MSE News: Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees 21 May 2014 at 4:21PM in Marriage, Relationships & Families 48 replies 7.4K views

Former_MSE_Helen

Separated parents face a charge for administering child maintenance payments unless they can reach an amicable agreement ...

Read the full story:

Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Notsosharp

I think I would resent paying for a "service" that patently, obviously stopped working quite some time ago (if it ever did)

FBaby

Indeed, once you start paying for a service, you are entitled to have expectations in the quality of its delivery.

monty-doggy

I was reading about this today. If the resident parent forces the non resident parent to use the collection service then the non resident parents payments go up by 20% but the person receiving only loses 4%.

How on earth is this fair???

For example if my oh ex decides to use the service then his payments will increase from £250 to £300 where as she will still receive £240.

It's a joke.

sax11

i can see my ex wife shafting me with this plan

mum2one

I have an ex that wont pay amd has to have hos money stopped out of his benefits, if were lucky I get £5 per week for my daughter....... and the csa have trouble getting that from him...
Its a joke

Leo2020

monty-doggy wrote: »

I was reading about this today. If the resident parent forces the non resident parent to use the collection service then the non resident parents payments go up by 20% but the person receiving only loses 4%.

The "person" who ultimately loses is the child. The way I read your post you would prefer if both parents lost out equally but surely neither lose out, the child/children do.

In an ideal world parents would come to an arrangement but for whatever reason this is not always possible. I suspect the logic behind the non-resident parent paying 20% extra versus the resident parent losing 4% is that the resident parent will be paying the costs of looking after the child regardless of whether the other parent pays or not.

If the non-resident parent chooses not to pay then being forced to pay and pay an extra 20% on top might be the kick they need to come to some arrangement. If they can't then the child/children are still better off because the resident parent gets X amount minus 4% opposed to zero.

themull1

Its because parents are supposed to be adult enough to sort out the maintenance themselves, so it will hurt more if they have to go through the CSA.

monty-doggy

Leo2020 wrote: »

The "person" who ultimately loses is the child. The way I read your post you would prefer if both parents lost out equally but surely neither lose out, the child/children do.

In an ideal world parents would come to an arrangement but for whatever reason this is not always possible. I suspect the logic behind the non-resident parent paying 20% extra versus the resident parent losing 4% is that the resident parent will be paying the costs of looking after the child regardless of whether the other parent pays or not.

If the non-resident parent chooses not to pay then being forced to pay and pay an extra 20% on top might be the kick they need to come to some arrangement. If they can't then the child/children are still better off because the resident parent gets X amount minus 4% opposed to zero.

My oh has never missed a payment in 6 years. My annoyance is his ex could do this just to spite him. We've got a baby on the way and £50 extra a month would cripple us. Yes the resident parent has to pay for the children but she also gets tax credits and other benefits, we get nothing. She is actually 'earning' far more a month than we are on her benefits and she could throw this at us for no reason other than to be a cow.

joanneright

Hi I think it's not fair on the parent whom child lives with as to be honest if it was as simple as just getting maintance from paying parent every week on time no arguing then we would be. It's kids who lose out for example I've got two children both different dads I'm on DISABILTY due to condition I was worth and has got worse last 5 years. My eldest is in year 11 her paying parent is married with 3 kids and won't work as then he doesn't pay as his wife works full time and can afford to support him and there family he doesn't even give her 1.00 I know she shod not pay for my child but there married they've decided that she can support her husband it's been like this for 7 years. Before that he did it so it didn't pay while working as of his wife n other kids. Also my sons dad he lives new partner who she has one child and there child he works so does she even gets csa for her eldest but they take more off me for the child that's not his as l
They live together with 2 kids 1 his. And I get less for his own and he has to have it took out of wages but csa haven't assessed him since 2011 which is wrong end of the we are keeping them in a job rant we ..

[Deleted User]

By the way, both parents get charged for using this service under the new rules, not just the estranged parent (although the parent with care does pay less).

I have only just managed (after a year) to start receiving payments again after my ex changed his job. Well, I've received one payment three months after a deduction from earnings application was made.., the one that was supposed to arrive today hasn't.

Does the new arrangements mean I have to go through all this again (case closed, reopened, various processes gone through with my ex not co-operating at all until finally a year later a deductions from earning order is completed again)? My son will have his own children by the time the arrears are paid off !

If I made private arrangements .., no money would be paid at all, I'd love a private arrangement, but I knew what would happen without any doubt at all.