The CSA can’t get hold of the 18k my ex owes, despite his lavish lifestyle

March 16, 2013

My Ex-partner owes me over 18k in unpaid maintenance for our child. The CSA has secured this debt in the court and because his property is mortgaged and there is no equity they now have no way of making him pay the debt owed.

He says he is not working which is a lie, he drives a 50k car and lives in a 250k house, owns a racehorse and has a property abroad. He has however managed to hide hios obvious lifestyle amnd prevent paying anything. He cannot be imprisoned because it violates his human right but no one seem to consider the human rights of his child who has had to do without and struggle for year because of him. What kind of country allows this to happen to its children and what is the point of a multi-milluion pound agency who cannot effectively secure any of this debt – absolutely disgusting

Comments

  • lisa says:

    So your point is????? its his life, he doesnt have to answer to you, your his ex for a reason, what he has is his business not yours, just like my ex,s life is his business nothing to do with me, how do you even know these details without seeing the proof in black and white, the CSA wont take your word its hearsay, if he isnt working and its not been proved then its probably fact, unfortunatly there isnt anything you or the CSA can do about it, He drives a 50k car, is that car on finance??? he lives in a 250k house, The courts are not stupid and they would have also done fact finding before it went to court, so im assuming your information is probably incorrect, and thats why the debt wont stand

  • wilf says:

    The debt will stand it will just not be paid.

  • lisa says:

    Really bloody grinds me this, the ex wife/partner etc claim to know all about there ex,s life run to csa with these details and actually none of it is true, why do the PWC assume that the debt is “there” money, its not its money thats owed to the QC in the case,

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- Perhaps they feel that they have subsidised the NRP during the time no maintenance was received and they want that money back, it already having been spent on the children.

  • lisa says:

    Correct me if im wrong but isnt that what Child Benefit and Tax Credits and benefits are paid to the PWC for, isnt that also to help bring children up?? The NRP in usual circumstances has only a wage to fall back on, now im not saying men shouldt pay for there children but there has to be a limit surely, Out of that wage they have bills to pay a roof over the head travel to work etc, so why does a PWC feel they have to take every last penny so that in some cases the NRP cant afford to eat,, CSA isnt a garunteed income so it should never be relied on and CSA should never belive a word the PWC says unless its been checked thoroughly by them in the first place

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- The CSA say child maintenance is not guaranteed because some NRPs are reluctant payers and they can not say it will be consistently paid.
    Child benefit and CTC are payable to all families who qualify even if they haven’t spit up. They are benefits not just paid to PWC.
    Child maintenance is a part of the contribution that the partner,who left for whatever reason, would have had they remained all together in one household.

  • lisa says:

    The point is when unemployed or a single mum the amount of tax credits and benefits housing benefit that can be claimed are much higher than being within a family unit, the NRP doesnt get any of that if he is single just the wage, why should the CSA take what little he earns and leaves him without food or a roof over his haed to give maybe 3x as much as what the PWC gets on benefits,

    IE, JSA is £71 a week for an adult to live on, out of that bills and food need to be sorted, why does CSA think a child is worth sometimes 3x more than that??? if you see where im coming from

  • wilf says:

    Peter:- Why do you assume the NRP is a him?

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- The level of housing benefit depends on family income single parent families tend to have lower incomes.
    Maintenance contributions would only reach £213 per week if NRP on higher income(£1420 per week assuming one child).
    Child support is means tested which means the less you earn the lower amount you pay.

  • lisa says:

    Abroad it works very well that its a simple system, One set payment amount right across the board regardless of income so each and every father knows where he stands if things are to go wrong, not only is this system fair and unbiased there isnt a lot of men or NRP who avoid it, because its a country who like to keep familis together, maybe the knobheads from our givernment should try the same,
    Then just maybe the poor NRP in our country would actually get to see their children and not just money money money arguements and CSA staff playing them off against each other

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- Is that Australia or the USA?

  • lisa says:

    No thats actually denmark so im lead to believe,

  • lisa says:

    Australia also have a fab CSA, they treat people more equal then here and seem to want parents to get along for the kids,

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- The Australian scheme is similar to CS1 which was abandoned in 2003 in Britain in favour of a more simplified scheme which everybody could understand.
    Denmark has a much smaller population. What is the flat rate they ask for and how do they cater lower paid NRPs without a means test or is it chalk up as a debt if they do not pay the amount asked for.

