Categories
CSA Complaints

The CSA should assess everyone individually

23 February 2013 by Stuart F0103

I separated from my daughter’s mother 4 years ago after she had an affair; I see my daughter every weekend over night for two nights, two weeks in the six week holiday and week at easter, I would have her even more if her mum would allow me (hence my contact order!)….

Well my ex-partner has now married and lives with her husband and new daughter on a wealthy £100,000 per year salary! In the mean time I am paying £300 a month to them? What is this about?

I clothe my daughter as her mum will not send any clothes; I take her on holiday, camping, swimming and feed her out of my own money. I have to drive each weekend to her mums to collect her and drive the 25 miles back, I do this every weekend there and back twice and again I pay for the petrol out of my own money as her mum refuses to drop her off. Is it just me or does anyone else think the CSA laws need to be looked at and re assessed? Every person who has money taken off them should be individually assessed?

I spoke with the CSA just a day ago and asked them for a reduced rate as I see my daughter 130 nights a year, I was granted this reduction so I asked about the petrol I use to pick her up, they said I could only have a reduction on one or the other!?!?! What the…..?

I am absolutely livid at this yet I don’t have a leg to stand on as it’s the CSA!

82 thoughts on “The CSA should assess everyone individually”

  1. current legislation allows either shared care allowance (which you have been awarded for the overnight stays) or a variation towards contact costs – it does not allow both.

    In respect of your comment that each case should be assessed individually, this was the basis of the original 1993 scheme, it came in for a lot of criticism and was replaced 10 years ago with the 2003 scheme, which is much more simplified and is a set %age of the NRP’s income in relation to the amount of children they are liable to pay CM for, along with allowances for any other children they are financially responsible for and things like shared care or contact costs etc

    The new 2012 scheme is being phased in as we speak and this will be linked directly to the NRP’s income as per the previous year’s tax records – already some have highlighted points in it’s favour and points against it. I think it’s impossible to come up with a perfect scheme which everyone would be happy with.

  2. Alice if it is impossible to come up with a fair scheme then it should close down now. lets go back to the courts and stop the huge fraud committed against NRP’s by this shambolic organisation.

  3. Stuart you sound like a decent Dad to me … My ex doesn’t pay for his children yet is a multi millionnaire and I have proven it by sending in my divorce papers and its a big issue now as CSA know I was right all along … Keep plugging away I think the CSA do their best … but with ‘actual’ proof of income they can do nothing … It has taken me 4 years to get a result from them but my ex is a fraudster and already has one conviction so he was a tough one to catch …. Have faith and keep going x

  4. The only fair scheme is one which is assessed on income. Child benefits, tax credits should also be taken into account. My son has almost half shared care, but not quite. He provides a home for his children and buys all their necessary clothing etc. He lives alone and is taxed as a single man, but he has shared care of his children in addition. Mum has a full time well paid profession which enables her to earn more than my son, she also has all benefits, plus child maintenance. She has a partner who lives with her and shares the expenses (other than child expenses). My son struggles to pay his bills, but mum has spare cash to buy her partner expensive gifts. On the word of the mother, the CSA actually had the audacity to call my son an ‘absent, non-complaint father’.

  5. Stuart – the problem with the courts dealing with maintenance is that it meant NRPs and PWCs having to pay for legal reps to assist them, there was also issued of payments and collection of the money, if this broke down both parties would be back to court which again meant time and money for both the NRP and the PWC

  6. Hi all

    “stuart on February 24th, 2013 5:49 am – Alice if it is impossible to come up with a fair scheme then it should close down now. lets go back to the courts and stop the huge fraud committed against NRP’s by this shambolic organisation.”

    Yup, well said.

    “Alice on February 24th, 2013 12:33 pm – Stuart – the problem with the courts dealing with maintenance is that it meant NRPs and PWCs having to pay for legal reps to assist them, there was also issued of payments and collection of the money, if this broke down both parties would be back to court which again meant time and money for both the NRP and the PWC”

    Dear oh dear oh dear, there are times when ‘alice’ is spot on with the advice given, there are times when it seems a little incomplete and … there are times when It seems that ‘alice’ is talking complete (indoctrinated) tish! (is that an anagram?)

