CSA assesments? is this right? or fair?

kelloggs36

The only cases which are compulsory are those where the PWC is on benefits so the others already have the option of trying to sort things out between themselves - nothing new there and it never ceases to amaze me that Ministers go on and on about this brand new system which is only for cases where the parties are unable to work things out for themselves - it won't change!! As this already exists it means that the existing cases are in place because they cannot come to an agreement between themselves. My ex refused to acknowledge my offer to try and come to a private arrangement, preferring to pay absolutely nothing.

I agree that the targets are stupid but they can be biased towards the real absent parents (which is currently happening but in conjunction with other targets and not instead of) and once payments are in place this is where the system could be altered. Although to be honest once it has got to this stage there are least problems - it is actually getting the assessment details and the money in in the first place that is the most difficult. We have NRPs who object purely on ideological grounds so they feel they shouldn't pay because their ex is on benefits and doesn't get the extra money - well it would mean an increase in taxation for everybody if this were changed as there will be a shortfall in the treasury income - and to be honest whether or not an NRP pays tax in general doesn't mean they shouldn't still pay something towards their children's upbringing - if they were living with the child they would be and would still be paying tax so why is this any different? Perhaps however, they should get the maintenance offset against tax they pay like they used to until it was scrapped. You then get the NRPs who feel they shouldn't pay because the PWC has more income than them - again, if they were living with the child then they would still be paying towards their upkeep so this isn't a valid argument either. As I said, whatever figure is set will not be acceptable for some on either side - should it be 5% or is this too low? NOt for some NRPs who will still feel this is too high! Should it be 10%? What should be counted as income? Perhaps we should not be taking tax credits for new households into account as it is for the children in the household but I don't think that there should be any other changes.

If we tried to look at each case individually it won't make it any better - in fact it would be worse as there just wouldn't be the resources to deal with it. It is already difficult enough in dealing with conflict which is already there let alone prying even more into what one person has etc. In order to be 'fair' it would have to involve the reasons for the breakup and who was at fault etc and this is just not feasible. There have to be limits which is why it has already been simplified. The issues are that whatever the law is, there will be those who don't agree. We just cannot incorporate a system which will be good for everybody - as money is being taken from one household and given to another, somebody won't be happy.

real1314

Essentially then, the system encourages NRPs to pay the maintenance and refuse to pay for anything else at all? after all, with those sort of figures, they can't afford to, espcially when compared to the income of the PWC?

Wouldn't it be a better system if the parents contributed equally to the childrens needs - clothes, shoes, school dinners, trips etc. And in that way the kids would feel that BOTH parents are showing that they care.

If the PWC simply goes down the CSA route then they are setting up a situation in which they can claim to provide everything for the kids whilst the NRP appears to provide nothing. It's clearly outdated and destructive imho.

Kimitatsu

real1314 wrote: »

Essentially then, the system encourages NRPs to pay the maintenance and refuse to pay for anything else at all? after all, with those sort of figures, they can't afford to, espcially when compared to the income of the PWC?

Wouldn't it be a better system if the parents contributed equally to the childrens needs - clothes, shoes, school dinners, trips etc. And in that way the kids would feel that BOTH parents are showing that they care.

If the PWC simply goes down the CSA route then they are setting up a situation in which they can claim to provide everything for the kids whilst the NRP appears to provide nothing. It's clearly outdated and destructive imho.

It would be better if both parents made a joint contribution but as you have already pointed out things are getting acrimonious and bitter. I dont mean make sweeping statements that may not be true of your mate, but what happens when he finds someone else? And then he needs the money for other things? Unfortunately there are many posters on here that has happened to, everything is fine for a while and then the NRP decides that they should not be paying that much and the money tails off.

The kids dont get any cheaper as they grow up in fact they get more expensive. The NRP decides that they need to start to live their own life and the PWC is getting more then they are so they can cut their payments down.

What happens then? The number of nights they take the kids goes down along with the payments.

