CSA problems from both sides

October 28, 2010

My problem is I have been caught in the CSA trap from both sides. I have a 13 year old daughter of my own. I lived on my own for 10 years. The CSA pursued my ex for maintenance for the first 5 years of my daughter’s life but because he was self employed they never caught up with him. When my daughter started school I went back to work and brought her up alone.

I met someone when my daughter was 10 and we moved in together a year ago. My partner also has a 12 year old son who resides with my partner’s ex and he has been paying maintenance for his son through the CSA since he was born. Before we moved in together we asked the CSA how it would effect us living together and were told that in all likelihood our payments would decrease because there would be another child living with us.

When I moved in we updated the CSA with all of our financial information and they did a recalculation. Sure enough my partner’s maintenance contributions were decreased. Some three months later we received a letter from the CSA saying that his ex-wife had made a claim called a departure asking that my money also be taken into account in any maintenance calculation. At no time during our enquiries had anyone from the CSA even mentioned that there was this loop hole where she would be able to try and claim more. They did a recalcution taking into account my money (bearing in mind that I do not work full time because of fitting in looking after my daughter) and my partners payments increased. Not only that they insisted that he had to pay arrears from the time I moved in.

Our argument was that even if she was allowed to have my money taken into account the arrears should not have been backdated to when I moved in because we had properly informed them of the situation and this was a new application made by her some 3 months later. They also were not interested at all in the fact that I had a daughter of my own to support for whom I receive no maintenance from her father.

We are now left paying a huge sum to his ex-wife who seems to spend all of the money on herself in any event and not on his son. She has also reduced the number of nights he stays with us so there would be no possiblity for us to apply for shared care. Basically the whole system is very unfair and despite going to appeal they are just not interested in anyone’s personal circumstances all they care about is “their calculations”!!


  • brokenfather says:

    I assume that your partner in on the CS1 basis of calculation.

    The takes allowance of his living costs and because there is now an addititional resident and income to his home his costs are deemed to reduce. They expect you to pay your share. Therefore he is deemed to have more disposable income from which to pay CM to the mother of his son.

    This often stops people forming further relationships because if they do they get stung financially by the CSA. It is very unfair.

  • graeme says:

    One of the main reasons that is stopping me from seeking another relationship. I could not afford it financially and the last thing I want to do is burden my new partner with financial responsibilites from the Corrupt Scandalous Thievieng Parastic Agency.


  • Rach says:

    this is one thing that annoys me with the csa whereby the nrpp’s income is taken into account yet the pwc’s partners income is ignored its very unfair

  • Karl Garrett says:

    If this happens to me, then the ex will be shot…..simples….

  • graeme says:

    Stupid question I know, but one i feel i have to ask.

    But isntt his victimisation? Surely if they take into account the NRPPs earnings, then they have to take into account the PWCs new partners earnings as well?

    I wonder how that would stand up in the European Court of Human Rights.


  • John says:

    Why are bowing down to the ‘filth’ known as CSA. Who are theses people? Write to your M.P. Write to Cameron and Clegg and keep on protesting until you are heard loud and clear.

    Alan Johnson refered to civil disobedience last week……but it’s ok if you fill your pockets up with taxpayer money from expenses.

    I sincerely hope that there will be rioting in the streets as with the poll tax, just to let these ‘muppet’ politicians know that they are here to serve US! and not vice versa!

  • Busylizzy says:

    PLEASE BEG I as a PWC would love my income to be assessed by the CSA lay bare the actual fact. Please on my behalf lobyy MPs whomever neccesary to have this inequality rectified. Bring it on so at least I and most PWCs can reveal the true facts………………regarding NRP income/lifestyle versus PWC indeed what a revelation that would actually be.
    PS Brokenfather before you start harping on in your sanctimonios manner, get back in your box, funny how you always ridicule PWCs ie get a job,CM, CB,CTC all of which equally applies to a NRP

  • Brokenfather says:

    Yes, I would love to see what income PWS’s have in total, how much of that is unearned because it is received free from the Government and NRP, and want income is left for the NRP to live and care for his children.

    My business partner is a single mother with two young children. We earn the same. She gets £6000 pa free from the Government regardless of what care the father undertakes. Her ex earns less than her but gets no government support to assist him with the care of their children.

  • Busylizzy says:

    Brokenfather Not wishing to nit pick but the mentioned Gov “FREEBIES” apply to all families in the UK, means tested or not. Therefore irrelevant. Equally please note a female still recieves in salary over 25% less thentheir male counterpart. I believe the recently published figure stated it would take a female until the year something like 2030 before they would achieve the same.

  • Brokenfather says:

    I dont believe for a second that women earn less than men doing the same job. The trouble with the ‘statistics’ are that they do not compare like with like, an agenda of the female lobby assisted by Ms H Harperson no doubt. You cant legitimately compare a school dinner lady with a dustman for example, but the statistics seek to do so.

    Cllimate change is a con too while we are on the political band wagon lol

  • Brokenfather says:

    CB is not means tested,CTC is. But my point is that it is only available to families and those deemed resident parents. Non-resident parents get bugger all governmental assistance even if they have 50% of the care of their children. Is that fair?

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    Is it a new claim (ie since 2003) because if so im sure your income cannot be taken into consideration. DDepartures are old rules and new rules are variations which are things like debts from the relationship, travelling costs for visiting the children etc.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Many PWC's are only interested in hurting the NRP's children by causing the NRP's children to do without for the aim of pointscoring against NRP's… unfortunately the NRP's new children never recieve the same quality of life that the PWC obtains by such actions… the PWC is usually as guilty of such actions as much as the CSA who the PWC involves as first port of calll, to satisfy greed, always wanting more!!! ther are many PWC's that are way too greedy, I have a tight leash on my problems fortunately and the leash is tightening around the necks of my PWC and CSA respectively….It is a shame that the selfishness of the PWC grows increasingly since any family break-up…. It is up to yourself to take control against this greed machine…. ultimately, it's always the children that suffer in either case… the CSA has no intention of being fair, neither is the PWC who takes any action to make tax free money while other children who are notrelated to PWC suffer.The CSA abuse their own system and powers and expect you to prove in writing that they are wrong!!! Take control…. use all available evidence…. obtain all evidence that will prove the CSA are commited in criminal activity to collude with the PWC… who in many cases is actually commiting fraud alongside of child abuse!!!I speak generally by personal experiences……… Good luck in your fight against your PWC….. All the best!!!

  • Mark Yak Attack Howard says:

    Agreed !!!

  • Trevor Franks says:

    AGREED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Juliet-Amber Jolliffe says:

    If your partner has been paying on the old scheme CSA1, then it can't be changed to CSA2 unless PWC agrees. On the old scheme, they can use your earnings to justify an increase in maintenance based on the fact that your partner doesn't have to contribute as much to the household because you work. Totally unfair, I know, but a fact. Until the CSA changes it's rules then all children will continue to suffer.

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    To add to Juliet-Ambers comment about changing from CSA1 to CSA2, the PWC can do this by closing the current case and opening a new case after 13 weeks. Doing this will not erase any arrears due from CSA1 file though.

  • Lorraine Moore says:

    It's a shame the NRP cannot do the same, as in reality having two systems running at the same time is in actual fact, a breach of human rights. Not that they care, as they are above the law!

  • >