    Stuart, of course it should all be back in the Courts where each case can be dealt with on an individual basis. If we were talking about child welfare then it would be but thats just it, the csa isnt about child welfare, its about people like ‘alice’ getting a job because lets face it, as most of us have discovered, its unlikely that fifty per cent of them would find work serving coffee!

    There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to the question of child welfare and maintenance payments. There are people on here complaining that they cannot afford to send their kiddies to music lessons while others cant afford to pay the rent yet the application of the maintenance seems to have one fundamental core philosophy – screw as much out of them as you can get and forget the fact these people have to live!

    By the way, under the Court system, those who really needed it got public funding (legal aid) and thats something that needs to be looked at again. Meantime under the new csa system being brought in both the NRP and the PWC have to pay to get screwed over by the (failed) coffee pourers and still fork out privately for any legal help they may need when people like ‘alice’ get it wrong and destroy lives and harm children in their day job.

  7. Alice
    since when has any of this garbage called the csa made anyone happy apart from the treasury.THE CSA IS NOT FAIR..HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS POSTERS ISSUE…HIS EX LIVES THE LIFE OF OLD RILEY AND OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT NEED THE MONEY THE BLOODY CSA ROB FROM HIM…HE’S STRUGGLING AND STILL BLED DRY…WHATS NOT FAIR AS YOU NEED IT SPELT OUT AGAIN IS “NRP’S SHOULD BE ASSESSED ON HIS/HER ABILITY TO PAY,TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HIS/HER ASSENTIAL LIVING COST…MORGAGES,UTILITY BILLS,TRAVEL COST ARE CONSIDERED DISPOSABLE INCOME AS FAR AS THE CSA IS CONCERNED…DONT TELL ME OTHERWISE BECAUSE THE CSA DID NOT ASK ME EVEN IF I HAD A MORGAGE TO PAY WHEN THEY ASSESSED ME…WE HAVE NO BILLS IN YOUR EYES…THATS WHATS SOOOOO F*****ING UNFAIR WITH THE CSA.
    Gonk

  8. Spot on there gonk. In addition to that, we NRP’s live in fear of the PWC witholding the kids that we, non absent parents, want to see. Not only do we lose out being with our kids, but we get more demands from the CSA because we are stopped from having our kids.
    Jan 23rd infographic on this site mentions that CSA actively say to the pwc to stop contact with the NRP, so that the PWC can get more maintenance, no wonder DWP is/has renamed it from Child Support Agency to Child Maintenance and Enforcement commission because there is nothing about them that supports a child.
    I have noticed in the CSA blurb that NRP’s are mentioned in the same sentence as absent parents, so are now tarred with the same brush. No longer is it about absent parents, in fact, it was probably always a tax on fatherhood, the absent parent thing was just a smokescreen. And now that the DWP has put up the percentage of the amount middle income earners must pay from 25% for two kids to 28% for two kids, and they are taking it from gross salary, it’s just another stealth tax rise on us NRP’s.
    if only us 1million NRP’s lived in the pm’s or IDS’s constituency and threatened to vote for anyone else that wanted our vote in turn for abolishment of the CSA in whatever bastardised form the hydra has decided to take at that time.

  9. What needs addressing the most is the barbaric way you have to use to get a wrong decision overturned, A year waiting list at ICE, who do not allow you to see what is being put in front of the case examiner, why would they hide this information? You go to ICE following a CSA final response and you then argue your case against THAT response, then a load of other false information is provided to the examiner by the CSA, which you have not seen is used in his report against you. How is this a fair and transparent process, The ICE work alongside the CSA and tell you nothing. Then after a wasted year you go to the Ombudsman who uses the information provided by the CSA and ICE to further manipulate the case. It is a farce and breach of human rights yet allowed to continue. The CSA allowed my ex to fraudently claim for 2 years yet, took no action and covered it up. The ICE also overlooked this.

