Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 21st May 14, 3:21 PM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees
    • #1
    • 21st May 14, 3:21 PM
    MSE News: Separated parents told: Agree on child support or face fees 21st May 14 at 3:21 PM
    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 havenít already, join the forum to reply. If you arenít sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Page 1
    • Notsosharp
    • By Notsosharp 21st May 14, 4:04 PM
    • 2,589 Posts
    • 5,479 Thanks
    Notsosharp
    • #2
    • 21st May 14, 4:04 PM
    • #2
    • 21st May 14, 4:04 PM
    I think I would resent paying for a "service" that patently, obviously stopped working quite some time ago (if it ever did)

    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 21st May 14, 4:25 PM
    • 17,141 Posts
    • 42,116 Thanks
    FBaby
    • #3
    • 21st May 14, 4:25 PM
    • #3
    • 21st May 14, 4:25 PM
    Indeed, once you start paying for a service, you are entitled to have expectations in the quality of its delivery.
    • monty-doggy
    • By monty-doggy 21st May 14, 6:20 PM
    • 2,055 Posts
    • 3,607 Thanks
    monty-doggy
    • #4
    • 21st May 14, 6:20 PM
    • #4
    • 21st May 14, 6:20 PM
    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
    • By sax11 21st May 14, 6:27 PM
    • 3,095 Posts
    • 20,222 Thanks
    sax11
    • #5
    • 21st May 14, 6:27 PM
    • #5
    • 21st May 14, 6:27 PM
    i can see my ex wife shafting me with this plan
    • mum2one
    • By mum2one 21st May 14, 7:52 PM
    • 16,154 Posts
    • 60,024 Thanks
    mum2one
    • #6
    • 21st May 14, 7:52 PM
    • #6
    • 21st May 14, 7:52 PM
    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
    Tackling the debt free life one day at a time xx
    RIP Dad, - Always love you, - He was 1 in a million xx
    • Leo2020
    • By Leo2020 21st May 14, 8:01 PM
    • 897 Posts
    • 651 Thanks
    Leo2020
    • #7
    • 21st May 14, 8:01 PM
    • #7
    • 21st May 14, 8:01 PM
    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%.
    Originally posted by monty-doggy
    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
    • By themull1 21st May 14, 8:15 PM
    • 4,195 Posts
    • 4,113 Thanks
    themull1
    • #8
    • 21st May 14, 8:15 PM
    • #8
    • 21st May 14, 8:15 PM
    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
    • By monty-doggy 22nd May 14, 7:09 AM
    • 2,055 Posts
    • 3,607 Thanks
    monty-doggy
    • #9
    • 22nd May 14, 7:09 AM
    • #9
    • 22nd May 14, 7:09 AM
    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.
    Originally posted by Leo2020
    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
    • By joanneright 22nd May 14, 7:36 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    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 ..
    • deannatrois
    • By deannatrois 22nd May 14, 8:30 AM
    • 5,995 Posts
    • 8,423 Thanks
    deannatrois
    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.
    • monty-doggy
    • By monty-doggy 22nd May 14, 8:34 AM
    • 2,055 Posts
    • 3,607 Thanks
    monty-doggy
    I guess it's a crap situation for everyone. I agree if absent parents don't pay then yes they should be charged for the collection however if parents have always paid and can prove that then they shouldn't have this imposed on them and the resident parent shouldn't be able to insist on it.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 22nd May 14, 8:42 AM
    • 5,903 Posts
    • 10,079 Thanks
    Gavin83
    As far as I'm aware the resident parent can choose to approach the CSA at will, even if there is an agreement in place. If this is still the case how is it fair that the non resident parent will be potentially charged for a service they don't want when they were perfectly willing to cooperate? I'm hoping that if there's proof that the non resident parent were willing to pay then the charge is transferred to the resident parent but I can't really see this happening, it's a money making scheme after all.

    I can also see resident parents demanding more than the statutory 15% in order to avoid taking it through the CSA, basically bribery if you will.
    • Leo2020
    • By Leo2020 22nd May 14, 8:44 AM
    • 897 Posts
    • 651 Thanks
    Leo2020
    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.
    Originally posted by monty-doggy
    I'm sure they will be some who will use this as an excuse to be a pain in the bum to their ex, but I think they are in the minority. After all she will receive less money if she goes through this so she will be biting her nose off to spite her face (not that I'm saying she won't do this but I'm sure plenty of resident parents won't do it for this reason).

    Presumably she gets some of the tax credits and other benefits because she is the main carer.

