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!

It should be wound into the neglect laws which are currently incredible sexist towards women.

If a woman does not feed her kids or provide them with nappies there is a neglect charge yet a man can sit IN HER HOME eating M+S ready meals and refusing to pay for her food or HIS OWN CHILDRENS upbringing because 'the child benefit pays for it' and it is not neglect.

It needs to be. You make a child? You raise it, you don't want to make a child put a fucking condom on. End of story.

The neglect laws should cover financial neglect of both resident and non-resident parents. I am sick of hearing about women who have to beg scraps of money from their OH's for food for them and their kids. Hold these men accountable.

You know why they are doing this? 10 years ago (ish, don't quote me on this) maintenance used to be used when they calculated benefits, housing benefit and so forth as it was classed as income. The Labour Gov thought this was unfair so ruled that child maintenance payments could no longer be used in this way and it's cost billions

That isn't true. [that it's cost billions] As others have said, the above rule came about because single parents who would have income support adjusted to reflect CM payments, then wouldn't get that CM from the NRP, so would be left short.

Only 38% of single parents receive CM from their childs other parent.

The majority of single parents work [that is influenced by the age of their youngest child and goes up as the childrens age goes up] despite what some would have you believe.

The issue is those NRPs that don't pay anything.

I agree with Niceguy that it needs to become socially unacceptable for NRPs to not support their children, but agree also that it can be hard to know the truth, though there are some pretty obvious pointers IMO!

Howard I should have made it clear, I beleive that the State should provide benefit to single parents - in order to ensure that regular payments are made, but then the State should also recover the cost from the NRP -and retain it for the public purse. What I'm against is the taxpayer paying to bring up somebody's children, and then the individual concerned merely 'topping up' the benefit.

I pay 100% of the costs in raising my children.

I also 100% believe that there needs to be a change in public perception. Trusting most people to make their own arragnements is a good start.

This doesn't effect me but I'm bloody angry for every one of you that it does. Shame on this government.

Hold tight, I'm not sure this is the Government's fault. I'm struggling to see how anyone is materially worse off. I think the charges are reasonable. It's just a shame that they're necessary.

A woman I used to work with split from her fiance, they had a young baby. She was on income support prior to returning to work when her child was about 2?

Her EX agreed to give her £30 a week CM. She notified the benefits agency, they paid her £30 a week income support, it was originally £60, but they -£30 because of the CM.

She also got around £20 in child benefit [give or take-this was a while ago!]

So, she was living on about £80 a week, which was tight, but that's what it was. Except for the weeks when her EX was being an arse and didn't pay the CM.

£30 doesn't seem much, but going without that and only having £50 was the difference between eating/ heating on and not.

That is why the then gov decided to disregard CM in benefit calculations.

NeedsAsockamnesty I don't know the answer to that I'm afraid. My understanding is that we are all categorised differently. I've been told my case is staying with CSA for the time being. Your best bet is to ring the CSA and find out how you've been categorised and whether they are moving you over to the new system anytime soon. You'll need your national insurance number but you probably already know that. Contact numbers for ease www.gov.uk/child-support-agency

What I'm against is the taxpayer paying to bring up somebody's children, and then the individual concerned merely 'topping up' the benefit

I would like to find some statistics that show how many RPs on benefits actually get any CM, or if they do, whether it is more than a 'zero calculation' ETC

I doubt it is the fortunes some might be imagining.

Amber I don't know (though I know of two people personally). The point I was trying to make is that the govertment (rather than the resident parent) should go after the NRPs that refuse to pay - whether or not the RP (if they're on benefits) was minded to lodge a claim.

one young lady I work with has been told by her ex-partner to accept a lower amount (which he does pay) or try her luck with the CSA which he'd do his level best to avoid paying

I want to see the breakdown of their costs etc to see that we are getting 'value for money' for the 20% charge (heard there's also a 4% charge to the resident parent but I'm not sure)
I'm truly disgusted by this, the reason the csa was struggling was partly because people couldn't agree so it's over subscribed. All that will happen is further bullying by the nrp and ultimately even less money for the children.
Awful awful awful

The point I was trying to make is that the govertment (rather than the resident parent) should go after the NRPs that refuse to pay - whether or not the RP (if they're on benefits) was minded to lodge a claim

That is what happens, unless the RP specifically request they don't because of DV concerns. [ I think some posters have mentioned that already?] If you make a claim for income support as a single parent, there is a section of the form that covers CSA/CM claim

Yes, but I think the money should go to the State, not the RP. The State is then sort of acting as guarantor.

