CSA payment

PeppaCoin

Hi my husband and I live with our 2 children. He pays CSA for another older child.

My latest son was born 3 months ago. We contacted the CSA to see if his birth affected payments as they always say to let them know if your situation changes, and they advised the payment for the older child's mother would reduce by £8 per month, leaving it around £250 a month.

I'm surprised it isn't more. Is this anyone else's experience?

DUTR

PeppaCoin wrote: »

Hi my husband and I live with our 2 children. He pays CSA for another older child.

My latest son was born 3 months ago. We contacted the CSA to see if his birth affected payments as they always say to let them know if your situation changes, and they advised the payment for the older child's mother would reduce by £8 per month, leaving it around £250 a month.

I'm surprised it isn't more. Is this anyone else's experience?

On the old CSA figures £258 is 15% net of net less 20% so the net is £2150 per month.
New figure will be net less 25% then 15% of that, so a quick calc suggests £242.

Sambella

The CSA is now The CMS (Child Maintenance Service) since 2012.

In 2012 they reduced the amount deducted for children in second families. For families on lower incomes this has been especially harsh even though the deduction previously wasn’t that large.

Soon we will be in the year 2018. This will be the 20th year that the CMS rates for calculating payments has been left unchanged. No inflationary rises for NRP’s.

‘28. Paying unrealistic child maintenance for the children of the first family can leave non-resident parents with inadequate resource for their new family obligations. The children of this family suffer in consequence.’

Above quote taken from - http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/child-maintenance-services/written/39518.html

DUTR

Sambella wrote: »

The CSA is now The CMS (Child Maintenance Service) since 2012.

In 2012 they reduced the amount deducted for children in second families. For families on lower incomes this has been especially harsh even though the deduction previously wasn’t that large.

Soon we will be in the year 2018. This will be the 20th year that the CMS rates for calculating payments has been left unchanged. No inflationary rises for NRP’s.

‘28. Paying unrealistic child maintenance for the children of the first family can leave non-resident parents with inadequate resource for their new family obligations. The children of this family suffer in consequence.’

Above quote taken from - http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/child-maintenance-services/written/39518.html

The CSA cases were not automatically and immediately transferred to CMS.
I'm not sure why you mention inflationary rises, the % would take into account any pay rise which as you know for many has been little or nothing and often below inflation.

Sambella

Im not talking pay rises, rather that the calculation formula is unchanged in 20 years which hits those on lower incomes the hardest.

Perhaps the reference to inflation was the wrong term to use if it misleads. ��

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/documents/news-and-events/Christine%20Davies.pdf

DUTR

Sambella wrote: »

Im not talking pay rises, rather that the calculation formula is unchanged in 20 years which hits those on lower incomes the hardest.

Perhaps the reference to inflation was the wrong term to use if it misleads. ��

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/documents/news-and-events/Christine%20Davies.pdf

I don't see how changing the formulae will change much, there is a finite price for items and services, the more one earns then the smaller the % it is to cover those costs.

If the % for lower earners was reduced, it doesn't change the price of nappies, shoes , clothes etc.
Realistically there is no totally fair way to calculate the contribution, I think the assesment is close to practical.

Sambella

[IMG]http:/ibb.co/n20mpw[/IMG]

I hope this picture shows correctly. I’ve never posted a pictures on this site before.

None of these families receive enough for their children. They all receive some form of tax credits because they don’t have enough for their families.

The family of 4 with just the Dad working is actually fares worst.

Add the paying of CMS to the mix and the two nuclear families become even worse off. Are they literally ( to make the point) handing over some of the tax credits they receive to the single parent family?

ALL of these families need their tax credits.

The one thing CMS should not cause is poverty in ANY children. All have to buy nappies, shoes, clothes etc.

The NRP’s in second families may also have their children 2 days a week and there will be costs associated with that.



Interestingly CPAG doesn’t mention the family in the middle in the above picture. That’s quite bad for a Child Poverty Action Group.

Sambella

Hmm seems the pics didn’t work.

Let me try again.

1st pic

https://ibb.co/n20mpw

2nd pic

https://ibb.co/fwDT2G

oystercatcher

Does the OP assume the eldest child suddenly needs less food, clothes etc just because it's father has decided to have another child with someone else ?

badmemory

Well at least it is a real reason rather than I can't be ars** & you can't get me for it type reason. That can be quite difficult to deal with without actually telling the child that they have a total (fill in your favorite word here) for a father.

DUTR

oystercatcher wrote: »

Does the OP assume the eldest child suddenly needs less food, clothes etc just because it's father has decided to have another child with someone else ?

I don't understand your point ? Whoever the OP's partner has a further child with doesn't change the fact you are stating, however there is only one pot of funds which has to be shared between all in the family, as it happns the 1st family get the better share.