CSA are rubbish! Sorry if wrong forum.

[KareninsGirl]

Aaarrrrggghhhhh!!!

Seven years it's taken them to review my ex's wages. SEVEN YEARS! And they still haven't done it, despite fortnightly contact.

I want to scream, cry, shout...I'm at my wit's end. Will they backdate?!

The CSA reduces the support the NRP has to pay for every day their children stay overnight with them. I think that when you have a child, both people have to accept that they will both be financially responsible for the children until they grow up whether their relationship survives or not. Just because one parent earns more that does not mean the parent earning less should not contribute. And you are never expected to contribute if you are not working anyway. So I don't buy that the CSA fleeces people.

The CSA admitted to me that has ex partner is self employed there is nothing they can do!

Really it is not good enough, I am 'lucky' in that that my ex pays by private arrangement but he only pays half what he should.

Why is there not more done to get a working system in place or sanctions placed on men who won't pay?

Also when people separate, the issue of who contributed what to the marriage is a separate issue to the issue of child support and is treated as such.

** or women if the NRP is female.

lottie dss is with us 50:50, even with the csa reduced for every night with us, we would still have to pay for every night with exw. If we have to pay for his time with exw, why shouldn't exw pay for his time spent with us? That would be fair. We could call that awash, and say, no csa to be paid! But it doesn't work like that - some people do get fleeced.

random, I see what you're saying but the child maintenance is generally paid to the person who is going to be paying for new uniform and other expenses the most.

Cheers kinkyfuckery very constructive

Or at least it should be. Like any system I am sure there are cases where it is not going to be completely fair to 100% of people. My extensive experience of the CSA is that in my case they have tried hard to get maintenance for my dds. Perhaps I have been lucky though as I have heard of people who were told that unless the PWC knows where the NRP works they can do nothing. Clearly this isn't true since they can do a trace at HMRC to see if they are on a pay roll.

Guess I was hoping that the other perspective might be more constructive but I was mistaken. I can and have payed maintenance and am happy to pay maintenance and still pay maintenance. But I feel that post divorce increased earnings should not be included. I spend all my free money on my son anyway and have had to fight even to have his passport, the moment i win in court Im supposed to lose financially as a result. I have the opportunity to work the system and i genuinely don't want to take it and would continue with the existing arrangement i have. I also pay for a foreign holiday for him with his mother and half of all clothes and school expenses as well as the agreed maintenance but i am the bad guy according to mumsnet

Why exactly should you not pay according to how much you earn?? You are talking nonsense. Your marriage and past relationship and how long it lasted are totally irrelevant. Your son is still your son however long you were or weren't married.

But you continue with the denial you are in can't pay as I imagine you are not going to listen to any stranger on the internet.

Look at your posts - they are all about your ex. What she does do, what she doesn't do. And crap about her 'reporting' you to the CSA. She is merely trying to get what YOUR son is entitled to. Focus on your son and stop making this about your ex and her new relationship.

This shouldn't be a difficult issue to solve.

The maintenance paid should (IMHO) be calcualted as follows:-

£45 per week flat contribution (Collected through tax code)
15% of earnings above £500 (per week) to a miximum of of £50

This money should be paid to each and every primary carer by the state and then be collected via the tax system from the NRP. Where the primary carer is in receipt of state benefits, these should be reduced accordingly.

Voila!

Contrarian

What about in the case of a very well off family where the father earns loads and the children are at private school? I have often heard of parents splitting and one parent refusing to continue to pay school fees.

I think 15% of whatever is earned insures that the children don't miss out on whatever standard of living they would have had had their parents not separated.

However, I agree that it's unfair that someone who only gets £5 a week maintenance would get the same income support as another parent who received £100 a week.

Can't pay has a point - kids don't cost £850 a month. Unless his son's mother is using his son's maintenance to improve standard of life directly i.e private school payments, then he'll understandably be a bit p'd off that his ex would be using his maintenance payments to fund her lifestyle choices (not working). Both parents have a financial obligation for their kids, and it shouldn't lay solely with the NRP. I assume he'd be happier paying what his son is assessed as needing each month, and then sharing his improved income via discretionary payments for trips, clothes, nice things etc - exactly as resident parents do (pay for what their children need, and then decide what nice extra's they should have).

lottie, I agree that that is usually the case. And there are a lot of arseholes who try to argue that they shouldn't pay, when they clearly should. I just hate it that dh is made out to be some scumbag for not going along with something that, to me, is illogical and unfair.