Amberleaf Gingerbread has all sorts of statistics...like these.

Child maintenance

Only two-fifths (38 per cent) of single parents receive maintenance from their child’s other parent (31)
For all those with an agreement for child maintenance (both through the CSA and private arrangement) the median weekly amount received is £46 per family (32)
The average amount of child maintenance liable to be paid through the CSA is currently £33.50 per week (£22.50 if all cases with a weekly assessment of zero are included in the average). (33) Among parents with care in receipt of income-related benefits, the average amount is £23 (excluding cases with a weekly assessment of zero) (34)
Of single parents receiving child maintenance through the CSA, 40 per cent receive less than £10 per week, 38 per cent receive between £10 and £50 per week and 22 per cent receive more than £50 per week (35)

timeflies, yes Ive seen those and think I delved deeper from the sources those stats come from on other threads about this sort of thing. [not got the time to right now though!]

I'll try to find something specific to RPs on benefits later.

I'm a RP. The NRP has never paid a penny. I went to CSA nearly year ago and they haven't managed to get anything.

If I were to pay 20 for this service, am I then a consumer of the service and protected by consumer legislation? Do I have a legal complaint if the CSA does not provide the service I have paid for?

This topic on The Today Programme can be listened to here www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043x86b
You need to scroll to 1:33:20

Outrageous... iv been fighting 2 years to get anything cos he keeps avoiding their phone calls and cancelling direct debits as soon as one is set up. He didnt turn up to court so how do you expect I make an amicable agreement. No contact details. When I asked for money in cash 2 years ago when he first started contact centre he said no chance ill pay through csa. He knew full well he wouldn't have to pay anything. He saw him on and off for a year. Whilst I had to pay for my solicitor he got it free. So thats more money I wasted when it could of been spent on my child. If I have to pay im gonna have to give up. How is that fair!!

I agree with nice guy2 too

bibliomania they are getting around that by saying the £20 is to set up your claim and calculate the payments. Then you can choose to take the arrangement private (which is free). The 4% and 20% kick in only if the NRP doesn't pay and the CSA have to chase. These were called "collection charges" on The Today Programme. What I want to know is what happens if the NRP says "yes I'll pay"...so case is closed with CSA and then the NRP doesn't actually pay. Does the RP pay £20 again to re-open the case to get the CSA to chase them or can the RP just go back to the CSA and say "enforce this"...

It's stupid it's bad enough when an ex knows they've got away with paying hardly anything to they're own child's up bringing as there's nothing to stop them this will give them even more of a chance of not paying anything

Nearly every time I have called the CSA I have had someone say that they know the system is broken and it annoys them. I have had some very helpful advice and some not so helpful advice (where the operator sounded like she had heard it so many times and just knew there was no point talking about it as nothing would be done) but definately a general feeling that they sympathise but are powerless to help.

This is not what you want from a free service, let alone having to pay for it.
If we are to pay for it, are they going to change anything? Actually use the money to go after the NRP for false declarations of earnings? Pay for someone to repossess that shiny Audi the NRP just bought on minimum wage? Pay out for a bit of digging with Companies House? I think we should have some kind of feedback as to what our £ will entitle us to.

The main trouble here is the perception of single parent's as an underclass, usually because they have little money. It should be patently obvious that the reason they have little money is usually the NRP doing a runner and hiding their salary. I am always confused as to why politicians don't wake up and scoop up the single parent 'underclass' as a campaign to show figures on how it lifts people out of poverty whilst reclaiming tax from NRP by reforming CSA and using their powers to prosecute - it seems like an obvious win-win. It seems that people are happy to ignore, until it happens to them. Sadly then their voice isn't perceived as important any more.

I agree that in most cases it should be easy for a single mother to get money for her child from the father.