    On a side note: once your child is here you might qualifying for child tax credits yourself. Along with child allowance/child benefit - about £20 for the first child per week - not much but better than nothing. You might find yourself thankful for the benefits she gets because it also means you, and I and plenty of other parents also get them.
    • DS4215
    • By DS4215 22nd May 14, 9:24 AM
    • 1,069 Posts
    • 1,006 Thanks
    DS4215
    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.
    Originally posted by monty-doggy
    When your baby arrives, won't his payments to his ex drop proportionally as he will also have to provide for your child as well as his existing ones.
    • Carl31
    • By Carl31 22nd May 14, 9:49 AM
    • 2,376 Posts
    • 5,764 Thanks
    Carl31
    Even if an agreement is made between parents, imagine when the excuses come

    'Oh, ill pay it next week'

    'Im a bit short this month, can i pay you a bit less?'

    'Theres a problem with my bank'

    etc..

    The reason the CSA exists is because these arrangements cannot be made, else everyone would be making their own arrangements already. This is going to end in tears
    • BigAunty
    • By BigAunty 22nd May 14, 10:19 AM
    • 7,941 Posts
    • 14,422 Thanks
    BigAunty
    It's a shame the UK has high relationship breakdowns and large numbers of Non-resident parents who refuse to support their children.

    Quite how a government department was supposed to be able to effective in this environment, I don't know - so many parents breaking up, the rise in intentional lone parenthood, too, and a very common lack of cooperation by the other parent refusing to pay.

    The CSA are effectively up against a tidalwave of families splitting up - thousands do this every day - and the children quite routinely abandoned by the second parent.

    Not sure how a state department was ever supposed to be able to have enough resources to deal with what is effectively a private, personal family and legal matter.
    • sax11
    • By sax11 22nd May 14, 11:28 AM
    • 3,095 Posts
    • 20,222 Thanks
    sax11
    I'm all for non resident parents to pay, i have and will do so until they are of the age where i don't need to anymore

    What does annoy me is when the residential parent only has them for 6hrs more a week than the non resident, has an other half that seems to live there a lot and collectively earns 3 times the non resident.

    Yes, this is my situation and i'm a little bit bitter about it.
  • izzyuk59
    CSA, CSM or just Department of Idiots run by Idiots
    I worked for these comedians for 13 years - to my chagrin and shame.

    It was continually run by knee jerk reaction to each catastrophe when the system(s) broke down. Each time we were given impossible targets to reach stats were manipulated (just like the Jobcentre) to satisfy Whitehall bigots who tried to convince the likes of Frank Field we were doing our best.

    I started on telephony - the worst job ever, trying to help people at the worst moments in their lives. We've had suicides, a murder, death threats and thousands of hours of abusive callers for which I was never paid enough to deal with. This continued for the first 5 years of CSA business until I managed to get onto a team.

    I moved to a Specialist Trace team - probably the most satisfying job when you actually found someone. You'd be amazed what some do to avoid their parental responsibility. They take it out on the 'EX' via us. No consideration for the child. Best call I ever made was telling a guy he owed nearly 87K in penalty assessments but if he talked with me I could help get them down to a rightful level where he could still live and pay his due. He ended up owing about £12K when finally assessed and even sent me a thanks letter (yes, we got a few along the way!) He even ended up back in touch with his child - a rare thing in avoiders.

    So........ Fees. They were always there, just never imposed due to our inability to work and deliver a good service. They are being imposed now to close the CSA/CSM by making people go back to private agreements. Eventually I guarrantee this department will be aligned with the HMRC just as Tax Credits are (used to be done by DWP as Family Credit) - the writing was on the wall for this nearly 8 years ago. I'd put money on it.

    Child support may be law, will always be an emotive topic but ultimately it is a moral choice. You have a child, you are financially responsible for them. Deal with it.

    I had to leave as I couldn't accept the (lack of) level of service. I went to another department only to find the 'old standards' are long gone. Sloppiness and statistic manipulation are the norm now. I am glad to no longer be a part of something I put 32 years of my life into. I'm ashamed of what it has become, even more so as I am now a customer of the very service I used to deliver in DWP.
    Izzy xxx

    You don't visit a Cannibal's house and not expect to be on the menu.


    • Wyre
    • By Wyre 22nd May 14, 1:49 PM
    • 447 Posts
    • 2,501 Thanks
    Wyre
    I hate this idea. In theory it should work, I mean why would any parent not want to pay to support their child? In practice, from my own experience, it can be almost impossible to get some dads to part with their cash.

    I have received nothing for my eldest children for most of their lives. I had no contact with either father as they wanted nothing to do with the children. I didn't until recently know where either of them lived. With one, I have had to resort to my MP, who managed to get the CSA to finally sort it out via DEO. The ex doesn't acknowledge he has a child and therefore WILL not pay unless it is taken directly from his wages.

    I am not obstructive in this, I just want support for my children. In this situation, why should the children lose out? Imo, in situations like this it is the NRP that should be bearing the extra costs as they are preventing amicable solutions.
    Spam Reporter Extraordinaire

    A star from Sue-UU is like a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day!


Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,299Posts Today

7,605Users online

Martin's Twitter