Nil assessment

justontime

Crellow4 wrote: »

My point is that you have money to live on but are not contributing to the upkeep of your son. Just because you (currently) legally have no obligation under CSA legislation doesn't mean you do not have a moral obligation to contribute. Incidentally, if your main occupation is a 'landlord', then your rental income can be assessed.

The parent with care chose to go to CSA for her own reasons, right or wrong that is her right. We don't know and shouldn't speculate on the situation or motives of either parent, but in his present situation (I presume he was assessed under CSA 2) he would be a fool to make direct payments at the moment. The PWC has applied for a variation and on the very limited evidence we have it looks as if she may be successful. If that is the case and if she met the required timescales the new assessment will apply from the start of the claim and he will have arrears. The best advice is for him to put away at least as much as he was paying previously so that the money will be ready to pay the arrears when the variation has been processed. In an ideal world he would be able to pay the PWC while awaiting the variation, but there is no provable way for him to do this and CSA have no way to help him with this. There are plenty of NRPs who found out to their cost that a PWC can deny payment and all the proof in the world will not be accepted by CSA.

OP as advised earlier in the thread, it would be wise to put money aside to pay any arrears because it seems likely that the variation request will be (partially) successful.

dirtystopout

Crellow4 wrote: »

If your tax return shows you are a self employed landlord then your rental income certainly can be assessed.
If you are comfortable that you make no financial contribution to your son, I guess that's all that matters - ultimately it's you who will have to justify this to him when he asks what you did for him.

The only way that rental income can be assessed is if I take a wage out of it otherwise it can't be taken into consideration when making a calculation, that's why I got a nil assessment, I'm not making this up.

I won't have to justify myself to anybody, I've already pointed out that all I wanted from this forum was advise and I wasn't looking for a way not to pay for him, so if you don't have anything to contribute please go and try bullying someone else instead!

dirtystopout

justontime wrote: »

The parent with care chose to go to CSA for her own reasons, right or wrong that is her right. We don't know and shouldn't speculate on the situation or motives of either parent, but in his present situation (I presume he was assessed under CSA 2) he would be a fool to make direct payments at the moment. The PWC has applied for a variation and on the very limited evidence we have it looks as if she may be successful. If that is the case and if she met the required timescales the new assessment will apply from the start of the claim and he will have arrears. The best advice is for him to put away at least as much as he was paying previously so that the money will be ready to pay the arrears when the variation has been processed. In an ideal world he would be able to pay the PWC while awaiting the variation, but there is no provable way for him to do this and CSA have no way to help him with this. There are plenty of NRPs who found out to their cost that a PWC can deny payment and all the proof in the world will not be accepted by CSA.

OP as advised earlier in the thread, it would be wise to put money aside to pay any arrears because it seems likely that the variation request will be (partially) successful.

What are the timescales that she would have to keep to?

Crellow4

She has 28 days from the date the original decision was notified. If she applied for a Variation more than 28 days after the decision was notified, the change would take effect from the date she applied.

FBaby

Firstly, rental income can't be assessed, that's why I had a nil assessment, that's why she went for a variation, that's why she lied on the application form, that's why I'm having to share my business details with a draconian government agency.

If you want to get into moral obligation then where is her moral obligation? She convinced my Son that I didn't love him anymore and that I didn't want to see him anymore just so that he would stop coming to see me and then use it as an excuse when she told me that they were moving out of town to be closer to her then new husbands work. This isn't just about money, this is also about messing with people's emotions, including my Son's.

Are you a CSA Case Worker? You certainly talk like one, bias towards the PWC!

So let's the heart of the matter: How much were you actually contributing?

It's all very well DUTR to assume she is just a greedy pwc without even knowing how much OP was paying in the first place, but if it was something like £50 a month and she was asking if he could contribute £75 instead because her child is starting music lessons, and he said no because he doesn't want his son to play the violin, would that make her a greedy ex?

The reality is that OP paid an amount that suited him and when this amount was challenged, he decided that she had no right to challenge and so as a punishment, he decides not to resume what he considered to be a reasonable payment before being challenged.

I'm a bit confused as you can say on one hand that you live off your rental, but then claim not to take a wage from it...

I would have sympathy if OP paid over £500 and his ex was asking for £700 because she couldn't afford to pay for his three weekly karting sessions...

DUTR

FBaby wrote: »

So let's the heart of the matter: How much were you actually contributing?

It's all very well DUTR to assume she is just a greedy pwc without even knowing how much OP was paying in the first place, but if it was something like £50 a month and she was asking if he could contribute £75 instead because her child is starting music lessons, and he said no because he doesn't want his son to play the violin, would that make her a greedy ex?

The reality is that OP paid an amount that suited him and when this amount was challenged, he decided that she had no right to challenge and so as a punishment, he decides not to resume what he considered to be a reasonable payment before being challenged.