    Lets go back to having a fair trial and be means tested to see if we can afford their demands first not after 3 years of impoverishing NRP’s, the PWC has ended a relationship and should consider the way she would maintain her child before she does so, not rely on a criminal department to fund her lifestyle going forward. and Alice legal aid is denied anyone contesting the CSA, why would that be ? corrupt to the core.

  10. Having had 13 years experience of this system as both an nrp and pwc, I can catergorically state that the CSA is a ‘not fit for purpose, utter shambles’.

    I have had to complain repeatedly, using the ICE, my M.P. and the PHSO, only for them all to close ranks and ‘whitewash’ serious bordering on criminal activities of the CSA staff, and since then I was stitched up with £6,400 of arrears because they yet again made errors with my case.

    ” Repeated incompetence and almost wilful maladministration”, not my words the words of my M.P. to the CSA.

    Important matters involving children belong in the courts with professional advisors, and free access to lawyers who understand CSA systems in order to properly and professionally arrive at a reasonable settlement for both parents. irrespective of cost or court time.

    As it stands the CSA is a closed shop of compliancy ‘at any cost’, thats main aim is to demonise and criminalise nrp’s, whilst at the same time, attempting to strip them of their assets. How can this be in the child/childrens interests?

    Mediation should be used in order to reach a fair and reasonable agreement, that is in the interests of the parents and children.

    What happens between parents regarding their children, is a private family matter for them to sort out. It should not be left in the hands of a benefit recycling company!

  11. Hello

    “John on February 25th, 2013 12:16 pm – Having had 13 years experience of this system as both an nrp and pwc, I can catergorically state that the CSA is a ‘not fit for purpose, utter shambles’.”

    You have my sympathy. I’ve only been fighting my case for about five years. I dont owe the money and I’m not paying.

    I think that they use (for the most part) brainwashed and braindead people who are desparate for work and therefore easily controlled, they are funded by our taxes and dont actually produce anything, they have no competition and it doesnt really matter if they get a result, its just a scam to keep them in work. In the past people have just given up and they get a few quid in the coffers Now more and more people are resisting so they are trying to make people pay at source for the pleasure of being ‘screwed’ by the csa. Eventually there will be more people like you and me who fight back. Then it will just become too costly and they will shut down and do something else. (probably get shifted to the DWP department that refuses your benefit claims or something)

    My ‘advice’ to anyone faced with this disgusting organisation is transfer all your assets to a friend or relative via a third party so there is a difficult trail to follow, give up your job and claim benefits, (no wonder so many people are now working a fiddle) and shut down your bank account and keep your money under the pillow. (better still buy gold)

    Its difficult but the more people that resist the sooner they are shut down.

  12. No reply from Alice…but then shes unlikely to give a view on fairness or unfairness as far as the disposable income issue goes…she WILL not see this posters anger and frustration if it come up and slapped her in the face.and thinks by telling him the law as it stands is going to make him feel better.”a scheme that makes everyone happy” might have made him chuckle…so I give you that one…lol
    Alice..im asking you do you not think it unfair the way nrp’s are assessed ? You must have a view one way or the other….you either think its fair or you dont?
    my guess is her reply will be “my view dont matter”…and start spouting legislation again,and dont tell me or anyone on here that its no good beefing about the law and you should take it to the ballot box…lol..no government will ever do away with this corrupt system because its a tax that brings them in more money from fathers who inlight of this f*****ing organization feel let down for having children that are just a tax burden to them now,thats why we are all on sites like this and need to stick together and SOMEHOW,SOMEWAY,ONEDAY get this shower of shite shut down…..I mean lets be honest she aint gonna support our views (the nrp) not when she works for the csa…goes against her grain and she would not want to be seen by the csa police on here siding with the enemy.Dont anyone be fooled in thinking the CSA stands for looking out for the welfair of the kids…BOLLOCKS..I never see mine now because of the money it robs from me and the greedy bitch it gives it to with dollar signs in her eyes and a smile on her face and hands rubbing together…she sees no reason to let me have my daughter now…cause it means she get less booty and the csa encourage the practice…so where does my daughters happieness with her father FIT IN Alice?????
    gonk
    gonk

  13. My question to Alice. Is it fair that NRPs that had cases opened before 2003 have to pay more than NRPs with cases after 2003?
    I am stuck with paying £100 a week (30% with slight reduction for morgage).
    Somebody with a case after 2003 who earns exactly the same as me would only have to pay £60 a week (15%)
    That is like the government saying they are going to 1/2 income tax but only for people starting work now. All those already in jobs will still have to pay the higher rate.