  • lisa says:

    Im not sure exactly what there scheme entails until i look it up, i only know of this because of a friend who lives over there said he doesnt understand why CSA here are not the same as them, makes it so much easier for parents to understand, the rules are simple and the big thing they make sure the kids are protected from both sides, NRP pay and always have access, its all done through the courts so i beleive

  • wilf says:

    lisa:- In Denmark child support consists of a fixed basic amount, a fixed supplement and an additional supplement depending on gross income and continues to 18 and if still in education and can go up to the age of 24.

  • lisa says:

    They should do that over here, at least the government and courts make it there mission to make sure kids get the exact same access to both kids, thats a big thing over here they dont care, such a shame that so many men are stopped from seeing there kids over money,

  • lisa says:

    *both parents* gets the same access to there kids

  • wilf says:

    Says nothing about access or shared care on their web site.
    I’ve always said cut out the reductions for shared care then PWCs would have no incentive to reduce shared care.

  • lisa says:

    Thats what my friend got told, he had the same rights and they wanted him to play a regular part in his kids lives, just because the ex has them more doesnt entitle her to more money, though the courts service over there is much more understanding of fathers plights to see there children, its a right where over here seems to be a privelage

  • wilf says:

    Their issues are dealt with by Regional state administrators and thus more personal and they have individual interviews with both parents together.
    I can not see our centrist government handing over child support issues to local authorities.
    Otherwise personalised arrangements difficult to arrange for over a million cases.

  • lisa says:

    Would be nice though if more men could spend time with there kids instead of having the same old pay me this or you dont see that, its just not bloody fair,

  • wilf says:

    I think you are talking about a minority.

  • carol says:

    even if it is a minority wilf, it is certainly an unacceptable minority. Pay per view used by the few is devastating.

    When a couple split up, a pwc does not have rights on the nrps wages if they are high earners. Support yes, but a percentage of wages, no. If someone wants high income, do the university yourself and get it via working your way up. I am getting tired of materialistic people expecting big handouts to keep them in the lifestyle they became accustomed to just because they married and bred with a high earner.

  • wilf says:

    No it is the children who need the support.

  • stuart says:

    wilf on March 16th, 2013 11:27 pm

    No it is the children who need the support.

    Support of a NRP in their life not denied it by money grabbing PWC aided by the government and the most corrupt agency to ever be. Yes pay for your kids but as if you lived with them ….which is what you can afford after your bills are paid not what will prevent you from having a life or career ever again and have some funds left to treat them too. Misguided there Wilf I am afraid if the CSA or government cared about the kids we would not have these problems.

  • carol says:

    wilf…the children need support as in food, warmth, shelter in a safe place, love, both parents in their life, and if need be a reliable car to transport them to places. What they do not need is all the expensive trinkets that come with being middle class and over. I would like to see high earners pay for support AND treat their children to other non essentials, and want them to live in a decent way, but its the PWC who thinks they have a right to their exs lifestyle, and/or deliberately trying to manipulate an ex for the the breakdown of the relationship out of spite and jealousy. This then infuriates and frustrates a wealthy nrp, who would retaliate by not supporting, or wanting anything to do with the family, due to the tensions caused. Im not condoning this but can fully understand. I myself am controlled by my ex in such a way, only difference is, Im skint ;p. However, should I train and get better work, yes I can see my ex and his sidekick slag he regularly cheats on, being the only ones to benefit and not our child. This is a ‘man’ who pushed for our child to be classed and diagnosed as being mentally disabled so he could claim more money and sypmathy. Its these kind of PWCs that have a ker-ching radar hardwired into their cranial cavity, that push for MORE MORE MORE ££££

  • gonk says:

    out of all the comments on this thread about what seems another money grabbing bitch using the kids as an excuse to rob the ex…yours Stuart..sums up the pwc and csa the best..WELL WELL SAID AND SOOOO BLOODY TRUE.
    Gonk

    stuart on March 17th, 2013 7:38 am

    wilf on March 16th, 2013 11:27 pm

    No it is the children who need the support.

    Support of a NRP in their life not denied it by money grabbing PWC aided by the government and the most corrupt agency to ever be. Yes pay for your kids but as if you lived with them ….which is what you can afford after your bills are paid not what will prevent you from having a life or career ever again and have some funds left to treat them too. Misguided there Wilf I am afraid if the CSA or government cared about the kids we would not have these problems.

  • >