Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

CSA calculation - is this right?

185 replies

ticklemonster123 · 13/03/2015 12:20

DH's ex went to CSA asking them to recalculate his payments as she believed he'd got a pay rise. He hadn't, he's now in a more senior position but he no longer earns commission so he still earns a pretty similar salary.
He was asked to send his last two payslips, which he did, and now he's had the letter through saying his payments have gone down.
I've looked at the figures and they've calculated the figure based on his net salary, after childcare vouchers have been taken off.
Is that right?
He wasn't getting childcare vouchers the last time they assessed his payments, plus he now has a company car which comes off his tax and he puts more in to his pension so his take home pay is significantly less than it was previously, but his annual salary is roughly the same.

I think DH will probably just continue paying the original amount, after all he isn't actually earning less, but I just wondered whether it is right that they're working it out based on the figure after the childcare vouchers have come off his pay?

OP posts:

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 12:19

I know my best friend gets tax credits and some HB. She works 24 hours a week. I know she gets no maintenance from EXp. Other than her i honestly couldnt say which friends get what benefits or what help from their exes. It just isnt something that ever comes up in conversation. Cant say ive seen it on MN either tbh- people saying they chase down their ex for every sniff of a payrise.

LadySybilLikesSloeGin · 14/03/2015 12:25

Maybe CMS needs to be connected to HMRC so any pay rises/reduced pay is automatically known and the maintenance is adjusted automatically. That way no one's blamed when it's recalculated.

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 12:30

Oh dont get me started on how CS should be organised! There is a lot about the current system that just doesnt work for both parties. The whole system needs overhauled, but it would require far too much investment for the Govt to ever do it properly.

LadySybilLikesSloeGin · 14/03/2015 12:32

It doesn't work, far too many 'self employed' NRP's get away with paying very little but have a wonderful lifestyle It would help to weed some of these out if it was connected to HMRC though.

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:35

That is exactly what should happen lady!!

Surly you see it all the time "my ex doesn't pay enough, he must have had a pay rise, I don't believe he earns what he says he does" then later down the thread the person complaining is working part time, or not at all, claiming benefits. They don't get the irony.

Yes someone has to look after the kids. And someone has to pay for them, ideally both these jobs would be shared. I'm just saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and unless you are working and building a career for yourself, don't hang about waiting for someone elses payrise and chasing the CSA down for it. Get out and earn it.

Ops Dh's ex wasted her energy, the outcome wasn't in her favour.

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:37

Yup. Like the tax bill they get. This is your tax bill, and this is your maintenance bill. And it's taken directly.

Saves all the cringeworthy "suspicion" from ex's, and the kids get what they are due.

fedupbutfine · 14/03/2015 12:41

It is particularly galling when half the time mum earns nothing or next to nothing herself and no one is allowed to question that

where is your evidence for such a comment...half the time? What evidence do you have that 'half' of all PWC earn 'nothing or next to nothing'?

even more amusing in the context of the OP moaning that the ex in her case earns way more than her husband and that as she only works part-time, the ex shouldn't be making this kind of demand. Fine for the new partner not to work or earn next to nothing?

LadySybilLikesSloeGin · 14/03/2015 12:47

I get your point. I work around 60 hours a week, as well as doing all of the doctors/physio appointments (ds is disabled), school runs, cooking, washing, cleaning, shopping and I'm knackered (also have MS). I'd love to work a little less but I need the cash which is taken by the tax man and NI! It does take 2 people to make a child, why shouldn't both of them be responsible and support that child emotionally and financially? I went back to Uni, got a degree and have a good job, but why does that mean that ds's father can get away with paying little or nothing to support ds while I do all of the work?

CSA assessed him 14 years ago when he was in the UK and had a shit job. I didn't want to rock the boat so left it at this. When he stopped paying, the court (he's not in the UK so the CSA doesn't have jurisdiction) almost doubled his payments, he'd been underpaying for 14 years! I should have asked him for his payslips earlier, hey. Sometimes it's in a child's best interests for a RP to be suspicious, this is what I'm trying to say. The difference that these tens of thousands would have made to ds's life would have been massive but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he pleaded poverty. There are a lot of NRP's like this so I don't blame her for the reassessments. They may be a pain in the bum for you but that's the way the cookie crumbles. If roles were reversed, would he do the same?

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:50

"Half the time" is a turn of phrase is t it? It's not a mathematical statistically accurate statement. Wow.