    Total discrimination.

  14. There are many things in the system that I can see as being considered unfair – I personally do not think it’s fair that cases remained on CS1 after CS2 was introduced, I think all cases should have been moved over so that every NRP was assessed at the same rate and all PWCs received something – not all cases paid more on CS2 than they would on CS1.

    A lot of people consider that it is unfair to use CTC in an assessment, especially if they are the children of the NRP’s new partner – they see it as money for an NRPP’s children paying towards the NRP’s children – but they do not consider it wrong that the NRP is awarded an allowance for someone else’s children ahead of maintenance being assessed for the NRP’s children. Personally I would be in favor of taking away CTC use and ROC allowances, that way each biological parent is responsible for their own children on an equal basis.

    CSA should be allowed to get proof of a child’s education status direct from schools or colleges etc, so that NRPs are not paying for children who are not in full time education. Equally they should be able to do the same for children living in the NRPs household so that NRPs are not getting allowances on the same basis.

    The fairest way would be use an NRP’s tax code for both assessment and collection purposes – cuts out the fiddles with 2nd jobs and also prevents non-payment by NRPs.

    Shared care should be awarded in respect of court orders to stop PWCs limiting the overnight stays so that they get a higher MC each week.

  15. @ Alice – and your response sound fair to me but i’d like to add that the income of both parents should be considered and a base line amount for each child should be set (similar to child benefit of 20.30 per week for first child etc) and then each parent should be allowed to CHOOSE what else the buy for their child. Both parents should submit their TAX codes…

    Right now NRP’s have absolutely no choice or say in what happens… it’s all driven by PWC ‘expectations’ and supported by the CSA….

  16. @Alice – quote “Shared care should be awarded in respect of court orders to stop PWCs limiting the overnight stays so that they get a higher MC each week.”

    Is it not true that even though a Contact orders may be in place but the PWC ignores it, the CSA still takes the money from the NRP if the NRP does not have the children as set out in the contact order?

    So not only is the NRP hit with more CM, but cannot afford to go back to court to enforce the contact order because they are paying the extra CM.

  17. As I understand it Alice, even with a shared care order from the courts, all that the mother has to do is to say that her ex. did not pick up the children as arranged. Game, shot and match to mum.

  18. Mik – you are right, at the moment if overnight care does not take place the shared care allowance can be reduced or removed from the case – my earlier response was n respect of what would be a fair system … on the shared care allowance issue the court order could be used as protection for NRP’s who find the PWC limiting the shared care by not adhering to the order – but that would disadvantage PWCs who’s NRPs get granted a court order for overnight care and then not actually have the kids.

    Sally – I accept your thinking with regards to the PWC’s income being taken into account – but thinking outside the box here, would this not give the NRP leeway to absolve themselves of any obligation to support their child(ren). In respect of a set amount per child this could mean a considerable drop in lifestyle for children of parents who have been comfortable enough to provide them with more than basic care. Fair do’s if an NRP and/or PWC are prepared to continue to fund the additions that the child(ren) have had previously – but what if for example an NRP shoves off with someone from work, leaves the PWC with the kids, the PWC is on a limited budget (perhaps they have been a stay at home parent at the NRP’s request) and as such the PWC is unable to fund the life the kids have been used to, the NRP decides they will pay the basic £20 per week per kid – should the kids be the ones to have to lose out?

    Obviously many will argue that as long as the kids are provided with the basic food, water and shelter then they do not suffer – but the ethos of child support is not just about providing the basics.

