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
Lone parents

Use our Single Parent forum to speak to other parents raising a child alone.

Original poster

House of Lords rejected the bill proposing single parents are charged to use CSA

17 replies

corlan · 25/01/2012 22:17

I know the coalition will get the bill through eventually but I was in tears when I heard the Lords rejected the bill. It's so bloody rare that anyone stands up for single parents and our kids - there's been so little news on the proposed charges, it just felt like nobody gave a shit!

OP posts:
bananaistheanswer · 26/01/2012 00:45

corlan you beat me to it! I was just going to post about this too. I'm blown away by the outcome. No idea what happens now, but how the government can ignore the overwhelming opposition to this proposal, and from senior tory peers as well, is just beyond me. It's clear their aim is to put anyone off using the CSA, which means children go without. It is heartening that the defeat was so comprehensive. I wrote to my MP about this, filled in questionnaires, answered polls, but always deep down felt this was just another pointless fight. It really is amazing that so many stood up to oppose this, and that is just fantastic.

TotallyImmersed · 26/01/2012 00:52

Who would have to pay? The parent the child lives with or the non-resident parent?

bananaistheanswer · 26/01/2012 01:08

Both, according to the plans proposed, but there would be an upfront fee to pay by whoever goes to CSA in the 1st place. Usually the parent who is left 'holding the baby' so to speak, and who is already actually doing their bit in support/raising said child/ren. There would be an additional charge added to the maintenance taken (which the CSA pockets) and then a deduction would be made from the maintenance before it's paid to the parent seeking maintenance i.e. the CSA would be taking from the money that is meant to maintain the child/ren. So, in effect taking money from kids.

AmberLeaf · 26/01/2012 01:09

Both effectively.

The parent the child lives with is charged £100 to set up a claim, and then I think 12-15% taken from each payment made.

MissPricklePants · 26/01/2012 01:18

fantastic news!i am so pleased with that decision it is plastered all over my fb page!

oliviasmama · 26/01/2012 02:16

uplifting news, at last some support for single parents!

whiteandnerdy · 26/01/2012 12:00

To me child maintenance is specifically identified as money to be used to raise the child hence it's effectively the child that's being charged. Hmm, so the govenment tars such parents as being so shit that their children have to pay a tax, ERRRGH ERROR!!!

jjgirl · 26/01/2012 21:11

Why could they not do something sensible like giving the CSA access to people's tax records etc?

fuckityfuckfuckfuck · 26/01/2012 21:15

I just love that they honestly think it'll encourage people to sort out their own maintenance agreements. The whole point of having the CSA is that in an awful lot of cases, the NRP doesn't WANT to pay up fgs. I would give anything not to have to use the CSA. Hey haven't managed to get a penny out of ds's dad, they have his address, his national insurance number, his phone number, everything. But they can't make him pay, so the letters go ignored. That's what needs addressing. If the government can automatically deduct tax, student loans etc from peoples pay then they should be able to enforce the collection of maintenence in the same way. They have the means, but not the will. They just don't care. Bravo on the Lords though.

blackeyedsusan · 26/01/2012 22:51

the coalition seem to have missed the whole point of the csa. to get money for children from the other parent who will not pay. what is the resident parent to do if the non resident parent won't pay? they are certainly not going to make up the short fall. aggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh

cuteboots · 27/01/2012 13:14

fuckityfuckfuckfuck- Took the words right out of my mouth.

Meglet · 27/01/2012 14:15

corlan As soon as I heard it had been thrown out (for now) it was like a weight off my shoulders Smile.

XP does pay, but if they put these charges through and ask him for an extra £20-£40 a quid a month I know he'll go on the rampage again Sad . Any financial benefits from charging from the CSA will be vastly offset by the fact I'll have the police out every so often. Hardly saving money for the government.

Original poster
corlan · 27/01/2012 14:32

I honestly don't think this government believes we are all going to go off and make private arrangements with our XP's.

I think this is purely a cost cutting exercise and they don't care too much about the immorality of it because they actually don't care about single parents - we don't fit into their cosy view of what constitutes a family.

I agree with those who say there is no will to sort out the problem of NRP's who do not pay support for their children. I guess it comes down to money in the end - maybe it would be just too expensive to implement such a system.Meanwhile, thousands of kids are raised without a penny in support from one of their parents and this governments proposals would mean that thousands more join that list.

We just have to wait and see what they come up with next!

OP posts:
jj1978 · 27/01/2012 20:45

Thats great news, I had to use the CSA as my ex is a violent good for nothing eeejit who refused to pay but I was too scared of him to make a big deal out of it. CSA got involved took care of it and got an order to take it directly from his account each month, except they never pass it on to me! I have to ring each month to request it, after two years of this I complained but was told if I dont like it then I should go direct and cut the CSA out. If only I could! they should seriously reform before even suggesting ludicrous fees such as that, who do they we are! we wouldnt be asking for money from ex's if we didnt flipping needed! If I ran my office like that at work I would be fired! phew - and pause for breath Grin

gilmoregirl · 28/01/2012 19:44

That is amazing! I just could not belive the proposals. How on earth does that make sense to anyone. Surely the sensible thing is to charge the NRP who has failed to financially support their child for the cost of the CSA. HOw on earth the fee should fall to the person who is already supporting the child is totally beyond me. Hope that they will see sense and change the proposals

Meglet · 28/01/2012 19:46

Just a warning that Maria Miller was on BBC news this morning and AFAIK they are still going to try and force the planned charges through.

Sad Angry

The fuckers.

Get letter writing everyone.

Jellykat · 28/01/2012 20:12

Didn't the Lords reject the £26000 Cap as well? It struck me then that Cameron and his idiots couldn't give a toss what the Lords think..

Twat face wants to bring this in, in order to encourage parents to 'work together' and agree maintenance between themselves..

He really is showing ignorance of humungous proportions, and it scares me absolutely shitless!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page