I'm a bit confused as you can say on one hand that you live off your rental, but then claim not to take a wage from it...

I would have sympathy if OP paid over £500 and his ex was asking for £700 because she couldn't afford to pay for his three weekly karting sessions...

Whatever he was contributing, even if it were just £1 a week, and now he is assesed as nil, then it was £1 more than he was obliged to, but yes I get your point, only that it's not just the NRP's responsibility when further funds are required and it would be more acceptable if it were say school uniform time, but none essentials less so.

It is difficult to reply to some of these threads without including one's own individual experience. I'm not saying the OP shouldn't contribute anything, I'm saying he shouldn't be bullied into doing so, many readers (PWC's ) know that the CSA are not the mighty force to spite ex's that they may have once were .
You may recall from another thread of mine my DD Mum had gotten in touch just before xmas last year, tactfully I decided not to meet up until after the festivities and birthdays, then recalling how much I was spending, I was going to make damn sure I was not forking out and making up any shortfall, it's semi amusing when DD requires something the question comes "do you wan't to contribute to your daughter's this or that?" but apart from that the bragging rights of "I do it all alone with no help" :eek:
I know in my case the Mum is not the best at budgetting and even when offered help and advice, wants somebody else to pick up the pieces.
With some it doesn't matter how much the NRP does contribute as it will never be enough, that's greedy, as one old saying goes, cut the cloth accordingly.

I know one of my colleagues was getting not much from her son's father, then after the demands for more or the CSA, she went to the CSA and was awarded £3 per week, thankfully for her he contributes extra if and when he can, but she too was disillusioned that they were going to make his life a misery.

justontime

It isn't really our business what he was contributing. The NRP made the choice to go to CSA for her own reasons and she has an absolute right to do that. Now the OP has has to follow the CSA system and there is not a lot he can do until the variation is dealt with and any appeals arising from it have been resolved. If the PWC gets the results she hopes no doubt the case will stay with CSA, if not she will probably ask to go back to a private agreement. In that case the OP should insist on written confirmation from CSA that the case is closed before agreeing to a private agreement (to avoid the danger of NRP denying payment and NRP having to pay twice).

Why do we have to keep taking sides or making judgements. We all know that there are good and bad on both sides, but most people are basically decent and they come here for advice not criticism.

FBaby

There are greedy pwcs as they are self-employed nrps who love the fact that they can control how much they contribute in maintenance and as such think paying 5% of their income should be enough. We just don't know which situation it is in this case.

I've just contacted my ex again about maintenance and I hate how it makes me feel, that I am greedy for asking him to pay just a little when I can manage to support the children without his support. He has been back to full-time work for over 2 months now, but doesn't pay a penny and I continue to pay for their weekly train fare for them to go and see him. I told him that i wasn't after 20% of his salary but at least some contribution, paying for their fare would be a good start. But he is ignoring me and I don't have a doubt that he thinks I am just greedy. So what do I do next? Nothing and let him get away with not paying a penny towards their every day costs (which are mounting especially this year with two main school trips), whilst he spoils them for Christmas and makes himself looks like a wonderful dad, or do I take him to the csa because after two polite contacts, he still ignores any fair arrangement?
Will that make me a greedy pwc for going to the csa?

FBaby

but most people are basically decent

That's a nice view of the world but not one I have experienced unfortunately.

justontime

FBaby wrote: »

That's a nice view of the world but not one I have experienced unfortunately.

I think most of us would say that FBaby, and I accept there are no easy answers when it comes to child support, sometimes CSA is the only solution. The sad thing is that when reasonable people become unreasonable it doesnt take long for things to go horribly wrong.

My husband has been to hell and back over the years with CSA and problems with his ex. It is all there in my previous posts if anyone is interested but the details are not really relevant. When his ex ended their relationship CSA were involved from the start (a requirement in those days due to benefits) he was always compliant (and still is) and he provided in other ways too such as making her car payments and paying for school trips, buying school uniform etc. This left him very little to live on and it reached a point when he had to say no when he she needed more. Then sadly it became a power game, contact became conditional on extra money and one entrenched position led to another.

I must confess that there have been times when I couldn't have said anything good about his ex, but time has helped me to be a bit more objective. They both made mistakes, they both got things wrong and perhaps if there had been more openness a lot of the problems could have been avoided. I think a lot of people start out trying to do the right thing and to put the children first, but once they get into this sort of downward spiral it is incredibly difficult to put things right.

We only have a few more years to go with CSA, it is absolutely right that he should support his children, but when the case with CSA ends I will breathe a huge sigh of relief. My husband has always been compliant but it has been such an ordea to deal with CSA over the years that I fear the dreaded brown envelopes. We will continue to support his grown up children, he is their dad, he will always be there for them, but he will be free of the worry of CSA being used as a weapon.