  19. “Alice on February 26th, 2013 – Obviously many will argue that as long as the kids are provided with the basic food, water and shelter then they do not suffer – but the ethos of child support is not just about providing the basics.”

    So what is it about then? Funny how the state seems to know more about child welfare post divorce/separation than parents do, yet we have one of the highest child poverty rates in the western world.

    Is uncle jo stalin still alive? Who is ian dunkin smyth to tell us how much we should spend on our kids. The thing is the money doesn’t always go to the kids anyway, it gets spent on cigarettes, alchohol and nights out so the interference of the state is counter productive as the NRP isnt left with enough for the kids.

    “The operation of the Child Support Act 1991
    “This statute introduced a new child maintenance scheme. The scheme was intended to provide an effective, cheap and speedy means to enforce parental support obligations. Another aim, of considerable importance, was to reduce dependence on social security and the cost to the tax payer.”

    Seems like little to do with child welfare and more to do with state benefit savings.

    Thing is, thanks to the way the csa operate, the collection method costs nore to run than it collects and the state still pay out millions in benefits. Meantime kids get harmed because at least one parent (NRP) doesnt have enough money to spend on them.

    Well done Stalin sorry I mean ian dunkof schmidt, thanks to you and your draconian policies its now costing the taxpayer more and kids are getting hurt, well done you pathetic coward.

  20. Some people will spend their money on themselves and raise their kids with the bare minimum – some sadly will neglect their children and not provide even the basic needs – I think that can be said with regards to all income whether it be earned, benefits or child support and I doubt that it is confined to separated families either. But there are parents – together or separated – who will use their income as best they can to give their kids the best quality of life possible. In an ideal world ….

  21. “Alice on February 26th, 2013 8:02 pm

    Some people will spend their money on themselves and raise their kids with the bare minimum ,,,
    But there are parents – together or separated – who will use their income as best they can to give their kids the best quality of life possible.”

    Agreed and agreed but the state doesnt have the right to get involved and tell people how to live and how to spend their earned income to the extent that it is currently doing, especially when the anecdotal evidence demonstrates that a greater ‘harm’ is the result.

    That is a dictatorship.

    If the state thinks that £20.30pw (first/eldest child) is enough support for a PWC then that should be the starting point for any assesment and any addition to that should be worked out at a realistic level ie NRP living costs, contact with child costs, new family costs etc and based on a minimum percentage of that.

    Instead, as we can see from the earlier quote – “The operation of the Child Support Act 1991… … Another aim, of considerable importance, was to reduce dependence on social security and the cost to the tax payer.”

    Its more to do with the cost to the state than to do with the welfare of the child.

    Well I’m a taxpayer, I want my costs reduced and judging by the published info the best way to do that is scrap the csa.

    Can you hear me ian donut smudge you pathetic coward. Your ponzi scheme costs more to run than it rakes in and is losing you votes at the next election!

  22. Terry… Totally agree with your comment on 26th February, Im in the same position.

    Would like to ask when my son is between 16-20 years, sadly I don’t see him and thankfully I don’t have any contact with his mother, what enquiries can I make to establish that I still have to pay child maintenance ?
    How the CSA operate I fully expect to pay until he’s 20, but I would be grateful to receive any advice.

  23. I dont think there is any point quoting the 2nd part of that 1991 statement. I think it is since 2010 that benefits are no longer dependent on the money the PWC receives from the NRP. So one of the founding reasons for creating the CSA is now defunct. I welcome being corrected on this.

  24. In the early days of the CSA (20 years ago) the main purpose was indeed to reduce dependency on state benefits – but since 2010 all CS collected has been passed to the PWC with nothing taken for the state.

    the original 1993 scheme came under immense criticism for many reasons – primarily that it was over complicated ( I think it required something like 102 bits of information to allow a MA to be processed) Things like individual living costs were open to abuse (NRP’s renting luxury high end private rented property) … I stress here I am not saying ALL nrp’s did this.

    The new system was brought in to simplify the calculation, maybe it was a step too far in it’s simplicity.

