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?!

I think the OP's case has been lost in the foray....

OP I despair with you. Have an ex who pays £5 a week since about 4 years ago. Nothing before then. Arrears which never get paid. Works as a cabbie, cash in hand, wods of cash, multiple foreign holidays, 2 bed flat and new car.

The problem is that he could easily afford to pay more for the benefit of his son but doesn't want to because of being controlling. That is how it comes across.

This issue of basic care is a nonsense. No family is assessed as having the need of a set amount of money - that is not how anyone's finances work.

I think everyone needs to reread the actual op.

People who were married to high earners often expect to get a reasonable amount of money from their ex because they helped their partner by being a part of their team. They would not buy the argument that they are now only entitled to basics. And the same goes for child support in my view. Why should a child be penalised because their parents are no longer married?

Cantpay's son is in school, so doesn't require nursery fees. He supported his ex as a SAHM for the four years his son was at home. So a CSA assessment of £850 is ludicrous.

CSA don't assess 'high earners' differently. They have different rates depending on earnings up to £3000 a week. Anything above this requires a court order. So the CSA could technically award 15% of a 80,000 net salary - £1000 a month maintenance payments. Anyone who doesn't think this is justifying subsidy of an ex partner is just deluding themselves.

I'm as guilty as anyone for derailing

The original OP was in November last year. This thread has been resurrected by mr doesn't see why he should pay, presumably to ease his conscience.

In fairness, I don't think it's an issue of being controlling. That's not how it seemed to me.

I don't think that the issue of basic care is a nonsense. We all have basic needs which must be met. As parents, we're legally obliged to ensure that those needs are met in respect of our dependents. Where we are unable to (and this is not to debate the rights and wrongs of the benefits system, or the level at which benefits are set) the state odes it for us.

The ones which end up properly disadvantaged in this scenario are the primary carers which go out to work.

Ohhh!

I didn't even think to check the date on it.

That isn't meant as an attack on single parents or SAHMs by the way. Just an observation.

But also take offense at Contrarians 'deciding as he see's fit' in last post.

I think thats the crux of it, and certainly the crux of Canpays posts

THEY want to be able to decide, probably because THEY want to remain in control. They want to be able to give or take as they see fit. Too many times we see them using money (as often I accept we see women using contact, sadly) to try to exert control over the ex wives life, with no thought at all that it actually is for the benefit of the child.

Withholding it if they dont approve of what its been spent on, or because the ex wife disagreed with them about something, or got a new boyfriend. Effectively punishing for behaviour they dont approve of. SOME MEN, of course, not ALL MEN. Or they make the ex beg. Or wait. Or never know if, and how much, it might be, and then have to be appropriately appreciative when they get it from Mr Bountiful.

And in this case its best to hand it to a 3rd party so that it is constant and clear cut.

And also, I dont see WHY its such a bad thing if the maintanance payment improves the life for the ex wife too - 15% is nowhere near the financial level of income during the marriage, where often, as others have said, she may have given up her career prospects to raise the child, and support his house and home to enable him to work. Women who leave, especially when kids are young, are some of the most likely to be in povety. Things must be pretty rough if she would prefer to be in poverty than stay - we see this on the relationship boards all the time. If the maintanance does add to the family quality of life, then it benefits the child. Just because the father earns a huge amount, why should the child be punished by living in relative povety?

And the new system is worse because it's gross. 12% of gross up to £800 a week, and 9% of gross income over £800 a week up to £3000 a week.

The system doesn't work, not for the mums receiving £5 a week and not for high earners who are paying over the odds.

Should return to the old needs assessment system - fairer all round.

Quite, Nettletea

A couple of things....

I qualified it by saying that the op should contribute an amount which ensures that his child's basic needs are met (or at least half of that amount). Thereafter, it is up to the individual as to how they spend their own money.

When a couple agree to separate/divorce, it should mean exactly that. Your liability towards your children does not cease but your liability towards your ex-spouse/partner ought to. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Also, we need to consider "poverty" in absolute, rather than relative, terms. That was the biggest swindle the left ever pulled!

I have not read all the thread, but I have found over the years the best thing to do is make a complaint and get it referred to the complaints review team. Do it by email. The calls will be costing you a lot and stressing you out. I understand your frustration completely. They tend to contact you within about ten days. Hopefully you will get a named worker/manager who will deal with your case.

The problem as the CSA continually tell me, is that they are not an investigative agency. You can appeal their decisions, but the onus is on you to prove what you are saying. I was actually told I had to produce one of the childrens' father's wage slips. How the hell am I going to do that?

I have received compensation from them three times now when I have not even asked for it. It is only a very small amount, £50 each time.

He has now gone self employed, so I am expecting all payments to end and the CSA tell me this is likely. How on earth can this be right? He states he only earns £230 per week, yet works long days and weekends so he does not see my GS. The CSA did a comparable and have indicated they believe he earns around £26,000. They told me not to rock the boat, because I am receiving £30 a week at present and this took me years to achieve.

I think they are okay for straightforward cases, but generally by the time you have had to go to them they are the difficult cases.

Contrarian - I don't think someone who spent a long marriage with someone who they supported while they built up their career would see it your way.

Yes, but in those circumstances the marital assets would be divided accordingly. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's as equitable as we can reasonably get.

My gob is smacked and my flabber well and truly gasted.
So the nr parent is responsible only for their child not dying of cold or hunger? Anything above that is a discretionary luxury probably financing the rp going to the bingo in designer heels?
Bring back the poor houses - they had more compassion for women and children.

er, no. I was merely pointing out that as humans we all have basic needs. There is a legal obligation as a parent (whether or not you're separated) to ensure that those needs are met in respect of your issue. Once those needs have been met, you legal responsibility ceases.

In reality it doesn't work like this, but in the case of separated parents, that's where we need to set the bar.

How low on this do you place your responsibilty for your children's needs because they might translate into a demand on your money.

I don't agree that that is where we need to set the bar. I think it's quite reasonable that a parent should pay the same contribution for their child as if they were still married to the child's other parent. And 15% is not a high percentage.

If I was a high earner and had a child who did not live with me I would want that child to benefit as much as I did from my standard of living. I would not be greedily trying to work out how I could keep as much as possible for me while giving the bare minimum of what I could get away with!

Well to be honest, only the bottom two (the bottom one really) would likely have an impact on cash. Of course we have a responsibility to ove as far up the pyramid as possible, but in terms of hard finacial support......just the bottom two.

Listen, I'm not in favour of NRPs ducking their responsibilties; however, there has been very little in the way of constructive suggestions. This is exactly the sort of issue MN should be lobbying on, especailly as it's one that sadly seems to be effecting an ever-increasing number of people.

But how do you do that without necessarily enriching the life of your ex-partner - which you may not want to do. Children's needs have to be met. Their wants do not need to be met. What would a wealthy NRP possibly provide (above the basics) that a child could justifyably lay claim to (apart from an education - if you believe in the private education system).

But you see that brings us to the original crux of the issue -- that all too often the reason why the NRP doesn't want to pay is because they resent not being able to control what the money is spent on.

It's tough, frankly. The child's needs and rights should come first IMO. It's sad that some people can't be adult enough to do that.