CSA assesments? is this right? or fair?

real1314

ok, a mate of mine is going through a divorce and it's getting messy and acrimonious. He's now being asked to pay £42 a week maintenance by CSA.

He used to share the time with the kids 50:50 but the kids found it hard not having a proper "home" so now he has them 2/3 days a week and his ex has them the rest.

His only income is his wages of about £270 a week, from which he's got £96 rent and about £14 council tax to pay. So he's left with £160 a week, then the maintenance comes off, leaving £118 a week.

Her wages are about £340, then she gets Child Benefit £30, Child/Working Tax Credit £30 and the maintenance £42 = £442, then she's got the mortgage and council tax, about he same £110. So she's left with £332 a week.

Effectively for the 2 extra days she gets an extra £214 a week.

This makes no sense at all to me??? Anyone got any advice?

Zara33

Why does it not make any sense? I imagine the PWC has to feed these children, clothe them and pay for after school activities, school lunches etc etc all these things cost money.

real1314

because he is also a PWC. He has the kids for 2/3 days a week. His ex has them for 2 days more than he does.

His income after housing costs is £118 per week for him for a week + 2 kids for 2.5 days a week.

Hers is £332 for her for a week + 2 kids for 4.5 days a week.

If you allocate £60 for him for the week (same as Income Support), then he's left with £11.60 per child per day.

If you then allocate £11.60 per child per day for her you get £144. She's then got her £60 just like him. Then she's got an extra £124 a week.

Fathers pay for stuff for their kids too!:mad:

So, anyone know if these figures are reasonably correct?
anyone know why fathers who do share the responsibility are treated so badly?

he might as well give up work, live off income support and have no life and tell the ex that she's got to cover ALL the costs for the kids, even when they are with him.

Mr_Green_Genes

Let's leave Zara33's faux moral outrage aside and concentrate on the facts.

The main thing to remember is that the way the CSA rules work for cases started after April 2003 is on the basis of a percentage of the non resident parent's income, with a few deductions for specific things.

You say wages of £270 per week,which I assume is after tax etc. You say kids but don't specify how many so I'll assume 2 for now. Also, 2/3 nights a week staying with him is 2 in CSA-speak.

So, maintenance should be 20% of £270 which is £54 minus 2/7ths (£15.43) which equals £38.57 per week.

For 3 or more children, it will be 25% of £270 which is £67.50 minus £19.29 which equals £48.21 per week.

Neither of these tally with the figures you give so maybe I've missed something but you get the idea.

What the parent with care earns is irrelevant, it isn't taken into account.

I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone got any advice?". The figures are what they are.

Kimitatsu

Sorry but I think it is right!

The latest figures produced in April this year say that to keep an average child up to their 21st birthday is £23.50 per day. As you have referred to the kids in plural I imagine there are 2 or more, so it is costing the PWC an average of £47 per day to keep these children, not to mention a further £15.50 to run a car every day.

I dont doubt that fathers do pay for their kids but if you have them less than 50% of the time, then he surely does not pay for 50% of their clothes, shoes, food, school trips, birthday presents etc.

The income for the PWC is not taken into account when the CSA assesment is done so whatever she earns is irrelevant. He is assessed on a flat rate assesment, which is probably the fairest way.

kelloggs36

How many children are we talking here? The formula is 15%, 20% or 25% of his net income with a 2/7 reduction for the overnight stays or 3/7 if it is 3 nights. So if there are 2 children we are looking at 20% of £270 per week less 2/7 = £38.48 per week and for 3/7 £30.86 Has the reduction been taken into account? If not, then he needs to contact the CSA and ask them to check and make the necessary adjustments to reduce the amount paid. He can only get a reduction in what he is paying - the figures you have used bear no relation to either reality or the CSA.

He is not classed as a PWC as he does not have the children the majority of the time, and does not receive the child benefit (but as he has them less time this is more important). He is an NRP for the majority of the time.

