council house being re-posessed any advice?

MissMoneypenny

Strapped wrote: »

Why don't you only try commenting on what you have direct experience of, or know something about? The CSA can take up to 40% of your wages.

I suppose the OP's friend could kick out her husband and claim housing benefit?

He lives with 4 other children, so will be getting a big reduction Did you miss that? And the link I posted?

Here it is again:-
https://secureonline.dwp.gov.uk/csa/...aintenance.asp

Why do you think it is wrong for a parent to pay for their children? Or do you think the tax payer should pay for most of their keep, now that the parent no longer lives with them?

I forgot to add - I do have direct experience of it.

Strapped

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

He lives with 4 other children, so will be getting a big reduction Did you miss that? No I actually read the thread, unlike you it seems. And the link I posted? I don't need to read the link to be well aware of the CSA formulas.

Here it is again:-
https://secureonline.dwp.gov.uk/csa/...aintenance.asp

Why do you think it is wrong for a parent to pay for their children? I don't. Show me where I said this. Or do you think the tax payer should pay for most of their keep, now that the parent no longer lives with them? No. Why do you think this?

I forgot to add - I do have direct experience of it. Then why did you comment "from what I have READ..."

You're missing the point. Read the whole thread. Where there are arrears, the CSA can (and do) take up to 40% of your take-home pay. Just to dispel these myths that "he won't be paying very much". This may be why the OP's friend has experienced trouble. I did not make any comment on the amount of (regular) child maintenance that her hubby is required to pay, as to whether this is too little or too much; I was merely trying to correct the INCORRECT assumptions that certain posters such as yourself were jumping to.

Strapped

PS Whether he will "be getting a big reduction" or not would also depend on which set of rules his case is under - if he's on old rules then this may not be the case. Anyway, as stated above, the important fact here is the "up to 40%". I agree with PasturesNew, the only way people can reliably comment would be if the OP posts all the figures and the best place would be the Dealing With Debt board.

Running_Horse

Strapped wrote: »

I was merely trying to correct the INCORRECT assumptions that certain posters such as yourself were jumping to.

A couple of CORRECT assumptions. He has not supported his children financially (as a child I experienced the material and emotional consequences of such behaviour). His actions have endangered the future security and wellbeing of his "new" children (something I also know about). But then we now live in a selfish society where people do whatever they want, regardless of the effects on others, and nobody is allowed to condemn.

Strapped

Running_Horse wrote: »

A couple of CORRECT assumptions. He has not supported his children financially (as a child I experienced the material and emotional consequences of such behaviour). His actions have endangered the future security and wellbeing of his "new" children (something I also know about). But then we now live in a selfish society where people do whatever they want, regardless of the effects on others, and nobody is allowed to condemn.

I agree, but what is your point here?

izzybusy23

Running_Horse wrote: »

I was under the impression the CSA (when they can be bothered to act) only take a fraction of income per child, and have never ever heard of them taking most of someone's wages for six months.

Yes thats true, should really work out to 15% of net income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three, but that is on the CSA2. If on CSA1 then its anyones guess what they will take, they think its a free for all if you find yourself unfortunately assessed before CSA2 came into force. Totally unfair system that people are still stuck and stuffed on the CSA1.

Even so, they still have to take into consideration the 'new family' and the CSA payments to previous family should be reduced to that effect.

The only reason I can see why somebody would have a massive chunk of their salary taken is that they were in serious arrears or dodged paying CSA for many years?

Personally the CSA is a waste of space. Its unfair how they always 'favour' the first family. They should not be taking so much money that they are putting the 2nd families lives into jeopardy and putting children into poverty... which is the very thing they are trying to stop isn't it? Another complete government farce.

silvercar

The point is that OP said there were back dated payments, so it is possible that more than the 40% figure was being taken to allow for previous money owed. Now that all the arrears have been paid the income has improved and so, I presume, the standard rent is affordable. The problem is that the OP can't afford the rent arrears that hae built up.

The answer has to be to go to court and explain all this. Emphasise that the rent is now affordable but that the arrears need to be spread over a longer time frame.

izzybusy23

Running_Horse wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I know we shouldn't get too judgemental about such things, but speaking as someone who is about to do five 12 hour nightshifts in a row to support his own family, it annoys me some people try to avoid their responsibilities, and expect my taxes will suipport their children. Its a shame this woman and her four children will suffer because her husband is so !!!!less. Anyway, right wing rant over, I hope she gets the help needed from the debt free forum.

Hey, before ranting at the men, think about how devious women can be!!! My husband was in a relationship with a girl who fell pregnant. She deceided after 3 months she didn't want him around anymore and ended the relationship. She didn't tell him when the baby was born, or what it was. First thing he knew about its existence was when the CSA slammed him with maintenance. Now this ex of his is a right lazy layabout. Has a daughter by another man, sat on her backside on benefits, gets knocked up again and still done nothing but sit in her council house sponging off us tax payers.. and my husband has a life sentence to pay for a child he has NEVER seen or been allowed to be involved in her life because his ex has the upper hand and the law is always on the womans side.. I mean, where is the damn justice in that???

So no, its not always the men. Women can be evil witches you know. Have a few kids and sit on their !!!!!s until the kids are 16 - 19 years of age on benefits without lifting a finger and doing a days work in their whole scummy lives.

Rant over.

Fran

It sounds like you should listen to what is said in teeni's post and here and Engelbert's post as they write as though they know what they are talking about.

If it is possible to get a stay, your friend will have to do some serious convincing that she is in a better position financially to pay and will not miss payments. The court will take some convincing as it's the third time.

As advised, she should contact Shelter urgently, they will know the local situation re housing possibilities too.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

The point is that OP said there were back dated payments, so it is possible that more than the 40% figure was being taken to allow for previous money owed. Now that all the arrears have been paid the income has improved and so, I presume, the standard rent is affordable. The problem is that the OP can't afford the rent arrears that hae built up.

The answer has to be to go to court and explain all this. Emphasise that the rent is now affordable but that the arrears need to be spread over a longer time frame.

According to the csa website, they can only take up to 40% for his first childrens maintenance arrears, but they would take into account that he had another 4 children living with him now.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Q. Does the CSA demand for arrears to be 'paid immediately'? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A. The action we take depends on each case and parents would be notified of any action to be taken. They would be asked to contact us as soon as possible to discuss their situation and how they will pay the money back. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]We may be able to take into account the non-resident parent's circumstances and can offer a number of payment options. If these are declined or the parent does not keep to the agreed arrangements we will take further action."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]http://csa.gov.uk.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=arrears+40%&order=r&cmd=context&id=98817ac9405cde04#hit3
[/FONT]