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!

[MrsYoungSalvoMontalbano]

Froglet - precisely - Meglet is mixing up two separate issues, which helps no-one.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

The domestic violence exemption was not a loophole.

It was an actual rule that was intentionally put there as a result of intense lobbying and consultation with refuge woman's aid and intervention partnerships.

[Viviennemary]

The CSA gets a really bad name. Perhaps if there was a new agency run in a different way things could even improve. Or is that being to optimistic.

[FrogbyAnotherName]

sock that rule to protect DA victims was removed when the now-outgoing system was introduced though, wasn't it?
The 2003 rules don't have 'special clauses' to protect DA victims, or do they? I'm not fully familiar with them, but WA never mentioned it to me when I was divorcing my ex.

If there is no current protection, then The change to the 2012 rules isn't removing protection that currently exists. It is a change that will, in a minority of cases, create additional risk for victims of DA - which the government believes other services/agencies they fund can protect against. I'm not saying that is right - but, when the fundamental principle is value for money, I can understand why it's happened.

[Owllady]

Needs, it was old scheme 90s onwards
I am not interested in complaining or getting a refund. I am relieved it's over

I was by no means suggesting those of you who use it, shouldn't. I can't believe they let people get away without paying. It's infuriating

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

They currently have one bit of protection and that's the very basic none disclosure of address and during a variation some bits of information disclosed to them can be protected from disclosure to the other party.

I have not looked into the new rules enough to work out if those are still there.

The none obligation thing was removed because it was no longer needed as the 2003 system made it not obligatory for any RP also using the DWP.

I can understand what meglet is talking about she's had however long receiving maintenance quite likely had a massive struggle to get it that probably included abuse and harassment and she knows any changes to that are going to kick it all off again especially changes that involve him paying any more money.

I can also understand why she wants to avoid the grief nobody would willingly place themselves and their children in the middle of a shit storm and not wanting to do so is good parenting.

Are we now sending a message that we only care about feckless shitty NRP's contributing towards their children if it does not cost the tax payer,that if you want to force them to pay or more realistically just to because there is nothing to suggest the service will be any better than the current one then you have to pay as well, will they refund if they are as bad at collecting as the current service?

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

Oh and fwiw the funding to the services intended to support victims has dropped lots.

[FrogbyAnotherName]

I know sock - there really is no easy answer. The CSA costs have spiralled out of control partly because separated parents "can't be bothered'" to make the effort to discuss things for their DCs, or they have been used for malicious/vexatious reasons, or (as in my case) a different piece of legislation requires it. As a result, genuine cases are not only going to be affected when they change the system, but they have never been given the priority they deserve because the service is just spread too thinly.

How else can you encourage separated parents (who have no good reasons not to co-operate) to sort things out for themselves rather than rely on state funded services? In many cases, the reality of mediation is far less traumatic than anticipated, but literally thousands of parents avoid/refuse to talk to their DCs other parent for no other reason then they can't stand the sight of each other and don't want to sit in a room with them. How can you pursuade separated mums to "put their big girls panties on" or single dads to "grow a backbone'" so that the system isn't abused by many, and it can then be tailored to meet the needs of victims like meglet who is having to choose whether to deprive her DCs of financial support in order to protect them from their Dads behaviour?

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

We could start by challenging attitudes and making it a cut and dried thing that as a minimum a absent parent is expected to pay the % on time no excuses no needing to be asked,it should just be the done thing.
Change the view that enforcing this is a punishment or somehow being spiteful.

Anybody that could prove no need to use so correct on time payments then charge the RP if not put all the charges on the head of the none paying parent.

[FrogbyAnotherName]

Anybody that could prove no need to use so correct on time payments then charge the RP if not put all the charges on the head of the none paying parent.

I like that idea - no automatic right for the RP to apply on separation, the parents have to try and cooperate (unless there is evidence of DV or other risk), and then if the NRP doesn't pay, the charge for administering is levied at the NRP.

If a RP applies claiming payment is not being made, and the NRP can prove that they have been making regular payments, the RP get charged.

It will require NRP to maintain accurate financial records (not a bad thing) and eliminate the ability for RP to demand cash, but yup - I think re-distributing the charges dependent on whom is at fault would be effective for some.
I doubt any system will eliminate the non-payers or those determined to make their ex's life difficult (both RP and NRP) but at least charging should lead to a few more scooperative parenting successes.

[timefliesby]

Thank you to whoever pointed me in the direction of the "arrears and compliance strategy 2012-2017" which I have now read. You are right, the government are saying that arrears for most cases will still be chased (except it appears for those outstanding for several years where the children are now grown up.)
I am however still skeptical. I rang the CSA and asked how the arrears would be chased. Would the resident parent have to sign up to the new system and pay their £20 in order for their case to remain a priority? They didn't know. Would the 4% charge on payments be payable on outstanding debts? They didn't know. I am afraid I think they are hoping many people just won't bother getting their case re-opened and the problem will just quietly go away...
I am seeing my MP tomorrow. To ask that these sorts of questions are answered, to make the point that the charges are unjust and to highlight my own case, which has been trundling along in a farcical manner for some time now. If anyone else has any good points to make which I can highlight...speak now....
Thank you.

[timefliesby]

Oh and it was interesting to hear that those who had been in touch with domestic abuse support groups were supposed to be handled differently by the CSA. I was told that EVERYTHING I forwarded them would be forwarded to him and I agreed because one day the kids and I would like to live in our own home again.
Well, we don't have our own home but I have had lots more vile abuse as a direct result of the CSA forwarding everything I tell them to him. Not once did they ask me if I had been subjected to domestic abuse. They are incompetent through and through.