In the OP, what the new wife earns is irrelevant. The fact that the ex out earns OP's husband makes it even more rude to go to CSA. My ex earns less than me. I don't want to rub that in his face by accusing him of having had a secret payrise. That's why I originally started talking about how ex wives should really think about how rude and potentially offensive it is to question payrises.

fedupbutfine · 14/03/2015 12:50

But people who are able to work, yet who don't, and who claim benefits and chase their ex's down for a percentage of every sniff of a payrise are not supporting their children and are audacious, entitled, and rude

The OP has made it quite clear that the ex in this case works - and earns more than her husband. She herself only works part-time so is therefore reliant - at some level at least - on her husband's contribution towards her lifestyle. Is she therefore audacious, entitled and rude? By your rules, she must be, surely?

To be clear, I claim a significant amount in tax credits. I am also a teacher and I work full-time. Am I too audacious, entitled and rude because I claim what I am entitled to? Or should we just go without on some kind of non-benefit claiming principle?

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:52

Your ex sounds like a complete waster lady.

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:55

Fedup - OP lives with her husband, they are a team, it is their business how they share finances. She doesn't say anything much about her own situation and she is irrelevant.

How would you be those things if you work full time as a teacher? Tax credits are paying back some of your tax in order to help you work, no? I don't understand.

fedupbutfine · 14/03/2015 12:55

In the OP, what the new wife earns is irrelevant. The fact that the ex out earns OP's husband makes it even more rude to go to CSA

And what the ex does or doesn't earn is also irrelevant. Right. It's wrong to claim maintenance at the level the Government says is appropriate because you earn more than the ex? how the fuck does that work?!

"Half the time" is a turn of phrase is t it? It's not a mathematical statistically accurate statement. Wow.

Wow yourself. I know plenty of separated parents. I don't know any that aren't working - on either side. If you want to claim that 'half' of all PWC don't work, you need to be able to back that up.

fedupbutfine · 14/03/2015 12:57

How would you be those things if you work full time as a teacher? Tax credits are paying back some of your tax in order to help you work, no? I don't understand

because you say that claiming 'handouts' is unacceptable? so I shouldn't claim the handouts? or I should work harder so I don't need handouts?

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 12:58

I wasn't claiming that "half" anything. Maybe it's a northern thing "half the time" means a significant number of times. It's not a statistic that needs backed up.

I see it on MN A LOT, not at all unreal life. Maybe MN isn't a fair representation of real life. I don't know. I don't mix with people like that either, thankfully.

fedupbutfine · 14/03/2015 12:58

or perhaps more importantly, my ex shouldn't contribute because I can manage quite well on my own?

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 13:00

And it wasn't referring to half of PWC. I said half the time when the ex is always complaining about the level of CM that is paid, and sniffing around at the first sign of a possible payrise, they themselves are in No position to complain as they aren't good earners themselves.

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 13:02

No, neither fedup. But if you were moaning about what your ex is able to contribute and constantly asking him if he's had a payrise, when you yourself haven't had one and need benefits to raise your children, I'd say stop throwing stones.

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 13:02

then later down the thread the person complaining is working part time, or not at all, claiming benefits. They don't get the irony.

And do they all say they dont work or work part time because they want to scrounge off their ex/the state? I doubt it. You'd probably find there are reasons they dont work/work part time. And you'd probably find that cost of child care and lack of physical support from their exes plays a factor in that. I know if my ex was to provide 50% of physical care for the DCs it would make me instantly more available for working more hours. Whether those hours would be available to me is a different matter because being a single parent can mean you have to make a series of choices that limits what options you have available should support suddenly become available.

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 13:10

Jovial i am starting to think these people you are discussing are imaginary. You talk of "half the time," "people on MN" you dont actually know at all. It sounds like youve just convinced yourself this is the case behind all the stories you read.

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 13:13

And all this talk of it being "rude" to go to CSa is ridiculous. It isnt rude, no more than it is rude to speak to citizens advice when you have an issue with your landlord or engaging a solicitor to sort through a divorce.

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 13:13

Thanks for the lesson in what it means to be a single parent

SurlyCue · 14/03/2015 13:17

You appeared ignorant of some of the not so obvious effects that being a single parent has on a career or ability to earn more.

StarOnTheTree · 14/03/2015 13:17

This equal financial responsibility ideal doesn't really work though does it?

Imagine a set of old fashioned weighing scales with a bowl at either side (the type you cook with). The bowls represent the 2 parents. Now imagine that you have a 100g of care and 100g of money. Put the amount of care and money that each parent provides into his/her bowl. Does the weight balance? If it doesn't then there is an issue and somebody needs to take on more of the care or financial responsibility, either one of the parents or a third party, usually the state in the form of benefits.

For me I provide about 99% of the care and about 33% of the money. My ex provides about 1% care and about 33% of the money and tax credits/child benefit covers the other 33% of the money. So my commitment to my DC is 66%, my ex's commitment is 16.5% and the deficit is picked up by the state Something obviously needs to change!

jovialjulia · 14/03/2015 13:18

Well as an ex single mum myself, no, not at all.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8