Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be astounded that the CSA are going to take a cut of maintenance payments?

152 replies

Inertia · 17/03/2011 18:34

Link here : m.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/13/fees-child-maintenance-intervention?cat=society&type=article

How on earth can the government justify this ?

OP posts:
FabbyChic · 17/03/2011 18:39

They are providing a service, why should they not be paid for that service? Not unlike you might pay a solicitor. It isn't new news, it's old news.

usualsuspect · 17/03/2011 18:42

Its a bloody disgrace

expatinscotland · 17/03/2011 18:42

Why are they supposed to do it for free?

FabbyChic · 17/03/2011 18:48

They get an attachment to an errant fathers earnings, that would cost you money if not for the CSA. I think they should be paid for the service.

usualsuspect · 17/03/2011 18:50

What service? they are worse than useless

FabbyChic · 17/03/2011 18:50

But how can anyone complain when the service is free, if they are paid for it they would have to do a better job at it.

BellsaRinging · 17/03/2011 18:52

They should only require payment if they are successful in getting regular maintenance payments from the NRP.

usualsuspect · 17/03/2011 18:52

Would they? doubt it somehow

DollyTwat · 17/03/2011 18:53

Agree usualsuspect, if they are going to charge for the service they currently provide, then that's not acceptable at all.

If I'm going to pay them then I expect them to call me, update me etc

Original poster
Inertia · 17/03/2011 20:16

FabbyChic- I can't see the logic in saying that if they are paid for it they'll provide a better service- it's not as though single parents can go to an alternative enforcement provider; also they'd need to resolve whatever operational problems currently dog them. Paying for a service doesn't magically transform it into a model of efficiency.

They don't provide the service for free- it's a taxpayer-funded public body, which should be available to those that require its services. If I get mugged and the police recover my purse, they don't expect to take a percentage of money in it before they return it to me- because the police force is a taxpayer-funded organisation.

Finally, it seems crazy to impose a further financial penalty on those who are already likely to be in financial difficulty.

OP posts:
FabbyChic · 17/03/2011 20:18

I don't believe they will be charging those on benefits. But they will charge those who work and have a certain standing. If you want your child support sorted any other way you have to go via a solicitor, a solicitor is not free and costs.

DollyTwat · 17/03/2011 20:26

IF they can't get the money off your ex now, then no matter what you pay them is going to make a whole lot of difference is it?
Those of us who have walked this road for a number of years know that.

But for new cases, I think it will mean that lots of absent parents are going to get away with not paying, because the resident parent can't afford to pay for the service. If they aren't going to get some sort of guarantee or money back if they are unsuccessful or a different kind of service to what's on offer now, then many won't bother.

PrincessScrumpy · 17/03/2011 20:46

Okay, but why should I pay my taxes so that the CSA can badly chase a bad parent who fails to pay for his/her kids.

I have a feeling the CSA is yet another government agency that wastes huge amounts on cash and doesn't actually do a good job.

I think it should be a criminal offence not to pay for your kids and the police should get involved. If exes don't pay then they go to prison in the same way the would if they failed to pay for something they took from a shop. We might need a lot more prisons if my friends' experiences are anything to go by!

HappyMummyOfOne · 17/03/2011 20:52

They offer a service, nobody is forced to use it and if you choose to it should come with a fee like many other services. Perhaps more private arrangements will be made and the CSA wont be used as often as a weapon by the NRP.

Its a small fee so wont be costly to users but the state shouldnt have to provide free services to people who's relationship has broke down or wasnt actually a relationship in the first place.

BooBooGlass · 17/03/2011 20:56

Believe it or not happymumofone, yes, some people do have to use it. In my case, I have a feckless ex who changed his mind about having a baby, about 25 weeks too damn late, and has shirked responsibility ever since. So no, a private arrangement will not work- hence the CSA existing in the firts place. I assume the posters who are sayign what a great idea this is have never suffered the frustration of dealing with the CSA. They have no powers to actually do anything, my ex must be laughing all the way to the bank. And frankly, that big Dave C thinks this is even morally a good decision, to fuck with economics, that just say it all. He doesn't care about single parents, and he is giving the absent parent even more ability to fuck off than they already have. Bravo Dave. Fucking bravo Angry

4FoxAche · 17/03/2011 20:59

What about when the NRP wants to come to a private arrangement but the RP declines and uses the CSA?