There is absolutely no point in making comparisons with the PWC income as it is totally irrelevant in making assessments. There are no allowances for such things as housing costs under this system I'm afraid.

real1314

There's 2 kids. He's very upset by the situation. He's worked all his life and now find that he might as well give up and just sign on.

I suppose at least if he gets depressed enough he can go on the sick.

I thought the PWC income might be irrelevant, but with figures like these I can see now why NPRs use every trick they can to avoid paying.

Zara33

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Let's leave Zara33's faux moral outrage aside and concentrate on the facts.

What the parent with care earns is irrelevant, it isn't taken into account.

:rolleyes:

real1314

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Sorry but I think it is right!

The latest figures produced in April this year say that to keep an average child up to their 21st birthday is £23.50 per day. As you have referred to the kids in plural I imagine there are 2 or more, so it is costing the PWC an average of £47 per day to keep these children, not to mention a further £15.50 to run a car every day.

I dont doubt that fathers do pay for their kids but if you have them less than 50% of the time, then he surely does not pay for 50% of their clothes, shoes, food, school trips, birthday presents etc.

The income for the PWC is not taken into account when the CSA assesment is done so whatever she earns is irrelevant. He is assessed on a flat rate assesment, which is probably the fairest way.

So as he has the kids for 2 days a week minimum, and there's 2 kids, he needs £94 a week to keep the kids (because he does try to pay his share for kids, and really that's what he should be able to do as he wants to be fully involved with his kids). So he's supposed to live on £24 a week, ignoring the extra day every other week???

Madness. It's obviously all geared up to hit those "non resident parents" that do nothing for their kids. Any NRP that does try to be actively involved gets shafted.

kelloggs36

His assessment is very reasonable actually IMO - provided he gets the reduction he should be for having them for 2 nights per week. He still keeps 86% of his income to himself for his own use. If you look at the costs of bringing up children and what they involve it will probably be more than his contribution. Housing costs, food, clothes, extra electricity and gas in washing, ironing,cooking and cleaning and heating for them (hot water), water (especially if on a meter), petrol costs or costs of taking them to places and picking and dropping them off, entertainment, presents for birthdays, Christmas etc, even extra phone costs in keeping tabs on them - the list is endless. Not every child will have the best of everthing but regardless, it all costs a lot of money.

aussiesbird

real1314 wrote: »

Madness. It's obviously all geared up to hit those "non resident parents" that do nothing for their kids. Any NRP that does try to be actively involved gets shafted.

I totally agree with you. The CSA should concentrate on NRPs that wont pay at all and the ones that are willing to pay should be left to work out the payments with the PWC and only take over if communications are of detrement to the children (ie violence involved) That would force the parents to talk reasonably and maybe they would benefit from a more amicable relationship, which would definately benefit the children involved. Too much of taxpayers money is being spent on appeals and such like from NRP that are willing to pay but have a problem with the way the maintenence is worked out. i.e the PWC income and assets not being taken into account at all. You have to remember that some of the PWCs have been left in the house that they lived in with all the furniture etc but the NRPs leave and have the expense of setting up home again (before you all jump on my back for that statement I know that there are different circumstances for each case) which is why each case should be looked at individually. But this is not cost effective and is time consuming! The CSA should be used to concentrate on absent NRPs that refuse to pay anything for the upkeep of their offspring, that was what it was set up for in the first place! But that would not produce the targets they have to meet so they jump on the backs of the NRP who will pay and shaft them to the floor all for the sake of meeting targets. How child friendly is their system? They claim that their aim is to benefit the children but all they do in the long run is make the relationship between NRP and child worse because, as in my case, we have been left short of money and will no longer be able to do things with the children when they visit because we cannot afford to. So now we have to explain that we can't do what we used to with them because we don't have the spare cash, in turn this has resulted in one of my partners children not wanting to come because of boredom and would rather spend time with their mates!! So the relationship falls apart between NRP nad child and all because of money!!
Oh how I love the CSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: