Is this Right?

kelloggs36

repsolblade wrote: »

You see... another legal hide behind quote????
I'm asking is it fair, that my life, my partners life and all the kids lives and our futures are taken from us?

It hasn't been but you are playing such a victim card here. Your household gets an extra 140 per month towards the costs of bringing up children that are your partners PLUS you get a reduction in what you would otherwise pay for this same reason - so I wouldn't think THAT was fair to your children who live with your ex as they shouldn't have to be left with less because of children that aren't yours. So, life isn't fair on both sides.

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The law is the law. Perhaps you should stop putting your energies into feeling so enraged about what you feel is unfair and focusing it on showing your children how much you love them when they are with you. as you have already dictated to others, it doesn't have to involve a lot of money.

So I should give up my life as it is, my partner should and we should live in poverty because Love will get us through yeah?
I have never ever heard such crap in my life.
I CAN afford a car, I have a nice house, why should I give that up for my ex?It has NOTHING to do with my kids, it is a woman who wants more.
Because I'm doing well, I'm victimised.

kelloggs36

You can afford a car and a nice house. stop moaning then and support your children. You are NOT living in poverty by any means. Keeping 85% of your income plus getting maintenance for your partner's children is not poverty. You are exaggerating.

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

It hasn't been but you are playing such a victim card here. Your household gets an extra 140 per month towards the costs of bringing up children that are your partners PLUS you get a reduction in what you would otherwise pay for this same reason - so I wouldn't think THAT was fair to your children who live with your ex as they shouldn't have to be left with less because of children that aren't yours. So, life isn't fair on both sides.

£124 for no children living with me and £105 with one child living with me, work that out...
Need some help
Thats £76 per month, so I get a benefit of £16 per week... WOW, let's get out on the town.
That's one hell of a loss for her there sport.

kelloggs36

Still a reduction though in your favour and not for your children as you would be paying.

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You can afford a car and a nice house. stop moaning then and support your children. You are NOT living in poverty by any means. Keeping 85% of your income plus getting maintenance for your partner's children is not poverty. You are exaggerating.

Hmmm...
you know what your right.
I'll just bend over and pull my pants down and the whole world can have piece of my !!!!.
No, sunshine I won't stop moaning, I won't be giving the CSA £125 per week and I do have an accountant who will have me running at a loss with no assets nor property etc, cos this is one war that the CSA will NEVER win.
All I wanted to know was do people think it's right?
It's obvious that you and many like you are quite content in knowing that tha CSA has and will continue to ruin people's lives, and not just the NRP's, but their new families lives too?
What a wonderfull Great Brittish society we live in!:rolleyes:
PWC's assume that they are owed a living because the Father is no longer there, I know there are those out there that don't and won't pay, and for those that have the grief associated with that I really feel for them I do, but I am not one of those, but I will not fund a life for my ex, that would mean my own is subdued lessened or ruined in any way.
My kids will always be looked after and if they need anything then I will always be there for them.

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Still a reduction though in your favour and not for your children as you would be paying.

yeah, but the best of it is that I'm not even claiming for him, so it doesn't really matter!
Never have done!

kelloggs36

I hope she does go to the CSA and do what I did to prove that my ex like you tried to fiddle his accounts - and lost. He owes me 26k now and is today either going to prison or may be given a stay of execution as he has remortgaged his house to pay. 3 charging orders on the house means that he could lose it - you may want to think things through instead of being so selfish.

aussiesbird

repsolblade wrote: »

The system is not fair.
You tell me WHY I should give my ex £500 instead of the Current £200, what has changed in her life to necessitate such an increase of £300?
Explain?
have my kids grown extra heads or become Elephants overnight?
You tell me that is fair.
That is my money that I work hard for

Quite agree repsolblade. My partners maintenence went up by over £200 per month and we are now struggling to make ends meet because of it, but the CSA are not interested in the fact that I am on disabiliy benefts so cannot increase my income or get a loan, my partner had to declare himself bankrupt because of debt taken on from his previous marriage and works as a paramedic so he cannot get any other job as could be called in at any time and cannot get a loan or credit card because of bankrupcy so where does that leave us for getting extra cash to cover unexpected bills etc - overtime and what do the CSA do - award a % to his ex. There is not enough overtime available in my partners work to cover this as it is on a rota basis between the staff so we are now back to not being able to save for anything and not being able to do things with his kids when they visit because we can't afford it. So his kids visit, get bored and don't want to come because, understandably, they have more fun with their friends. Therefore the relationship between father and child disintergrates and all for what?? That extra pair of designer trainers!!
MONEY!!! - the root of all evil!!

Banana23

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I hope she does go to the CSA and do what I did to prove that my ex like you tried to fiddle his accounts - and lost. He owes me 26k now and is today either going to prison or may be given a stay of execution as he has remortgaged his house to pay. 3 charging orders on the house means that he could lose it - you may want to think things through instead of being so selfish.

You are a star kelloggs, you are a credit to this (and a other) forum(s). :T
You are absolutely correct, it is ridiculous that a self employed NRP should get away with fiddling with the accounts, in order to only pay £6.43 (like my ex) maintenance for his child and being able to fund a fabulous lifestyle for himself. As I've said in the other forum (which you've probably seen) I find it a shambles of the CSA to say that it should be the Pwc that has to prove if they have well grounded suspiciouns that a self employed nrp is fiddling with the books. You probably also know that I've created a petition for that to stop and make it the CSA's responsibility to investigate such claims.
It is even more ridioulus that some NRP's (and/or their spouses) suggest that pretty much all pwc's are money grabbing and use maintenance as a way of 'funding our lifestyles'!! PPUUUULLLLEEEAAASEEE! Some NRP's (absolutely not all of them) really need to realise that the maintenance is used for the children in a direct or indirect way!! I hope Kellogg36 you'll sign my petition to make it easier to punish self employed NRP's to try and avoid paying what they're ought to.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/selfemployednrps/
I've pointed this out in other forums, but I doubt a lot of notice will be taken by some people with different opinions: this petition was not created out of malice or vindication or out of spite. It is there to help children who'll simply loose out!