Does the NRP parent have to pay the CSA costs or does whoever started the claim have to because this is the situation we are in at the moment.

HerBeX · 17/03/2011 21:00

Yes YABU.

Don't you know this government hates women and hates single mothers in particular?

IF anyone gets charged to use it, it should be the 60% of non resident parents who think it's absolutely OK not to financially support their children. There's no reason the tax payer should pay for it, but the reason that lone parents use the service, is because non-resident parents don't think they have an obligation to support their children. And the state agrees with them.

usualsuspect · 17/03/2011 21:03

Some people haven't got a fucking clue

but its ok ,its only the feckless single mothers that will suffer .I mean who gives a toss about them

bloody idiot Tories Angry

corlan · 17/03/2011 21:37

Ah HappyMummy if only we all lived in your happy little world!

Unfortunately, some of us had children with men who turn out to be not very honest or very nice and for some reason do not wish to support their children voluntarily. I am such a woman and if was not for the CSA I have no doubt my ex would not be paying any support for his child.

If this bill goes through, I ( and in reality, my children) will pay for a service we have to use because of my XP's dishonesty. Not my dishonesty, not my lack of responsibility - but someone elses. I'm trying to think of another situation where the victim has to pay for justice and I'm struggling.

What will happen is that more children will fall into poverty and more feckless men will get away without supporting their children. That's the reality.

Original poster
Inertia · 17/03/2011 21:43

HappyMummyOfone, if people want to make private arrangements and both parties agree, then they don't need to use the CSA. In cases like BooBooGlass describes, the fact that the CSA will charge makes no difference to the father who buggered off, because he wouldn't be paying the charge anyway- BooBooGlass would be. And the argument about other services incurring a fee is ludicrous, as the CSA is funded from taxes. Many single parents are taxpayers- are you saying they have to pay twice?

HerBeX, to be honest I think that , whilst obviously every effort should be made to ensure that parents meet their financial responsibilities to their children, I do think the state should be there to provide support to families in financial need without then charging them to run the service.

OP posts:
Original poster
Inertia · 17/03/2011 21:45

Exactly, Corlan.

OP posts:
HerBeX · 17/03/2011 21:53

I agree with you Inertia

I am always simply outraged by these arseholes who fail to feel absolute outrage that the majority of non-resident parents don't pay a penny towards the maintenance of their children while feeling slightly outraged that resident lone parents think that the state should actually put its service at our disposal.

If most non-resident parents were women and most resident parents were men, NRP's who didn't pay maintenance would simply go to prison.

The double standards is absolutely shocking and yet so normal, that everyone forgets to be shocked.

Newbabynewmum · 17/03/2011 21:58

HappyMummy ... Ridiulous.

Is it my fault my EXP decide to become highly abusive and take drugs after I had our DD? And my fault that he won't agree an amount with me to pay for our DD? Because it's people like me being affected like this, my DD who will receive less because of this ridiculous new rule.

Bloody Tories

Original poster
Inertia · 17/03/2011 22:00

HerBeX, I think it's partly because those who make the decisions are so distanced from circumstances like this that they do not comprehend what an impact it has on people's lives to be left penniless (or worse, in debt) when a partner walks out on the family. £100 isn't much when you have a family fortune to fall back on, or 4 million in trust funds. It's a lot of money to most people who are in a position where they need the services of the CSA.

OP posts:
corlan · 17/03/2011 22:08

HerBex - you're right we should all be outraged.

It's like some strange twisted reality where the person that stays, takes responsibility and looks after their child is vilified and looked down on and the one that pisses off happily into the sunset escapes condemnation ( and very often escapes financial responsibility).

Swipe left for the next trending thread