CSA Calculator on GOV website wrong?

solidpro

The CSA makes this part of their calculation (pasted verbatum from https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-child-maintenance ):

On average, how many nights a year do the children stay over with you?

Less than 52 (less than once a week)
52 to 103 (1 to 2 nights a week)
104 to 155 (2 to 3 nights a week)
156 to 174 (approx. 3 nights a week)
175 or more (more than 3 nights a week)

I have them exactly 3.5 nights a week outside of school time and 3 nights week inside term time - which is already obviously *on average, more than 3 nights a week*.

39 weeks x 3 nights = 117 nights.
13 weeks x 3.5 nights = 45.5 nights.
Total = 162.5 nights.

I also just checked last 3 years calendars and I had them 163 nights a year.

So in conclusion, "on average" (which to be clear it states on their site), more than 3 nights a week is more at least 162.5 because I have them more than 3 nights a week throughout the year. Why does it say 175 nights a week is on average more than 3 nights a week?

162 nights is also not approx. 3 nights a week. It's more than 3 nights a week. Why does it suggest 163 nights a year would be approximately when that could be less than 3 nights a week? It's impossible for 163 nights a year to be any less than 3 night, it can only be more.

It's like they're trying to divide odd numbers like days in a week and days in a year in two and make whole numbers, which isn't possible?

eve31

It doesn't say 163 nights a year is less than 3 nights a week. It gives a range from 156 to 174.

You have then on average 3 nights a week and it's closer to 3 nights a week then 4 nights a week that you have them so you wouldn't round it up to the next range which is 4 nights a week.

solidpro

Approximately can be more or less. More or less than 3 nights a week. 163 nights can never be less than 3 nights a week. So it's wrong.

On Average - note it specifically says, on average, 163 nights can only be, on average more than 3 nights a week.

It's wrong.

Guest101

Ok it's wrong. You deduct another 1/7th of the payment.....


<some people are best just agreed with....>

solidpro

It doesn't work like that. Going from the 2nd bottom to the bottom category is totally different from 1/7th payment - it increases the payment considerably.

I have my children half the time, I have a court order stating that we have a shared care arrangement, along with a stipulated division of time as best split considering school, we all have jobs and we both pay equally for food, heating, clothes, trips, healthcare. The only main differences are that I do all the driving and she gets the child tax credits. But I still have to pay 3000 pounds a year. What a kick in the ribs.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. Going from the 2nd bottom to the bottom category is totally different from 1/7th payment - it increases the payment considerably. - No it doesn't.

I have my children half the time, I have a court order stating that we have a shared care arrangement, along with a stipulated division of time as best split considering school, we all have jobs and we both pay equally for food, heating, clothes, trips, healthcare. The only main differences are that I do all the driving and she gets the child tax credits. But I still have to pay 3000 pounds a year. What a kick in the ribs.

Why don't you agree to each claim for one child? That way the payments balance out? Either way - your child maintenance is supposed to pay for uniforms etc.


Here's the calculation incase you were wondering:



For 1 child it's:

12% of the first £800 weekly income
9% of the income from 800.01-3000 weekly


It gets tricky when calculating the reduction for time the child stays over. (which is why it is expected that the receiving parent should cover day to day costs)

1-2 nights a week, reduce by 1/7th
2-3 nights a week, reduce by 2/7ths
3-4 nights a week, reduce by 3/7ths
Over 175 nights in a years, reduce by 50% (3.5/7ths) + £7.

Now since that would mean that the child stays with the payer half the time. Logically the costs should be split evenly and nothing be paid.
Which is why i said previously, your ex would be responsible for the day to day costs.

How many children do you have and what is your weekly wage (before tax, but after pension) - I'm happy to work it out and show you that the difference isn't much at all

solidpro

Why don't you agree to each claim for one child?

It's my belief that the CSA exists to step in when two grown adults can't both act like responsible adults when it comes to caring for the children.

The fact I have two separate court orders, 18 months apart, signed by a judge in the first instance and 3 magistrates in the second shows that at least one of us is unable to be reasonable (if one, or both of us were, a court order would hardly be necessary).

Therefore the CSA shouldn't expect that the person receiving the money is going to be 'reasonable' when either accepting no money is due or reasonable in giving them a statement that all is equal or we care for one child each.

It's like sentencing a man for murder and then later asking him if he really did it and expecting him just to agree and say 'yes'. We know people rarely admit they're wrong.

