Browse > Home / CSA Complaints / The CSA takes overtime pay from dads - this is totally unnacceptable - child support agency hell

The CSA takes overtime pay from dads – this is totally unnacceptable

June 23, 2013

Hi csa takes overtime from absent dads this is totally not acceptable and should not happen. The overtime is not guaranteed. Also when absent Dads get mortgages and move on still expected to pay such a high amount. Also if absent dad starts a new family the other child needs clothing etc just like other children. The payment should be made affordrable to those involved. CSA needs to be changed rather rapidly. With CSA taking overtime from absent dads they should refund.

Written by Anon1 · Filed Under CSA Complaints 

Related CSA Posts

Comments

  • Adrian says:
    June 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Totally agree with you. So what are we going to do about it ??

  • David says:
    June 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    I started work last aug on minimum wage, had been unemployed for 3 years so was working 48-60+ hours a week to cleared debts that had built up. Csa took that as average earnings. Even though i’m doing less than 40 now they still base it on me doing 52 hrs a week so now I can just pay bills and survive but have no option of saving or starting a new relationship. Infact I cant even have a day off sick ( no sick pay) or a bill doesn’t get paid. btw my ex has is now married. she works full time, he works full time and my son also works part time. their income is over £2500 a month. They are out every weekend, buying new car each year and booking holidays abroad and I can’t afford heating or cooked meals. fair?

  • brett says:
    June 23, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Yes I agree with you. There’s NRP’s on CSA1, others on CSA2. Some NRP’s are overpaying, some underpaying and some not paying at all.
    NRP’s and their new families are put in poverty.
    Every NRP should pay the same reasonable amount, regardless of income.
    Its not to pay for the PWC’s new car, holiday’s and to fill the wardrobe with new clothes.

  • Lisa says:
    June 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    This is what happens when a PWC rings and asks for reassessment, they then see overtime has been done for the purpose of survival, they take extra even though its not garunteed every week/month, its so wrong, this CS3 coming in is even worse, the treasury are going to be sat there rubbing hands together knowing that nasty greedy PWC will use the system as a weapon, and the poor NRP will get hammered for the pleasure,

  • john mcnamara says:
    June 23, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    You’re all fucking idiots.

  • KMcQ80 says:
    June 24, 2013 at 9:49 am

    ‘Also when absent Dads get mortgages and move on still expected to pay such a high amount. Also if absent dad starts a new family the other child needs clothing etc just like other children.’
    Move on?
    You mean financially abandon your son or daughter?
    It’s your child – you pay, why should anyone else pick up the bill?

    If you want to ‘move on’ and have more children, fine.
    Again you pay not me or anybody else.

    The CSA has its faults but surely this is why it is there because of a parent – usually the father – who ‘move on’ and leave the taxpayer (ie anyone reading this and social services to pick up the pieces.

    Your child – you pay!

  • Bonnie says:
    June 24, 2013 at 11:36 am

    KMcQ80 have you not just read people’s responses? David /Paul for example? this is not an equal system. The taxpayer STILL pays for the majority (not all) of PWC who get Income support , council and housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credit or working tax credit PLUS CSA payments. On CSA 1 both parents are meant to contribute to THEIR child, in my case I had to contribute to another person’s child as the CSA wanted my wage details and used household income. They then increased the payment to PWC and said as she got tax credits that her income was ‘NON ASSESSABLE’. How is that two people paying for their own child? Why cant they use her wages too? They were topped up with tax credits to make up for a partner not being there. This is the NRP and the NRPP paying as well as the tax payer , so we are all paying twice over if CSA is involved. My child was awarded an allowance of £33 a week living in our home, the non resident child was given £137 a week, they used overtime /holiday pay (paid weekly) and calculated a fictious wage that they would not recalculate. Is my child less of a priority than the non resident child? Does my child cost less to feed and clothe? Should i pay for my child AND another woman’s child and should the tax payer ALSO then contribute to that child? The PWC was not expected to contribute and yet got all the benefits for the child as well. This is far from a fair system and to say CSA has its faults is an understatement. You have obviously not been abused by this system. I am all for paying for your children , but a reasonable amount , fair to all parties.

