How can this be right?

slr89

Hi, I have recently been re-assessed under CSA1 and been told it will be nil, the same as it has been for years. However, I received a call from CSA today stating that the PWC has closed the case. Later today PWC called me saying that I earn “loads” and that she’s going to “get hundreds off me” by re-opening the case under CSA2 rules as that’s what the assessor looking at our case has advised her to do. She’s now demanding money right now or threatening to open the case under CSA2 rules in 5-6 weeks.

I rang the CSA to see what’s going on and they said that she can open the case (after 13 weeks) and it will indeed be under CSA2 rules. They also said it will be a considerable amount I’ll have to pay.

I just don’t understand how I can go from getting a nil award to needing to pay a considerable amount? I’ve looked on these forums but all I can see is that high mortgage payments/rent makes a difference between CSA1/2 but my rent is not in any way extortionate for this area.

To make things clear, I have always made reasonable regular payments to the PWC (as much as I can afford) despite being given a nil assessment for years, part of that on benefits. I’d just like to understand how this can be correct, given that everyone seems so frightened of CSA1?

Caz3121

CSA1 allowed for some outgoings like housing costs. CSA2 takes into account your net income only and a % of that is used for the calculation
15% one child, 20% for two and 25% for 3 or more
less discounts for shared care (eg reduced by 1/7th for 52 nights+, 2/7ths for 104 nights+)

some people were better off on CSA1 than CSA2, for others CSA2 was better than CSA1

DUTR

slr89 wrote: »

Hi, I have recently been re-assessed under CSA1 and been told it will be nil, the same as it has been for years. However, I received a call from CSA today stating that the PWC has closed the case. Later today PWC called me saying that I earn “loads” and that she’s going to “get hundreds off me” by re-opening the case under CSA2 rules as that’s what the assessor looking at our case has advised her to do. She’s now demanding money right now or threatening to open the case under CSA2 rules in 5-6 weeks.

I rang the CSA to see what’s going on and they said that she can open the case (after 13 weeks) and it will indeed be under CSA2 rules.

Perhaps they did

They also said it will be a considerable amount I’ll have to pay.
No they didn't
I just don’t understand how I can go from getting a nil award to needing to pay a considerable amount? I’ve looked on these forums but all I can see is that high mortgage payments/rent makes a difference between CSA1/2 but my rent is not in any way extortionate for this area.

To make things clear, I have always made reasonable regular payments to the PWC (as much as I can afford) despite being given a nil assessment for years, part of that on benefits. I’d just like to understand how this can be correct, given that everyone seems so frightened of CSA1?

If what you deemed reasonable is was around 15-20% net, then no worries, the only difference will be that it's official.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

It will actually be on the new 2012 gross income scheme, any cases opened from Monday will be on that.

They will look at your last tax year, and base the assessment on that amount.

FBaby

It would seem that what you consider reasonable she doesn't so it will now come down to what the new system think it is. I think you can quite easily work it out yourself what the figure will be and see if it is much different to what you give her and decide then whether you are better off coming up to an agreement outside of the csa.

slr89

Thanks everyone for your replies.

@DUTR I'm confused by some of your post. You seem to be implying I'm lying (or exaggerating) about what was said in the call to the CSA? When ringing the CSA my wife takes over the call, once I have passed all the security checks, as I have Asperger syndrome and have difficulty talking on phones. However, we then put the phone on speaker phone so I can hear what is said and I can assure you that what I wrote in my first post is accurate.

What has since happened is that my wife spoke to PWC and she told us some of the contents of our conversation we had with our CSA case worker. She said that the CSA case worker had rung her and told her about our conversation; something I would never have believed had she not been able to tell us what was said.

This prompted a call from us to the CSA again to speak to a supervisor as we believed this would surely be some sort of breach of the Data Protection Act. The supervisor was very sympathetic and said they would look into it i.e. listen to all phone calls related to the case, check his records etc . It seems however, we don't have any right to find out the outcome of that investigation.

What concerns me with regards CSA2/3 is that my wife doesn't seem to be taken into consideration? She is a full-time carer for her mother and it isn't possible for her to get a job and fulfil her mother's care needs.

It seems that there doesn't seem to be a happy medium. CSA1 was clearly unfair hence I gave regularly (plus uniform, holiday contributions etc), even though told I didn't legally have to, yet now it looks like we may be in a situation where it will be equally unfair to us.

DUTR

slr89 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies.

@DUTR I'm confused by some of your post. You seem to be implying I'm lying (or exaggerating) about what was said in the call to the CSA?

Until they the CSA get the required paperwork, they can make an assesment, what one person deems a considerable amount maybe peanuts to another, you have to look at the whole thing based on facts not emotion And there is no need to discuss the case with the PWC.
Yes it maybe unfair to one party and not another, that will often be the case for many.
Your main 'worry' is that you can survive after the assesment is deducted from your budgetting. If you were contributing in the meantime then the assesement is one of three ways, less the same or more, and likewise for the PWC. In my case it was less (not that I had or would entertain a private agreement) , also deal with the csa in writing, sadly some of the agents 'get off' on NRPs squirming, once a case is up and running what more can a venemous PWC throw at you? Nothing, so nobody can win a fight if the other party does not retaliate.

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

It would seem that what you consider reasonable she doesn't so it will now come down to what the new system think it is. I think you can quite easily work it out yourself what the figure will be and see if it is much different to what you give her and decide then whether you are better off coming up to an agreement outside of the csa.

And if you carry on paying privately, do so in a way that makes it identifiable as Child Maintenance.

Fission

To answer the question the thread title, let's just throw a few illustrative figures into the ring.

Old rules first. Let's take a parent earning £400 a week and who has high housing costs (let's say rent of £200 a week) and a new partner and two children with that partner. At 2013 rates, he will be allowed in his exempt income:

Single person allowance: £71.70
Child allowance 1: £52.31
Child allowance 2: £52.31
Family element: £10.48
Housing costs: £200

That's a total of £386.80.

He will have £13.70 a week out of which to pay child maintenance.

Protected income (which takes account of more things, plus all of the above), will wipe out his ability to pay any maintenance. The assessment will be nil.

Let's take the same parent under new rules.

It's a lot simpler.

Step 1. £400 x 0.8 (reducing the income by 20% because of the two children living with him) = £320.

Step 2. £320 x 0.15 (assuming there's only one child to maintain) = £48.

And £48 is what he'll be assessed at under new rules.

So can it be right?

That depends on whether you're buying or selling, I suggest.

krashovrload

++

Whilst I read that it is possible to close down a case that's been ongoing for years and then have it reopened a few weeks later (on the off chance that they'll get a better deal) - how is that fair or even permitted?

Is there any investigation into why a claim was closed and then reopened so quickly.??

++

lazer

AFAIK the NRP can open a case as well

So you could open the case again today and would probably open under CSA1 as it hasn't been 13 weeks since it closed.