3/7ths SHOULD be considered 50/50 because 4/7ths (or, more than 162 nights) is virtually NEVER going to happen and would not be 50/50 either. We have to consider children are in school and you CAN'T split a 7 days week in half.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

It's my belief that the CSA exists to step in when two grown adults can't both act like responsible adults when it comes to caring for the children. - Most often I agree this is the case. It's the CMS now though, in case you look up old guidelines (your case may still be with CSA, but due to be transferred)

The fact I have two separate court orders, 18 months apart, signed by a judge in the first instance and 3 magistrates in the second shows that at least one of us is unable to be reasonable (if one, or both of us were, a court order would hardly be necessary). - True. Have you enforced these orders when required?

Therefore the CSA shouldn't expect that the person receiving the money is going to be 'reasonable' when either accepting no money is due or reasonable in giving them a statement that all is equal or we care for one child each. - If you have a court order it's reasonable for the CSA/CMS to use that in calculating childcare.

It's like sentencing a man for murder and then later asking him if he really did it and expecting him just to agree and say 'yes'. We know people rarely admit they're wrong.

3/7ths SHOULD be considered 50/50 because 4/7ths is virtually NEVER going to happen and would not be 50/50 either.

3.5/7ths is 50%, which is what 175+ days is (+£7).


The PWC is expected to provide certain things, such as school uniforms, childcare, etc. Which is what the maintenance is for.

solidpro

Mine is with the CSA.

What do you mean by 'enforced' these orders? We live by the court order day by day and year by year as it states the exact routine of both children in great detail from term school days, term weekend, out of term days, public holidays, who is collecting (it's always me), who is dropping off (it's always me) and that they spend their entire school lives in the town in which we live right now.

If you have a court order it's reasonable for the CSA/CMS to use that in calculating childcare.

. But they don't.

3.5/7ths is 50%, which is what 175+ days is (+£7).

My point (and the magistrates agree) that 3.5 nights a week is impossible in a single week, and difficult in a fortnight (because it would mean every week is different nights - hard to remember, hard to explain, hard when you have pre/post school time activities). Invariably, the best possible outcome even when magistrates agree on a shared care arrangement and the idea of 50/50 being correct is 6/8 nights a fortnight.

You also have to be careful to consider it's not in the children's interest, especially whilst young to spend a long time away from either parent, or change very frequently (like every, or every other night) between homes.

Guest101

solidpro wrote: »

Mine is with the CSA.

What do you mean by 'enforced' these orders? We live by the court order day by day and year by year as it states the exact routine of both children in great detail from term school days, term weekend, out of term days, public holidays, who is collecting (it's always me), who is dropping off (it's always me) and that they spend their entire school lives in the town in which we live right now. - I just meant as you got two orders, presumably the first needed to be enforced (and expanded)

. But they don't. - You said they do though. they use the 162.5 calculation?

My point (and the magistrates agree)- Why were you in magistrates court? I'm confused by this. that 3.5 nights a week is impossible in a single week, and difficult in a fortnight (because it would mean every week is different nights - hard to remember, hard to explain, hard when you have pre/post school time activities). Invariably, the best possible outcome even when magistrates agree on a shared care arrangement and the idea of 50/50 being correct is 6/8 nights a fortnight. - Well that's what the order is. It's not 7/7, but 6/8. Yes there are difficulties with clubs etc, but you could overcome those.

You also have to be careful to consider it's not in the children's interest, especially whilst young to spend a long time away from either parent, or change very frequently (like every, or every other night) between homes.

One way to achieve 7/7 is to do a week / fortnight with each parent, continuously.

solidpro

- I just meant as you got two orders, presumably the first needed to be enforced (and expanded)

.

Yeah, she was gradually breaking everything mediated, but was not written down and stamped by a judge in the first, shorter and simpler order (which did actutally include the Shared Care Arrangement) - such as preventing them leaving her house when they had a cold, reading her own interpretations into things like 'after pre-school' when pre-school changed from an afternoon to a morning, I would turn up and the children would not be there - because she interpreted that as a 3.30 collection still and not an 11.30 collection.

Basically she was out of control and we had to go back again to get every last single tiny facet of how things work in black and white, and that's exactly why there is absolutely no adjustment to that, or subtle changes to what we have, or the expectation that she would happily sign away £40,000 of money from me over the next 15 years.

That's also why we are using the CSA. She kept pushing for more and more money, so in the end the CSA was better than that. But still unfair.