To ask about CSA changes - is anyone happy?

[pennypinchingnamechanger]

Sorry not a very exciting AIBU but just a topic of discussion I thought others might be interested in...

Everything I have read on here so far about the new Child Maintenance changes, moving from CSA to CMS, the charges, the new rules etc has been negative.

We will be better off financially under CMS rules.

AIBU to ask if anyone else will benefit from the changes too?

Sorry meant to add, CMS rules are that when care is shared exactly equally no maintenance is payable.

The idea of the higher charge for the paying parent is that it will encourage them the agree a private arrangement. the pay £110, child gets £110, rather than they pay £120, child gets £96. win-win

One of the issues I see after reading the new rules is that all parents that are currently paying by by deduction of earnings (ie those who refused to pay and avoided paying for a good while) will be given chance for a "fresh start" and DDO's will all be cancelled and the paying parent given a chance to pay direct. Ridiculous!

Happymum - The CSA is also a collection service for very vulnerable children and I find your comments are harsh and judgemental. By your reckoning, those on any credits/benefits should also have to pay to be reassessed, really?

You seem to have a misguided view of CSA service users. We were all encouraged to use the service and if we could have come to a fair arrangement, the vast majority of decent people who put their children first, would have done. The service is a last resort.

As the CSA applies a standard percentage to all NRP, dependent on shared care etc, it is hard to see why you would think most people would use this as some kind of weapon, as the ultimate decision is out of their hands. I would like the Agency to award my grandson 40 a week, but it isn't going to happen because his dad is self employed, the renowned system of fair payment avoidance.

I would never, ever make a direct agreement because it is so very hard to re-establish long fought for payments for my lovely grandson which is incredibly stressful, nor are payments backdated.

Why you think a combined payment of 24% plus set up fee of 20 is insignificant beats me - 20 is nearly a week's child support for my GS.

Ican'tstopeatinglol - I agree and lets hope that's the case.

In 50/50 cases I agree there shouldn't be any maintance to pay.

We have a deduction of earnings order in place as the ex is very evasive with paying maintenance and not declaring his pay rises.

Will the charges still apply do you know?

We will be screwed if they stop the deductions order. Properly screwed.

I've had no letter from the CSA yet either to inform me of the changes

I will lose out. My ex actively avoided any calls from the CSA and after months and months they set up a DOE and only now do I receive money regularly.

When do these changes come in to effect?

Yes all paying parents with deduction of earnings order will be given the chance to pay direct . With the incentive that if they don't a new Deduction of earnings will be out in place and they will have to pay 20% on top.

How can they prove that they're paying? My ex will just see it as an opportunity to avoid payments for a few months until a new order is in place. He is already having to 'over' pay to pay off what he owes as it is

How will he be able to pay direct when we don't have any contact with each other and haven't done for 5yrs?!

What my sister and her ex have done is set up an account he pays in and sister takes the money out.

That way as he says that he has proof of paying maintence.

I received WTC as a lone parent, as a top up to my wages. CTC when I claimed income support and wasn't working. Anyway, if parents come to a private arrangement and agree to share costs with no maintenance liability then it isn't an issue. I'm talking about situations where one parent refuses to contribute at all to child related costs, knowing that the other parent won't see the child go without and therefore will pick up the slack.

My friend had shared care, more or less 50-50 but slightly in her favour. She ended up going to the CSA because her ex point blank refused to make any contribution to the basics. He would rather the child missed out on a school trip or wasn't adequately dressed for school, and refused to pay for any school dinners. I think in situations like that there should be some recourse.

icansee my ex would pay it in then take it out again if we did that

But Basgetti in your friends case surely she was receiving Child Benefit for the children so that could be used to pay for things such as school dinners and school trips if ex had 50:50 equal care?

Those that say 20% isn't a big amount....it really is, especially in cases where a private arrangement could be made but the ex insists on going through CSA or whatever it is now called..

£20 a week, school dinners are over £10 a week on their own, they have a very strict logo uniform for which she had to spend well nearly 200 pounds up front. She couldn't do packed lunches because the school didn't let you mix and match and her ex insisted the DC had school dinners. She was definitely out of pocket regardless of child benefit and was willing to pay more based on getting that. He refused to contribute anything.

He was also a nasty piece of work and she had great difficulty trying to negotiate with him. It was far easier for her to receive a small amount of maintenance and accept responsibility for all costs for the DC.

Fair enough Basgetti. Slightly different to norm situation. Most schools don't cost a fortune in uniform though.

When care is shared equally (as is the case of my DH's child) it isn't fair that one pays the other maintenance in most cases. Each parent provides a home, food, clothes and other home associated costs. The child benefit is enough to pay other little costs such as school dinners and uniform. Actually in our case DH's ex refuses to pay anymore than her "half" so we pay half of school dinners, half of school trips and have all uniform here as she does at hers as we pay half of dance club activities. This is despite her currently getting the Child Benefit, Tax credits and maintenance from DH. When we change to CMS she will still get the benefit and tax credits just no maintenance.

The child benefit is enough to pay other little costs such as school dinners and uniform.

Not necessarily. If for example you have 3 children all on school dinners, that's over 30 pound a week out of the 47 CB before you've even started on school uniforms, trips, shoes and extra curricular activities. I agree that the parent in receipt of it should pay more to reflect this, but it shouldn't automatically absolve the other parent of any costs.

In my area school dinners are £11 and a bus pass £16.50 each child so cb doesn't cover those costs.

penny Im afraid they do. I have three high schools in the town I live in and in the past five years or so they have all changed their uniforms. £56 for a blazer now. I don't have DC but I have friends that do.

Jacks365. The point in trying to make is parents with equal shared care who share most "extra" costs shouldn't have one parent paying the other maintenance. Only one parent can get the benefit and tax credits so that's obviously useable for some of the extras.

It's £15 per sweatshirt just for my 5 year old and he goes through quite a few each term. And his feet grow every month and due to how wide they are cheapy ones are no good. It all adds up, and CB isn't intended to cover all costs, just to help contribute. I'm shocked that anyone would think it covers everything.

Basgetti. I agree with you. Costs should be shared if more than CB and tax credits. But what is currently happening is one parent (usually mum) gets CB, tax credits and maintenance from the other parent (usually dad) when he has equal shared residency.