CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

After reading some of the things that people have put on here in response to my own personal experiences I'm bowing out of this thread. It's clear discussion is not welcome and it's all NRP basing. Sadly every man is feckless and every mother a saint don't bother sending your nasty little replies I won't be back to get upset about them. Good luck to those who really will affected by all this drama the children!

I think that this is an anti-woman anti-child piece of legislation.
I have a friend who the CSA has consistently failed over 10 years. Her ex-husband has changed his reasons for not paying over that time. At first it was that she would be welcome to return to him and he would make proper provision for the children. Then it was that the CSA had decided that he should pay too much. Another time it was because he didn't see why he should be contributing to her slimming course and so on.
As someone else said earlier on this thread he has taken lots of different ways of hiding his income including cash in hand, self employment, helpful bosses and so on.
She has worked hard and been able to give the children a reasonable standard of living - the point is that she shouldn't have had to do it without a reasonable contribution from her ex-husband.
His current CSA assessment for the two children is £5 per week which is a bad joke. Even on the previous CSA assessments he owes her many thousands of pounds. The idea that she should pay to get the CSA to do something which they have so spectacularly failed to do over years is ridiculous.
My friend has never used his lack of contribution to make contact difficult and he has regular access to them when he can be bothered.
Perhaps the government has fallen for its own stereotypical image of feckless single mothers instead of looking at the facts of the case.

Surely it's like asking the victims of crime to pay for the police?

John Not really. Unless you wanted to criminalise not paying child support which perhaps they should

*We're on the other side with a very spiteful and vindictive RP. We pay £800 maintenance every month - we've offered time and time to do it directly (provide payslips as evidence etc) but she has refused and chooses to do it via CSA.

Undoubtedely she will want to cost us as much as possibke and use the new service- surely we won't have to pay 20% extra because she wants to be a bitch*

see...in a situation like this, there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. What is the history? You may well pay a sizeable amount but there are only three reasons for that:
a) your partner earns very well
b) your partner doesn't earn quite so well and has arrears so is paying them off which suggests non-compliance and/or a history of non payment at some point
c) your partner is paying arrears as a result of the CSA being a bit slow about things or some other issue related to poor administration.
.

If your partner earns well and the PWC has no reason to believe that payment will be made, then of course, she may well be being difficult. But even saying that, it is not unreasonable to want to know that the maintenance money will come in on time, every time. As it stands, the CSA is the only organisation that can help with that. If there is a history of non-payment then using the CSA is also reasonable. And if the CSA have previously been slow at assessing, well, that means the PWC will have gone a period of time without maintenance and will, inevitably, fear moving away from them because of potential problems if she has to go back to them. None of those things make her a 'bitch', do they? It's simple budgetry and household management.

If you haven't always been on the scene, what is the history? Do you have evidence of payment prior to you being on the scene? Has your partner at some point used the threat of non payment of maintenance as a means to get at his ex? If the answer is no, how are you so sure?

And no, you won't have to pay extra, providing that you make the payments on time, every time. It is only when you miss payments that the PWC will be able to ask the CSA to get involved. It is written into the new scheme that PWC shouldn't be able to get away with using the CSA as some kind of weapon.

People seem to be missing the point that CSA 20% of annual wage is a MINIMUM requirement. Man in families usually contribute much more (assuming NRP is male in this case).

Everyone saying PAYE should be the way to go - yes, this is the first port of call when the NRP is being difficult - you get an order to get CSA paid directly from their employer.

Sadly the next stage for many is to pretend they quit their job and are now self employed/found their own business and then pay dividends to themselves and hide earnings that way. THEY ARE NOT ON THE PAYE SYSTEM ANY MORE. I just want to make it clear how easy this is for all men to do.

I would really like to see some figures of how many NRP are apparently budding entrepreneurs and have their own business/are self employed! Maybe these figures are helpful to the govt in some way, perhaps pretending we are thriving economically or full of investment opportunities? When really it is a sham company and merely being fed off the back of other larger companies who are committing tax evasion. That issue a bit harder and more expensive to sort out, so perhaps easier to pretend it isn't happening and go with the idea we are great at helping small start up companies! What a wonderful place to live! Funny how none of them go bankrupt within the first 5 years though

*All men AND WOMEN can do this obviously, before we get another sexism derailment!

Hello all, I haven't had time to catch up with all the replies yet but I did just take a sojourn over to The Gingerbread chat thread on the changes. I found out the following.

• That current cases in the CSA system will close between 2014 - 2018. - You will get a letter six months before your case is closed.
• Any outstanding arrears will still stand (but the CSA will be closed so what enforcement is in place to recoup these arrears?)
• RPs can choose to re-open their cases under the CMS whereby they can choose to carry over the arrears...BUT enforcement action won't be carried over (what does this mean? That arrears are carried over just to sit on account?).

I can't see any meaningful plans for enforcement at all. Anyone found anything on this? I will ask Gingerbread. Also, the new system won't be any better for those chasing payment from self employed NRP. Yes, the new service gets a direct line to HMRC but they aren't planning to be any more proactive in investigating tax evaders than they are now. So that's me still screwed then !

