to be bloody pissed off that the CSA...

(209 Posts)
fanjangolo Wed 28-Aug-13 21:31:36

take child tax credits from one set of children living with the Non resident parent, to give to their other child regardless of the resident parents income.

Child Tax Credits are given to lift children out of poverty and then the CSA take them, shoving them back into poverty - even if the child they are giving this money to lives in a wealthy household.

ivegotahousefull Thu 29-Aug-13 23:09:24

needsaholiday now,,,,yes,,,,

ineed,,,csa 1 is the original csa system set up in 2002
csa 2 was deemed to be the new fairer system
and of course there is now csa 3 doing its rounds,,,,,,,my husband has paid csa every month without fail for 11 years ,, never missed a payment, his ex has been on benefits for all of these years,,,so she has wholly benefited from this,,,

feeling vulnerable,,,,i suggest you go to csa, if he moves in with her, it will affect what you receive as her four kids will receive the first 25 percent of his wages, your child/ren will receive the remaining percentage .

If he is named on mortgage and bills, and is earning, he is liable for them, if not all, at least half, you need to seek legal advice, good luck

feelingvunerable Thu 29-Aug-13 22:41:03

Can someone answer my question.

My dh has left and hasn't paid anything at all. He has left us in serious debt.

He is with a woman who is on benefits. Lives in a big detached house 4 kids. big new people carrier. He isn't officially living there but neighbours have confirmed he is there "most of the time" and he has told everyone he is officially with her.

Will any of this affect the amount I can claim off him?

He is refusing outright to contribute to the mortgage or household bills even though he is named on them and has accrued debt to the mortgage.

IneedAyoniNickname Thu 29-Aug-13 22:24:39

What's csa1 and csa2? I've never come across those terms before?

CSA isn't taken into account for other benefits as far to often it isn't paid (not saying in your case ivegot but overall) which meant the rp couldn't afford even the basics.

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 22:22:41

ivegotahousefull I'm taking it he only pays all that due to your income being taken in to account as well? I'm glad not many are on csa1 anymore.

ivegotahousefull Thu 29-Aug-13 22:20:57

The fact is littlemisssarcstic, my husband and his wife were finished 7 years before he got a better paid job,,,,maybe if he had stayed together he would of been in the same job he had,,, different towns, etc etc.

His child doesnt have a better life for his increased earnings, but thats another story!! my husband still provides necessaties for her as well.

I gave my opinion on the csa incompetencies, rather than to go through the ins and outs of my personal dilemmas with the csa.

A fairer system should be, that, if the nrp pays a high amount in csa payments why should the ex, get full benefits of ctc, income support, cb, prescriptions, full rent paid etc...... csa is an non accountable income, so she is more than over the minimum of what the law says she should live on.

They shouldnt be nearly three different types of csa systems running, they should be one,,,, we are on csa 1, my kids dont count,,,, myself and my ex are on csa 2,,,my kids get the second amount, my exes partners kids get the first percentage... they should be a fairer system for all end of,,, what and how, im not sure, but the ones they have running are not ideal!!

littlemisssarcastic Thu 29-Aug-13 21:48:19

Or perhaps I should have asked, what would you deem a fairer system to be in your case?

littlemisssarcastic Thu 29-Aug-13 21:47:26

If your husband had remained married to his ex partner, their DC would have enjoyed an elevated style of living when he got his better paid job, so why should his child not benefit from his increased earnings now they are apart ivegotahousefull ?

ivegotahousefull Thu 29-Aug-13 20:31:35

sorry to add my two pence worth, not been on this site in like forever,,, but, came accross this ,,,the whole csa system is a great big farce!!

My ex h, "works" 16 hours a wk,,,(gets the rest cash in hand) .. his wife works full time, they are on csa 2, so he pays absolute minimum!

My husband is on csa 1,,i work and he works yet both wages are taken into account for csa.

Now, although i dont get tax credits,i totally understand what the op is saying,,,,

They get wages, cb, tax creds, and ctc
The ex partner gets cb, ctc, income support maybe,,,, this , therefor, means that the ex partner, gets both her ctc, and a percentage of the second familes ctc,,,,, so i totally see what they are saying.

One of my biggest gripes is,,, the law says you need xyz too live on,,, so therefore,,, when you pay a massive portion in csa, which in my husbands case he does, not far short of a thousand pounds a month,,, why does his ex still qualify for maximum benefits.

He didnt have a good job when they were together, he has never denied his daughter anything, providing he can afford it, yet his ex maintains a better life style than us, courtesy of his "csa contribution"

I am not a bitter ex wife, not a bitter new partner, i just think they should be a fairer system for all, rather than the current two which are running,,,,,,,,

Snatchoo Thu 29-Aug-13 20:05:17

I know you've had a work through the figures now, but I just looked on the calc and it says only WTC is taken into consideration?

StephenFrySaidSo Thu 29-Aug-13 19:37:28

I think (if I was PM grin) it would have to be part of the massive overhaul I talked about upthread, where wages and benefits reflected the actual cost of living. it wouldn't work with the system we have at the minute. quite frankly I don't think the current system even works now. people are going under on benefits ATM and UC will see that increase so unless benefits were massively changed then no it couldn't come from people's benefits.

IneedAyoniNickname Thu 29-Aug-13 19:16:45

That's an interesting idea StephenFry but for parents who are out of work, would they take this 'tax' from their benefits? As an unemployed single mum I know I couldn't afford to pay it.