We have to buy a set of everything ourselves, because exw has always refused to share dss's stuff (and that isn't completely uncommon). He isn't allowed to move anything from her house to ours, inc clothes/shoes etc. It undoubtedly costs us more to support ds because we have to buy all of the things exw does (ridiculous waste) and pay the extra travel expenses (about £2000 a year) aswell. But child benefit was always paid to exw, so she was always considered the main carer (it didn't mean she actually was).

I've got a good feeling that they would change it over (I don't think she even qualifies for it now it's changed), but I'm worried it would cause trouble (she'd probably take it out on dss). And I think people would still think dh was a wanker regardless, so it wouldn't help there.

I'll shut up now, it's no help to the op - sorry op!

QueenRavenna - the son is entitled to get the benefit of the money his father earns. It is not fair that he should miss out just because his parents are separated.

Yes random, that is a difficult situation I agree.

QueenRavenna makes a sensible enough point. The NRP is reposnible for paying half of the expenses (and that's something I took into account when working through my seemingly arbitary calcualtion (above).

My kids used to be educated privately until we worked out that it was an aboslute con and we saw many of their little friends (at least 5 - spread over three families) leave the school following marriage breakdowns. The fact is that as a parent - regardless of how wealthy you are, you have a legal obligation to ensure that your kids' basic needs are met. This does not mean that you're obliged to pay for foreign holidays or private schools. You could make a case that morally you should - and most of us want what's best for our kids - but actually, it's enough to make sure that basic needs are met. All to often though, not even this happens.

Kids who live with their parents don't have a right to 15% of their parents' income. Their parents pay for what they need - food, shelter, education, and then decide on what else they should have. I think the same should apply for non resident children too.

Kids aren't entitled to a parents income. They're entitled to be well looked after. That's all.

They are completely useless. I badgered them for years to try and get money out of my ex. Got payments for about 3 months, then he fled the country and now doesn't pay a penny. They sent me a letter threatening to fine me for not keeping them up to date with his details!

Cantpay

you seem to be under some miscomprehension.

You say you paid the £450 happily, which would be what CSA said, plus more. Thats good of you.

If you were out of work you could have paid less. Your agreement was such that it wasnt court ordered I think, just an agreement. Even had it been CSA calculated you could have asked for an adjustment according to your income at the time.

Yes, your ex would have jhad less, but if you were not earning she wouldnt really have been able to complain. No-one would be calculating the shortfall and making you pay in the future, thats plain wrong.

The only time you would have to pay in the future is if you didnt tell them of a change of circuymstances, and it became arrears. Even then you could appeal and given the evidence, got your arrears reduced.

But similarly if your income increases then your contribution increases. Not index linked, but at the % calculated as reasonable, because, as others said, you are the child's father and frankly 15% is peanuts considering how much of your wages would go towards supporting a child if you were still married. Wouldnt even cover nursery if you were both working, never mind food, clothing, activities, holidays, etc. You still get 85%.

And it is exactly because you are a single man, not having to deal with the responsibility of having a child live with you, that you have been able to concentrate on building your career and getting to the position you are in now

I think, and you clearly state, that what you actually object to is being told what to do by an outside agency. You deliberately set up a ltd company so your 'wages' are minimal. Shame on you.

oh, and there is a top limit isnt there. high earners are not calculated at 15% but each case looked at individually.
my mother and sister worked in CSA for years. Hated it.

If private school is involved it is unfair to disrupt a child's education though, particularly if they are about to sit GCSEs or something. The NRP is expected to help to meet these costs in some cases that go to court as far as I know.

Nettle tea - I completely agree with what you say about someone who does not have a child living with them having the benefit of being able to build a career.

So if high earners are done on a case by case basis that sounds more than fair to me...

It wouldn't, but it would cover half the nursey (at least).

I think the op is getting a pretty hard time from some. If the op is contributiing an amount which ensures that at the very least the child's basic needs are met, then what's the problem? If the op is a high earner, then it's up to him to decide to contribute more to his ExW or enhance the childs life (or not) as he sees fit during the access that he has.