  • Sally says:
    June 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Well said Bonnie… some people just don’t seem to get the fact that the NRP’s who come onto the website PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN WITHOUT QUESTION!!!! Its the amount they are forced to pay, the formula the CSA use that they have issues with, and the fact that the CSA staff are idiots who don’t know their a*se from their elbow!!! the staff lie and some even steal from NRP’s… how on earth someone who reads these posts and comments thinks that the NRP’ is refusing to pay is beyond me….

    Both parents should pay a fair amount and like you, I don’t think we (NRPP’s)should have to pay child maintenance for another womans child… it’s morally and financially wrong!!!

  • Bonnie says:
    June 24, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    I agree Sally. And the comments like ‘dont have any more kids if you cant afford to pay for the ones you have’ is ridiculous and pointed at fathers. Lots of women go onto have more children and DONT WORK! I don’t hear these people saying to them not to have children as they EXPECT the taxpayer to keep them and then also the NRP. Its a case of Bitter women stating such nonsense. Its easy money nowadays…pick a fella who grafts and you are onto a winner even if you don’t stay together as the CSA will screw them. CSA1 = a third of wages for one child, how that is allowed I don’t know , they do not consider the new families living costs for EVERY child within the family and base calculations on BOTH parent’s household incomes (if the PWC gets any kind of benefit) & Current rules don’t use PWC income AT ALL………, if they did this , we would not all be in these unjust situations. I haven’t heard anyone say I DONT WANT TO PAY for my child here,I am sure that if You were in this situation you would not be skipping to work to pay more into your partner’s exes household than was coming into your own household!!

  • Lisa says:
    June 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Some women have children as a career move,.so they know thru csa multiple children to different dads means more money, I hate that statement dont have kids if you cant afford them! That goes for the woman to, dont go having more kids elsewhere that the tax payer has to foot the bill for, seems a.lot of nasty women post on this site that actually do get.money for there kids and its not enough, one woman actually said because the man was working half his wage should be hers, she believes that she should be paid a wage for bringing up his kids, funny how they are all to differebt fathers, shameful no pride, then they wonder why they are lonely sad old bags that nobody wants to be with

  • lorna says:
    June 24, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    omg i cant beleive some male responses above, men that move on and their kids get in the way of the new family….responsibilty comes to mind I have three children to one man that hasnt paid for months and csa keep forgetting to send the final letter how is it right men can move on and forget there kids ….i work full time and run my home that he is still on the mortgage I am trapped and he has me trapped….csa is all for fathers

  • lorna says:
    June 24, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    well done men that have paid for their children and its not right that they are greedy not all women are the same i just expect for a lil contribution towards his 3 if i could it without his money it would be good, but struggle and will never let them go without …

  • Bonnie says:
    June 25, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    So Much for a FAIR system! If the PWC gets tax credits then they keep the lot, even under CSA1 their income is then deemed non assessable. However if the NRP gets tax credits then a slice is given to the PWC with the non resident child who already gets tax credits for that child.
    This can add up to A LOT and it does not cost the PWC as much as they get in Child tax, child benefit, working tax and CSA to keep their child, plus where does the PWC come into this as also contributing Equally ? As for roof over their heads and bills, you would be paying that for yourself anyway.

  • Bonnie says:
    June 26, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    Lorna you are looking on this from a PWC who gets nothing. Noone is saying dont pay or kids are in the way, we are saying pay an affordable amount. Like I said , why should I contribute financially to another woman’s child and she doesn’t have to? The PWC in my case was getting £800 a month off my partners wage for one child…. £550 maintenance and the rest arrears , accrued due to their mistakes …. and we were getting £700 a month coming in off his wage for all three of us , I was on maternity after having the NRP baby but they used my top line from the start of maternity and refused to decrease this when it went to 128 a week. If the PWC had asked for a reassessment she would have got one no trouble! Both his kids were not treated equally in the eyes of the CSA. The PWC got all the benefits under the sun so had more income into her household than we did at that time and more than she would have had if she had a partner on an average wage. CSA isn’t all for fathers at all, it crucifies the good ones who DO PAY ….that’s the point we are making.

    • >