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 16:38:52

They get a reduction for having their child overnight basically because they are the one providing for the child on those days.

The NRP then pays CSA if they hate having CSS deducted from tax credits then the other parent can claim tax credits.

I'm a bit confused about the above sentence. ^^ Sorry if I'm a bit dim.

fuzzywuzzy Thu 29-Aug-13 16:32:47

the NRP gets a reduction for the increased amount of time a child is with them overnights.

Then the NRP gets a further reduction for each child they have living with them.

The NRP then pays CSA if they hate having CSS deducted from tax credits then the other parent can claim tax credits.

All in all the NRP is not paying a huge shedload to the RP for bringing up their child.

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 16:27:46

They do live with them though. They pay the RP maintenance for the time the child is with the RP, but any other money is to make sure the NRP can provide a house, food, clothing, heating, electricity, a bed, transport, etc... for whe child is with the NRP.

People seem to forget that the NRP is paying towards two households and needs to make sure they me the basic needs for their child for when they are with them.

So all in all, the costs amount to exactly the same for the NRP aas the RP when it all comes down to it. Therefore, more contact equals less maintenance and less contact equals more maintenance. It's not difficult to grasp.

And yes, I know there are a lot of NRPs out there thatvwillcdo everything in their power to avoid paying towards their children, but I'm not on about them. They are a whole different kettle of fish.

fuzzywuzzy Thu 29-Aug-13 16:14:39

The original CSA assessment gets reduced the more children the NRP has, tax credits may be taken into consideration however the NRP is still financially responsible for all the children they've had so a reduction in tax credits to pay towards CSA makes sense, an NRP still pays well below what they would be paying for a child living with them.

To get around it the parent who is not an NRP can claim tax credits.

If paying towards the upkeep of a child for at least 16 years is unpalatable to a person they should take steps to ensure they don't have children.

StephenFrySaidSo Thu 29-Aug-13 16:00:02

few minutes' thought

StephenFrySaidSo Thu 29-Aug-13 15:58:02

I was thinking about this this morning and wondering (now this IS controversial- I know it wont be loved by all) if the system could be changed so that when a baby is registered at birth, both parents are automatically subject to a 'tax' (for want of a better word) payable to the Govt, of which a portion is returned in the form of CB to the parent who claims it even if the parents are in a relationship together. the rest could be used to provide things like free school dinners for all children and all ringfenced for things specifically for under 18s which my brain cant think of right now. almost like a NI payment for things for children, like for uniform allowances etc. and also treated by like a debt for those that didn't pay. this would however mean both parents would have to be named on the BC unless one parent wished to legally take on the other parent's payment for the life of the child til 18. it could also be made so that if one or both parents died the Govt took over responsibility for the payments.

obviously that's just a few minutes though and there are probably lots of reasons this wouldn't appeal to everyone some people but I think something better than the current system is possible if the right people were in charge.

IneedAyoniNickname Thu 29-Aug-13 15:56:58

The whole system is shit. I honestly don't think anything works.

I was getting maintenance from my ex, then he moved in with his new gf who also has 2dc.
My maintenance was reduced as a result, despite the fact that she was already receiving full benefits and CSA from her ex.
He then jacked in his job, so the CSA made a nil assessment. Yet he magically has enough money to get his cbt and a bike.
They've just had a baby together so ill be intersted to see how that affects CSA. Assuming they even find out about the baby that is!

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 15:40:06

How would she fuzzy? She will be getting more if tax credits are taken in to account.

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 15:37:29

Just remembered that it is reduced by 1/7th, so instead of £33.00 it would be reduced to £30.00. Add about £10.00 from baby's tax credits and there is a £5.00 profit, again whilst the RP keeps all of the tax credits for the first child.

fuzzywuzzy Thu 29-Aug-13 15:36:30

The RP will still be getting less than before the ex NRP had another child.

needaholidaynow Thu 29-Aug-13 15:19:05

So say it was reduced to £33.00 after NRP has had a new baby. Then the NRP's partner puts a claim in for tax credits and they receive £65.00 per week in CTCs. The RP of his first child would get about £9.00 out of that, equalling maintenance to £42.00 a week because the new baby was born.

Meanwhile RP keeps all of her tax credits for the first child, plus almost a tenner from the baby's tax credits. Which could have been one of many packets of nappies.

The first child would not be worse off.

JenaiMorris Thu 29-Aug-13 14:46:23

Have I got this right?

If the OP's household income of £x was made up solely of her husbands's salary, then he would be expected to pay £y maintenance for his other child.

Their income however is made up of his salary, plus tax credits - of which some is awarded for her and his two children. As such, OP argues that he should be paying less than the £y he's obliged to pay, despite their income being £x.

I'm confused.

OptimisticPessimist Thu 29-Aug-13 14:44:39


OptimisticPessimist Thu 29-Aug-13 14:44:09

I say bare minimum while bearing in mind that the average CSA award the last time I checked was £35 per week (that's per award, not per child, and discounts all the zero-payment assessments - there are so many of those that they pull the average down to £25). If we assume that £35 is for one child (even though it is often slit between more) then that is half of what the Government thinks is the minimum that one child needs (based on CB and CTC levels). So yes, that is a minimal contribution. If the only way you can afford to have more children is to reduce that minimal amount, then you really cannot afford more children.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now