(scroll down and choose CSA talk from dropdown) www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/711/Advice-Sessions?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Gingerbread&utm_campaign=4163950_Membership+monthly+enew+May+2014&utm_content=CSAOnlineinfosession&dm_i=KP,2H8XA,8Q97C5,90SRC,1

Then I looked into the new calculation by the CMS. It's a lower percentage taken but on gross salary instead of net. There's a good link here. It looks like although the calculation is changing, liabilities will remain roughly the same. www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed113401

Fedupbutfne

Yes dh earns ok which means the maintenance is that high. No arrears to pay off never been in arrears.

He was paying £1200 a month by agreement which wasn't enough she wanted more so went to the csa, and it went down. Dh continued paying £1200 whilst csa processed it and they adjusted it accordingly.

Dh has a schedule showing the payments made and he has never missed one. On one occasion csa cocked it up and didn't send money on to her- cue a flurry of nasty texts from her saying that she'll pull access.

I cannot imagine dh would threaten to not pay, why would he? It's his son and wants him to be looked after.

It seems to pain you to accept that some women do use the csa and the children as a weapon against their partners amd that dh must in sone way be to blame.
Dh does not begrudge the maintenance in anyway just the fact that the csa are involved who are a nightmare to deal with.

Also between changing jobs dh was unempliyed for a week, csa calculated that he didn't have to pay maintenance that week. Dh didn't think this was fair so sent her a cheque for it, which she duly cashed!!

She is just a bitch

There seem to be an awful lot of people who choose to have children and claim to have been with their partners for yrs before having children and then their partner leaves them, they slag them off on MNs, then blame the CSA for not sorting it all out.

Surely we do need to take some responsibility for our judgements. These men seem to have no issue with starting again with someone else and quickly having a second family so there are clearly some very naive women around.

Erm, I am not sure why your DH having a week unpaid would mean his kids don't need food or money?
Your DH sounds like a much better man than most in the system - one of only 2 out of 5 willing to pay, and probably a tiny percentage ontop of that small figure who is willing to pay above the minimum amount.
I think the system is cracking under the weight of all of the NRP who mess it about and need chasing only to drop out of the PAYE system altogether.
FWIW I'd happily give half of the thousands he really owes me back to the system if they would just knuckle down and do some (not very labour intensive) work to show he is earning a proper wage.

Why aren't more politicians jumping on this? I think most women would value a party who has the brains to realise with divorce rates rising this is going to be an ongoing issue for a growing majority of families. Putting it up for discussion in the media should be something everyone has an interest in.

Yes of course handcream- it is the women who are responsible for men choosing not to support their children.
Those men arent responsible for their actions at all are they?

These men seem to have no issue with starting again with someone else and quickly having a second family so there are clearly some very naive women around.
I assume you are talking about the women who know what these men are capable of and get with them anyway? Yes, they are very naive, but give it a few years and a baby...

They have to take some responsibility for choosing to have children with that particular man. I don't see anyone saying 'how could I have been so silly'. All I see on this thread is slagging off of their ex's, and the second partners slagging off them.

Yes because asshole's dont tend to carry a sign telling they will be the perfect man until they have impregnanted you and decided it's not all its cracked up to be at which point they will sod off, oh and dont expect anything from them. Do they?

Surely you have to question your own judgement as opposed to washing your hands of what happened and what you chose to do and they blaming the CSA for it all.

Well it doesn't say much for women that they allow this to happen

Why doesn't the man "have to take responsibility" in your view handcream? Why aren't you telling them off for choosing partners who were silly enough to believe them when they said their would be there as a supportive father? What great choices HE made! Why would you want to "get with" someone who not only can ignore his child and not pay for them but also has a history with a 'mental/nasty/feckless/lazy' (choose whichever lie he has spun) woman?

This is about paying for children, not about the parents. The only problem is NRP don't like that and so become difficult which in turn makes RP's angry. It also works the other way, which is why this thread is heated at times. It is a sensitive issue, as is any when it concerns children.

Whereas the men who are actually the ones shitting all over the children are not to be held accountable? Really?

(Not all NRP - again!)

I actually think that some women do believe everything that is told to them, they would rather be with someone than no one so they ignore the red flags. That isn't the fault of the 'government'.

So a mother's naivety means a child should live in poverty in your view?

If someone does something wrong are we not to blame them for their actions?

NRPs who dont pay for their children are responsible for that action.

The RPs who are raising the children are living up to their end of the deal (and more usually)

Going to the Csa to get an NRP to pay is the action of a responsible RP

If CSA are useles then yes- they desere any bollocking they get for it. The RPs are not responsible for CSA being shite at collecting.

If an NRP isnt paying then yes- they deserve the bollocking they get for it. The RPs are not responsible for NRPs not paying.

If a RP isnt paying for their own child then they deserve a bollocking because that is what is their responsibility.

CSA and NRP is not the RPs responsibility and cant be blamed for them failing to live up to their responsibilities.

Get it handcream?

The whole system is unfair imo. I am an NRP (DS lives with unemployed XH) and struggle to support my DD on the £5 per week I receive from him, I have to pay a chunk of my not wonderful salary to XH. Before the CSA got involved I always bought DS clothes, trainers, gave him money and paid a mobile contract for him. Now I do none of those things - XH has to pay for them. I have always worked and the previous 5-6 years when I had both children I never approached the CSA.