  25. Alice
    you still have not answered my question…do you think its fair that a nrp’s essential cost of living..ie..morgage payments,travel to work cost,utility bills, general living cost to include food and council tax….etc etc should not be considered when assessing him/her ? after all these are the things that put a father into poverty because of the csa considering all this is disposable income…you lot live on another planet
    gonk

  26. gonk:- Why don’t you ask to be transferred to CS1 where all these things are considered but their starting point is 30% of your net income.

  27. j:- You are incorrect the state does not think £20.30 is enough to support a child.
    If a parent is in receipt of a benefit there is an dependent child allowance of £64.99 per child per week and a family premium of £17.40 along with the child benefit ( which is the old family allowance until recently paid to all families).

  28. Brett:- Call the CSA every 6 months and ask them to check if child benefit is still in payment.

  29. mik:- You are correct all monies collected now go to the PWC since April 2010.
    Hence the move to persuade as many people as possible to use private arrangements and the introduction of charges so that the CSA can be run down as far as they can having realised what a total failure it has been for the past twenty years.

  30. Gonk – under CS an NRP’s cost of living is taken into account, not on an individual basis as it was under CS1, but the NRP is left with 85, 80 or 75% of their income after the 15, 20 or 25% is taken for child support.

  31. I’m a bit late to respond Alice but both parents should sare equally, time and money…. I appreciate what you are saying about the NRPs but the reality I’d that both male and female leave their partners, the Wife is just as likely to leave the husband and it shouldn’t be own to one parent to call the shots….

    The CSA seem to believe that all PWC have their child’s best interest at heart while the NRPs don’t but that’s just wrong….. NRPs want to support their kids, they don’t want to support their ex’s!!

  32. “wilf on February 26th, 2013 9:34 pm

    j:- You are incorrect the state does not think £20.30 is enough to support a child.”

    hmrc.gov.uk

    How much do you get?

    The amount of Child Benefit you’ll get depends on:
    • how many children you’re entitled to get Child Benefit for
    • the current rates of Child Benefit

    When you start getting Child Benefit you’ll get paid at the rates for the current year.

    The current rates are as follows:

    Who the allowance is for

    Current weekly amount

    Eldest or only child

    £20.30

    Additional children – per child

    £13.40

    Guardian’s Allowance – per child

    £15.55

    From 6 April 2011, the Child Benefit rates will stay the same for three years.

  33. j:- Not sure how to respond as you have ignored the fact that parents with no income are given additional amounts to support their children meaning that they realise that child benefit alone is not sufficient.
    Go to benefit rates 2012 to 2013.
    Child benefit or family allowance has only ever been a token amount paid to all families, before the demise of the married man’s allowance it was recovered from the family through the tax system.

  34. “wilf on February 26th, 2013 9:44 pm

    mik:- You are correct all monies collected now go to the PWC since April 2010.”

    Interesting comment. Was in court again recently, my case closed sept 2011, I’m still fighting alleged arrears and a bit closer to getting my first hearing at tribunal. (have to follow the process then its of to judicial review) the representative from the csa confirmed that the money was going to sec of state for DWP and not my philandering ex or my grown up child. Strange that as I’m sure you are right. Perhaps they just made a mistake although I was told that in front of a solicitor. (naughty naughty csa)

  35. I can understand that a lot of people think the agency is totally on the side of the PWC – and I accept that where there is no conclusive proof/evidence the legislation does favor the PWC, but there are cases where decisions will be made in favor of the NRP – I have had a good number of cases where the PWC throws anything and everything at a case trying to get a higher MC and doesn’t get the result they are wanting.

    I totally agree that both parties should support the children, in a lot of cases this happens no problem with both parties accepting responsibility and being fair to each other.