[WanderingAway]

I have never been told that everything i tell the csa will be forwarded to my exh. Does that happen in every case?

[timefliesby]

WanderingAway best to check with them but they actually forward copies of everything I send them to him. I sent a copy of the company pay roll bank account (which I was on legitimately in my previous role as a company director). Caused me no end of grief and threats as he had forgotten I had access.

[FreckledLeopard]

I was listening to the debate on Radio 4 this morning and getting irate. Of course it would be nice to be able to come to an agreement about maintenance with DD's father between ourselves. Problem is, given he denied paternity, refused to have anything to do with us and has only met DD twice (after taking 13 years to get his head around the idea that he has a child), I'm not sure that coming to a mutual arrangement would be possible.

As it is, the CSA have been involved on several occasions yet he's never paid a penny for his daughter. I have given up.

Having said that, if the new system somehow did manage to extract maintenance from him (according to chap on radio this morning, the system will link directly to HMRC, and if the agency can't get money then no-one is financially penalised) then I wouldn't mind paying £20. But if it's the same crap, inept and useless system, but now they want us to pay for it, then it's even worse than before.

I wish that they would jail non-paying parents. Might give them the shock they need to get off their arses and take responsibility. I doubt it though...

[JohnFarleysRuskin]

The CSA was useless.

But this, this move is terrible, disgusting. They might as well give feckless parents a handshake and a pat on the back.

[MaliceInWonderland78]

I'm gonig to take a slightly different view here. I should point out that I beleive every parent should be required to support their children, both financially and emotionally.

It's been clear for some time that the CSA was unfit for purpose. It was ineffective, and one imagines, quite expensive to run.

My issue is that we live in a welfare state, whereby single parents are given money by the State with which to raise their children. I'm not saying that the amount is enough, though I have a family member who manages quite well, but rather I note that the money which would be collected by the CSA is totally disregarded in terms of claculating the RP's income. Which menas that a woman (and it usually is the woman) who lives on benefits and has a partner who pays is materially better off than a woman who lives on benefits and has a partner who doesn't pay. In those circumstances, surely the State should recover the costs from the NRPs? As things stood, the taxpayer in many instances was paying to raise some feckless idiots kids, and then spending more money unsuccessfully trying to get money out of those that wouldn't pay.

The above wouldn't apply to working parents of course. In those circumstances the NRP should be forced to pay up and meet the appropriate costs.

[Lottieandmia]

The problem with private arrangements is that even when the NRP starts out with good intentions, they often just decide to stop paying one day, which is what happened to me and the NRP didn't inform me and this was money I was relying on. So when the new system starts I will still be using it because I cannot afford for a sudden opt out like before.

The thing that pisses me off which they don't publicise is that the amount they take off the NRP in maintenance is going to be less than it is now....to make room for them to take 20% fees from the NRP.

Why is this government taxing children? And taxing money that has already been taxed? I expect the stupid Tories would say that families should stay together, no matter what. After all they hate lone parents.

[Lottieandmia]

By the way, I have not found the CSA to be useless in my case, except at one part of the process. I complained and it was sorted out immediately. It depends on the case worker you get.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

malice

They tried doing it that way when they first set up the CSA,it had the result of plunging huge amounts of lone parents into serious poverty some ending up with around £4/5 a week in benefits and not receiving the CM they were meant to. So putting them significantly below benefit levels of income.

Also my personal opinion on the matter is if one parent works why shouldn't their child's lifestyle be lifted above benefit levels,why should they only be entitled to benefit level financial support when they have a parent with the financial means to change that.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

timefliesby

I haven't had time to go through all the new docs/rules ect as I've been manically trying to up my knowledge of UC.

Would you mind giving me the low down on self employed NRP's when a oddly considered means tested benefit that is not actually means tested benefit like a army disablement pension is in payment, the self employment is not disputed just the standard I only earn 2p a week yet drive a Aston Martin thing happens.

What the process is,is there a variation,would it be possible to apply for CM and a variation or departure at exactly the same time.

If you have a current award via CSA that say took 5/6 years to get any payment at all and is now in payment with a variation applied whats the chance of your CM being reduced by the new system.

[HowardTJMoon]

I note that the money which would be collected by the CSA is totally disregarded in terms of claculating the RP's income.

Do you know why that is? It's because non-res parents are so often unreliable about voluntarily paying maintenance. When they did link benefits to child maintenance payments it cost so much to keep adjusting the benefits to take account of the non-res parent's failure to pay that it ended up costing the government more than it would to just make it a flat-rate for everyone.

The biggest problem with child maintenance payments in the UK is the large number of non-res parents who believe they have no obligation to pay child maintenance. The longer that it is made easy for them to get away with this the longer there will be these problems.

In the US dead-beat non-res parents can, and do, have all sorts of sanctions applied against them up to and including jail time. Here? The CSA is writing off £3.5billion in unpaid maintenance because it's just too much effort to obtain. And, remember, that's only where there has been a determination that maintenance is due but it hasn't been paid. It doesn't include all the situations where the non-res parent has fiddled their apparent income to make it look like they shouldn't be paying as much as they really should.

[deakymom]

they even charge you if you have to send the bailiffs in to the nrp honestly it would be cheaper to let him get away with it or hire a dodgy man to break his legs