 2011 then yes, you should be refunded any payments since then - I've not said anything to the contrary.

Many thanks Prelude, I do get carried away with my answers some times, lot of built up frustration there Im afraid.

msgigglewick

The csa check up with colleges that the children do actually attend.

They don't take the word of the pwc as gospel (she told the csa that we had no children here, took 6 months before someone actually listened)

Those who are self employed don't get away with claiming they earn alot less than they actually do so pay less.

Benefits are taken into account so you don't have someone claiming full benefits then getting a payment of £500+ a month on top of that.. they are never going to go back to work while getting all that..

Cally_Smart

msgigglewick wrote: »

The csa check up with colleges that the children do actually attend.

They don't take the word of the pwc as gospel (she told the csa that we had no children here, took 6 months before someone actually listened)

Those who are self employed don't get away with claiming they earn alot less than they actually do so pay less.

Benefits are taken into account so you don't have someone claiming full benefits then getting a payment of £500+ a month on top of that.. they are never going to go back to work while getting all that..

Sorry,but you are misinformed on all of the points you raised.
1,CSA takes the word of pwc they check find she's still claiming but DO NOT ASK COLLEGE .WE are in this situation ourselves ( look at some of my old post's)
2 IF they dont take the word of the pwc as gospel you wouldn't have struggled to get them to believe you about the children in your home.
3 Many pwc's on another forum I go find it difficult to prove the earnings of nrp's
4Since April 2010 there is full benefit disregard so pwc's can keep ALL of the child maintenance without it affecting their benefits..I know its hard to believe but it's true !

msgigglewick

Umm the question was ..what would I change about the CSA... I know those don't happen from personal experience so that's what I'd change... Scratches head to how that makes me misinformed

Cally_Smart

Sorry,you only just joined the thread at the end & as you didn't use quotes I took it out of context,it's been a long day !
My mistake,it's a long thread & just read today's posts.As you can see CSA has caused us all a lot of frustration.

Cally_Smart

I'm really sorry & embarrassed ,looks like we were singing off the same Hymn sheet all the time!

Mipmop

The one thing I would change (and have never understood why it works this way).

My OH is a nrp and he pays maintenance at the required level, always has and will continue to do so. What I don't understand is why that is not counted as income for the pwc when it comes to claiming tax credits.

The CSA states child maintenance is to provide a contribution to the pwc household for bills, food, items for children, school uniform etc - so surely this is the pwc income as much as their own salary is.

If that was taken in to account as income it reduce tax credits to some (those with ex-partners who make a concious effort to pay the right amount at the right time) but could then increase it for those genuine single parents (by that I mean those with no ex contributing anything) who will struggle more.

So in essence I would state that the pwc income should include any maintenance provided to them by the nrp.

EclipsedMind

Something to think about:

Each party having a claim against the other. Work out the overnights and reduce by 1/7 for each night same as now.

In some cases wealthy (hard working) PWC would be paying the NRP but surely the child's welfare is paramount. I am a PWC btw and it would certainly affect me that way.

EM

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Mipmop wrote: »

The one thing I would change (and have never understood why it works this way).

My OH is a nrp and he pays maintenance at the required level, always has and will continue to do so. What I don't understand is why that is not counted as income for the pwc when it comes to claiming tax credits.

The CSA states child maintenance is to provide a contribution to the pwc household for bills, food, items for children, school uniform etc - so surely this is the pwc income as much as their own salary is.

If that was taken in to account as income it reduce tax credits to some (those with ex-partners who make a concious effort to pay the right amount at the right time) but could then increase it for those genuine single parents (by that I mean those with no ex contributing anything) who will struggle more.

So in essence I would state that the pwc income should include any maintenance provided to them by the nrp.

I think that it's mainly because it's not a guaranteed or regular income for some PWCs, it's an assessment that says "Okay, you should get this amount every week".

CSAworkerx

Mipmop wrote: »

The one thing I would change (and have never understood why it works this way).

My OH is a nrp and he pays maintenance at the required level, always has and will continue to do so. What I don't understand is why that is not counted as income for the pwc when it comes to claiming tax credits.

The CSA states child maintenance is to provide a contribution to the pwc household for bills, food, items for children, school uniform etc - so surely this is the pwc income as much as their own salary is.

If that was taken in to account as income it reduce tax credits to some (those with ex-partners who make a concious effort to pay the right amount at the right time) but could then increase it for those genuine single parents (by that I mean those with no ex contributing anything) who will struggle more.

So in essence I would state that the pwc income should include any maintenance provided to them by the nrp.

Well, in essence the only purpose for that money is to spend every penny on the child in question or children, Obviosly doesnt work like this in all cases, but if you have a pwc on a low/no income claiming tax creds and then class her CM as income, that is going to affect the welfare of the child somewhat.