    Unfortunately there are a great number of cases where both parties focus on the him and her (and yes there are many many cases where the NRP female so the ‘blame’ is not all one-sided). Over the past months there have been many comments along the lines of ‘PWC now sits on benefits and has never worked a day in their life’ or ‘NRP doesn’t declare this cash in hand 2nd job and that’s not right’. These are statements that I hear at work on almost a daily basis, often the person making the statement will let it be known that this was the way it was for the past 2/5/15 years that they were with the ex partner and they accepted it for all those years but now that they are not directly benefiting from a full time stay at home parent being there to keep house and look after the kids or a bit of extra tax free income to pay for the little extras it’s another dagger to be thrown at the other side. In some cases the PWC not working may be due to the fact that they have been out of the job market for years as it was decided that the PWC would be a full time parent (child care costs can often be equal to or more than some jobs pay), as such it can be very difficult for that parent to get a job. In some cases the cash in hand 2nd job may well be money that the NRP uses to buy the necessary so that they can have the QC(s) overnight etc.

    In respect of the NRP’s not wanting to support their ex and couple this with the regular comments about the courts being used to assess maintenance – in a lot of cases where they courts were involved spousal maintenance was awarded.

  36. “wilf on February 26th, 2013 9:36 pm

    Brett:- Call the CSA every 6 months and ask them to check if child benefit is still in payment.”

    Better still make sure you have a copy of your up to date data protection file so you know whats going on and dont bother calling, do everything in writing and send recorded delivery (keep the receipts) to be sure.

  38. In respect of the NRP’s not wanting to support their ex and couple this with the regular comments about the courts being used to assess maintenance – in a lot of cases where they courts were involved spousal maintenance was awarded.

    However Alice when a PWC claims fraudently for 2 years the courts unlike the CSA would view it as fraud. My ex claimed from me when the child did not live with her and was not recieving child benefit, Yet the CSA quote is we do not view this as fraud, and was not their fault they collected that money even though they failed to check she was entitled to it. 2 years this went on for a large sum of money stolen.

    Explain that one if you can, sheer robbery with violence.

  39. “wilf on February 26th, 2013 10:30 pm

    j:- Not sure how to respond as you have ignored the fact that parents with no income are given additional amounts to support their children meaning that they realise that child benefit alone is not sufficient.”

    Not ignoring anything. having been a parent with no income I got nothing from my ex and no help from the csa at all so apart from the state support I had for a year, my only support came from family, friends and eventually my new partner.

    My point is that child benefit (was less in my day dont you know) is what the government say is the base amount that a family (or single person) should have to support a child. In that case my point is that it seems like a ‘fair’ amount (if its fair from a government viewpoint) to start the calculation from. Not the only amount or the exclusive amount but the base from which to start.

    Then of course other factors should be taken into account, NRP income and NRP living costs.

    In a case where a PWC ‘chooses’ to split up, perhaps for another relationship then its no good bleating on about how the NRP has a ‘duty toward the child’, really? Ok then when that happens how about giving the child to the NRP?

    Again the point is that children shouldnt be used as a method of getting money from an ex, it does happen (to quote alice – ” … I have had a good number of cases where the PWC throws anything and everything at a case trying to get a higher MC and doesn’t get the result they are wanting. …”

    At the same time the involvement of the state should be at a minimum.

    I’ve been a PWC and an NRP. I have a relationship with my children and now have a new family and new costs. The only thing I want from the state is to be left alone.

    BTW thanks to the way the csa works (and the rules in place) I have not worked for a number of years. I dont claim benefits and am supported by my partner who works very hard to look after us. Thats a whole heap of money the state has lost, they will also lose the current proceedings that I am contesting and that will be at a great cost (apx 15 court cases so far) to the taxpayer.

    Anyway if there was a fair starting point for payments and a reasonable calculation based on the reality of the cost of living and the cost of a new family then you would have more people willing to pay and less need for sites like this.

  40. If benefits are being claimed by the pwc, and those benefits are be re-claimed from the nrp, then surely the nrp should be notified of what type of benefit is being claimed and how much is being paid out to the pw, in the form of a yearly statement.. It’s called transparency.

    Is it any wonder the nrp’s are questioning their payments, where they believe that they are over-paying maintenance and the state are profit grabbing from thousands of nrp’s.

    I agree with the earlier comment. It has to be unfair and discriminatory, that nrp’s on csa 1 are being 30% more than others. Therefore, they should be refunded. If not this should be tested in the courts!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *