We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalised ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
They do not take rent or any out goings into consideration it’s a flat 20% I think it is now
CSA don’t care that you have bills to pay or rent/mortgage, all they care about is screwing you over unfortunately. It’s a joke, they should deduct your outgoings then take a slice of what’s left.
My partner was taking home about the same each week and they took £100/week. We lost everything and had to live separately as what he was left with wasn’t even enough for the rent. It’s ok though because his ex went abroad (without their son) 3times a year, drove a brand new car and got a boob job!
New CSA system or CS3 uses gross income at 12% for one child, 16% for two and 19% for three or more children.
The CS2 system from 2003 used net income at 15% for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three or more children.
The oldest system from 1993 or CS1 was much more complex taking in account housing costs,partner’s income,PWC ‘s income and outings, QC’s age, etc.
According to what is listed, The new CSA system for calculating is at 16% for two children, meaning a person on low agency pay of £230 per week, when in work, would be charged £230 by 16% for two childs = £36:80 to pay, Have I GOT THIS CALCULATION RIGHT??
So the real problem with this CSA is, if they do not deduct rent or mortgage and other deductions ie food, transport, gas, electric, water, poll tax etc, the CSA will most probably make one of a couple homeless. HAVE I GOT THIS RIGHT??
Does everyones local MPs know that this practice is rife within the CSA on their scale of calculating. HAVE I GOT THIS RIGHT??
To all concerned please reply to me by email when possible.
Thank you
Kind regards
Mike Nelson.
I have written countless times to Robin van der (can’t remember his surname) he writes the policies for csa. He would not accept that. He says what comes first is the financial responsibility for the children,not your own outgoings. I said over and over but if your payments make it so you can’t afford to eat, heating, roof over your head then that’s in breach of a persons basic human right. He just kept answering the same answer. I said so if the csa payments come first but the nrp can’t pay any bills or petrol in car to get to work then the nrp will lose his /her job and be homeless, but how does that help the children?? He just kept repeatedly saying the same answer. Stupid ignoramus man. Typical of the govt and ppl who make these decisions. I suggested that child maintenance be in line with child benefit. Set payments and less if low earnings. That would be fairest way instead of more you earn more you pay regardless of your own bills! Makes me mad.
Following on from my previous post…it’s Robin Van den Hende – Senior Policy Advisor in the Child Maintenance Group, Dept of Work and Pensions at Caxton House. And he did reply to my emails. However he refused to accept what I was saying. Maybe if we all emailed him he would listen?
With regards to my previous post, Although there has been a reply, I still have not had a confirmed answer to the three questions that I posted, it would help in going forward if the facts presented are 100% correct, hence the three questions, which are relevant to the problems that put people in such a position they resign to the unemployment department or move into the black economy.
Either way the intentions are supposedly directed towards the responsible welfare concerning children by means of financial support. I do support this, but only where possible that individuals can financially afford to pay. If it means that a person who is on low income, (having been checked) cannot afford to contribute, then a different avenue should be sought to resolve the problem!
Mr Robin Van Den Hende who in my opinion is only a small cog on a complex machine, in order to start this machine you need a key for its ignition, its this key that needs to answer all the problem questions.
I would also like to know if possible, an approximate figure as to how many individuals are put in this awful financial predicament?
But I still need the three answers to my earlier post.
Thank you kindly for your replies
Kind regards
Mr Nelson