However, a friend of mine may or may not have a son. His ex split with him before he was born, she'd been cheating for most of the relationship. She let him see the baby occasionally if he came to her house to do so, until when he was about 18 months old when my friend got a new girlfriend (I can't see an issue, she's a nursery nurse!, and the girlfriend didn't have to be present for him to see the child) , subsequently she refused to let him see the little boy who is now nearly 3. She regularly changes her number, so she can call him when she wants to but he can't call her as her number keeps changing so arranging contact is nearly impossible, particularly as when he can get through to her and she says yes and agrees to meet him somewhere, she always cancels at the last minute. He hasn't seen the boy once in nearly a year and a half. She frequently changes her mind on whether or not he is his and refused money per month when he offered it, preferring to go to CSA who said he had to pay 40% of his low income (approx £200 a week) despite her having refused to put him on the birth certificate, including arrears (out of his control, he moved house when they were first sending letters and didn't know about it until they found his new address). He was told to contest it he had to pay several hundreds of pounds for a DNA test.
Why should he have to pay when she refused money off him so that CSA would sting him, she won't let him see the child and it's not even certain that he's the father?

We also have our own case, where dp got custody of my dsd last year, his ex was unhappy about ss moving her from her, so made a CSA claim when she found out it was going to happen, when there had been a private arrangement between him and her, and between him and his other ex for his other 2 children. CSA contacted the other ex who jumped at the opportunity to join in and said she would like to make a claim too. They sent him an amount to pay based on a week he covered for someone else and earned £80 extra, so were trying to overcharge him massively, and they put the amount up when they found out dsd 3 lives with us- this nearly crippled us as I'm a student nurse and so only get a small bursary- we didn't qualify for benefits like housing benefit , yet what we had barely covered rent, bills and food and dp had to pay to travel to work which was also not taken into consideration- how they expected him to to support and house a child on the amount he was left with I don't know (they didn't know I existed so for all they knew he could have been left with only £120- 140 a week plus I think it was £150 tax credits a week) Our rent is £825 and bills come to nearly £300 a month as we have storage heaters and barely any insulation. (and no we don't have unnecessaries, we don't even plug in our TV to the airial to avoid needing a licence and don't have a car etc)

He got made redundant (they were kind and didn't fire him because he hadn't been there long enough for redundancy pay) because he missed work a lot with stress and not being able to afford the transport and DSD often needed him home due to problems she has. So for the past few months he's been on carers allowance as DSD who lives with us has a disability. But he's desperate to go back to work, but apart from how difficult it is to find something that would mean he could be home when DSD needs him, he is terrified of CSA trying to take so much that we can barely manage- we scraped by due to my bursary... DSD who lives with us, mum doesn't pay any maintenance either due to not working, so we don't have any money from her either. We can manage much better and have some extra money to buy DSD1 and 2 school stuff and clothes to contribute now as we get housing benefit now, we offered her this in cash instead but she said no she's going through CSA.

DSD 1 and 2s Mum can't possibly need the amount CSA said, she and her husband (him and his kids live with them and their mums other kids too) have gone on two weekends away already this year. That's a pipe dream for us!

What he want's is to be able to afford to pay a reasonable amount, whilst working, without DSD 3 suffering and going without the basics because she lives with us and he has to pay for the other kids, who are always complaining of being bored down the pub while Mum and husband go drinking every Sunday... nice to know our money was funding their habits while DSD had holes in her clothes and not enough for dinner!

(Just to add as all this was going on when dsd 3 moved in with us, so we had to wait for child benefit and tax credits to come through while the claim was processed, so for a while we didn't have those either!)

Thanks for the clarification, time. They basically just want RPs to shut up and go away, don't they?

I find it strange that they haven't thought about privatising maintenance collection. What's the logic of privatising child protection (or considering it) and not this? I'm not generally in favour of privatising government services, but I could see a certain logic in this. I wouldn't mind a private company charging my ex penalty fees for collecting the maintenance from him, provided I got it.

the CSA are rubbish and biased towards the RP. being a NRP I have a court order in place that gives my children time with me, overnight stays, I contacted the CSA and informed them that I had a court order in place and would send them a copy, their reply was that they had to get the RP to confirm this!!!!!!! that said, the RP breached order and not allowing NRP overnight stays because it would leave the RP about £7-10 a week worse off while the kids are with the NRP.

Saying that the 'father' should have to pay the 20% fee is totally unfair if the father has made a reasonable suggested contribution in maintenance. Most reasonable people can agree a what is fair, the CSA was introduced to intervine when it came to greedy mothers and fathers refusing to pay. I can see there is no change at all when 1 party is unfair, it seems the father will be left with the 20% bill whether its greedy mother or avoiding father.

in the cases where the 'child maintenance' is not going towards maintaining the child (booze, fags and alike), then there needs to be a system of accountability or an electronic system where both parents can see where monies have been spent (rent, utility bills) and that that money has been spent of 'maintaining' the childs needs.