I appreciate that your mate may not feel that way now, but in 1, 2, 3, 4 years time will that still be the case?

There is no solution in these cases and whilst the CSA is outdated until there is a system that has some teeth then this will not change.

daisy_doughnut_2

i dont normaly comment on many csa but the thing that stood out an grabed me is the PWC earns more alot more than NRP maybe she works more hours or is better qualified its not her fault she earns more
42 pounds is quite fair
he doesnt have to buy exra clothes ect that his choice

so say she earnt the same amount of money or slightly less
an then after all calculations she was left with the same would there still be a problem?

basicly she earns more an he is peeved
its not her fault he doesnt earn as much
an he pays maintenance so what ever else he buys he does out of choice

i wish i had 118 pounds after rent an CT

changkra

Zara33 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I take it you unfortunately have an axe to grind with someone. Don't tar everyone with the same brush or just might miss out on something good.

Zara33

changkra wrote: »

I take it you unfortunately have an axe to grind with someone. Don't tar everyone with the same brush or just might miss out on something good.

A huge axe actually thanks for the concern but i doubt i will miss out on anything good

kelloggs36

real1314 wrote: »

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.

Maybe, but you will also find that whatever they are asked to pay, many NRPs think it is too much - many want to pay nothing at all. Many of course say they wish to pay but argue that they don't want to because the PWC doesn't get it as it goes to secretary of state, or they don't want to pay because the PWC keeps it all for themselves. That is why there is such a straightforward system as it is the same for everybody regardless of income (I'm not talking about the 2 systems, but for every person whatever the system they are on the basics are the same). As I said on another post, it would be absoloutely impossible to start taking into account each and every circumstance that may affect somebody's financial situation. The CSA is a priority debt in law and must be paid over and above any other loans or credit cards etc. Instead of looking at how much they have left to pay their child support, they need to be looking at how much is left afterwards and making adjustments (assuming that the assessment is correct of course lol) to ensure that they don't fall deep into debt. If people have credit cards, loans etc and they have difficulty paying them then they need to look to the ways at sorting that out.

I'm not saying the CSA are not at fault a lot of the time, but there are ways to sort real problems out through the appeals or by checking the figures but for cases where it is correct there is nothing a person can do to fight it, unless they want to go sick and then have a fiver taken for child support and they would be even worse off.

real1314

Kimitatsu wrote: »

I dont mean make sweeping statements that may not be true of your mate, but what happens when he finds someone else? And then he needs the money for other things? Unfortunately there are many posters on here that has happened to, everything is fine for a while and then the NRP decides that they should not be paying that much and the money tails off.

If he meets someone else or not, he won't stop loving and wanting to care for his kids. Do people make the same assumption of women?

If you don't want to make sweeping statements, then don't make them.
These sort of views belong back in the 50s.

Kimitatsu

real1314 wrote: »

If he meets someone else or not, he won't stop loving and wanting to care for his kids. Do people make the same assumption of women?

If you don't want to make sweeping statements, then don't make them.
These sort of views belong back in the 50s.

Then most of the NRP's belong there too! I am sorry but your "mate" is right at the beginning of this process and you only have to read these boards to see how many NRP's start out with all the good intentions in the world, to be found 5 years later not feeling they should contribute or have their kids becuase they have a new life and a new family.

Read your own post you have already said how unfair it is that the mother gets more money - why? She is the main carer of these children. You have already said that things are becoming acrimonious and strained. What will happen if his ex says he cant have his children for two days a week? Will he fight it or just move on with his life?

I am sorry to sound harsh but this is the reality for the majority of PWC , and no people do not make the same assumption of women because it is more likely to be the man that will walk out on his family. In the main women are the ones left trying to juggle work, childcare and all of the other myriad of problems that go with raising a family, rather than just having them for a couple of days a week.

kelloggs36

There are many NRPs who just wish to move on and never have the good intentions in the first place!!