CSA payments

[bigandclever]

davemac250 said:

You can be assessed.

If they decide you owe. Then you owe.

Best thing.

Emigrate to somewhere with no reciprocal agreement.

New Zealand comes to mind.

Except that New Zealand is one of the (many, many) REMO countries, so that doesn't work.

[davemac250]

bigandclever said:

davemac250 said:

You can be assessed.

If they decide you owe. Then you owe.

Best thing.

Emigrate to somewhere with no reciprocal agreement.

New Zealand comes to mind.

Except that New Zealand is one of the (many, many) REMO countries, so that doesn't work.

Bugger, they used to come outside it.

Had a friend where his Mrs buggered off to NZ and tried to claim from him here and it certainly didn't work that way round.

[Stringster]

Have to pay the CSA too. Lost the house to the ex and now pay her £550p/m which basically pays her mortgage while she lives a very nice life on all the benefits she can get. I have yet to discuss with the CSA that I drive 350 miles a weekend to keep regular contact with my kids and want fuel money taken into account.

If you are employed and paying tax you don't have a leg to stand on. However, my girlfriends ex is a self employed builder. The CSA said to her that there is no way they can prove what he is earning so they won't get involved. This leaves her struggling to bring up two kids. The CSA system is wrong but I have no respect for any man who won't pay for and support his own kids.

[JumboBeef]

croyde said:

Is the CSA involved with every divorce or only ones with a dispute. Very scary reading as we are separated with kids and currently I pay half of all costs, a lot more than what comes up on that site but not crippling like the amounts some of you lot pay out.

What's the point of making the father destitute and thus no longer be able to be a dad to his kids.

You will only ever be asked to pay between 15% and 25%. The huge figures that you heard of people being asked to pay is when they are contacted by The CSA but then do a runner. When the CSA catch up with them years down the line, they have to pay for those missing years.

[Plotloss]

croyde said:

What's the point of making the father destitute and thus no longer be able to be a dad to his kids.

Because, as far as the law and general ethos of the support mechanisms around seperated parents go, you simply do not matter any more.

You're a sperm bank with a wallet and that's it.

But to answer your question, the CSA will only be involved if your ex-wife involves them.

[JumboBeef]

Plotloss said:

But to answer your question, the CSA will only be involved if your ex-wife involves them.

or if she claims benefits.

[Stringster]

JumboBeef said:

Plotloss said:

But to answer your question, the CSA will only be involved if your ex-wife involves them.

or if she claims benefits.

I don't think that is strictly true now as child maintenance payments are not counted as income.
The CSA are happier if you have a private arrangement and do not involve them.

[Plotloss]

JumboBeef said:

Plotloss said:

But to answer your question, the CSA will only be involved if your ex-wife involves them.

or if she claims benefits.

The government are trying to get shot of the CSA so now will only be involved if all negotiations collapse, I don't think their involvement is automatic in any capacity any more.

[bob parr]

I think I've been fortunate in my dealings with the CSA, my soon to be ex wife refused to accept what I had to pay when I calculated it using the CSA website and said she wanted more (that was in May this year) I sent her cheques which she tore up and posted back to me.
In July she went to the CSA and I was contacted by them, interviewed and assessed. My wife had told them a different story to mine and they had to investigate the case. After three weeks they found in my favour. Knowing how stubborn and pig headed she can be I decided to let the csa take the payment from my wages direct and pay her. I found the guy I dealt with very sympathetic and friendly.
Sadly my ex has now moved 300 miles away so I will see my daughter less particularly as I work shifts, so I will probably have to pay more.

[zcacogp]

jazzyjeff said:

zcacogp said:

I once heard that the CSA was a knee-jerk response by the Labour government to the problem of young inner-city black males who would sleep around with no precautions, produce large numbers of illegitimate children and make no attempt to support them. The CSA was introduced to attempt to 'bring such people to book', but (like so many Nu Labia projects) only goes after the soft touch targets - employed guys who have split from previous long-term partners, most of whom would support the mother and children anyway.

I wonder how true that is?

Not true at all - that was probably just a rumour circulated by disgruntled right-wing twonks previously happy for the state to pursue profligate chavs but due to circumstances hoist by their own petards ... CSA was actually introduced by the John Major gobbermint in 1993. I'm sure to many it feels like its been around for a lot longer than that

Very helpful, thanks!

(Have to say, the more I hear about the CSA the more I hope I never fall into their clutches. They sound like a total shower ... bad even when compared to other gubbmint departments. And that's saying something ... )


Oli.

[Amused2death]

CSA = Chancellors Support Agency......

I had dealings with the CSA once.....two letters later and they will never bother me again, despite the ex being on benifits, and naming me as father to my little girl.

There are ways to defeat the CSA (Now CMEC, but I am led to believe this going to be abolished), without having to hide, avoid them or do anything illegal.

[croyde]

Amused2death said:

CSA = Chancellors Support Agency......

I had dealings with the CSA once.....two letters later and they will never bother me again, despite the ex being on benifits, and naming me as father to my little girl.

There are ways to defeat the CSA (Now CMEC, but I am led to believe this going to be abolished), without having to hide, avoid them or do anything illegal.

Don't leave us in suspense........

[Amused2death]

croyde said:

Amused2death said:

CSA = Chancellors Support Agency......

I had dealings with the CSA once.....two letters later and they will never bother me again, despite the ex being on benifits, and naming me as father to my little girl.

There are ways to defeat the CSA (Now CMEC, but I am led to believe this going to be abolished), without having to hide, avoid them or do anything illegal.

Don't leave us in suspense........

The crucial factor then (over 2 yrs ago) was there is a section within the CSA forms which states "We will not contact the absent parent if it could cause harm to the child or the resident parent"

Now NORMALLY this is meant to infer the possibility of violence to the resident parent or child.......but harm could also be psychological.......and that harm could be caused by the child not having a parent, because the absent parent disappears off the radar to avoid the CSA.

I hasten to add that all payments made to the ex are by cheque, and she declares them to the Benifits agency.

I'm not smug about what I have achieved regarding the CSA, but I am pleased it is one less pressure I have in my life and so I can concentrate on being there for my daughter, and provide for her accordingly. The CSA really is a parents worst nightmare. Wether you have care of the child or not.

I have a female friend who was getting money from her ex every week when he came to see his kids...it worked well for them. Then the CSA got involved and took twice the amount from him. He could only afford to go and see his kids once a month. The CSA took the money from him, via his employer every week. One of the big problems is the CSA are supposed to collect the money, and then pass it on to the resident parent, but the two payment systems are not interlinked properly. It took the mother 4 months before she saw any of that money that the father had had taken from his wages.

So the end result of CSA involvement for that family is the kids don't see their father so much, he can't afford to go and see them, and the mother had her money held up for months instead of getting it every week before the CSA got involved.

I urge any parent to avoid the csa unless you have no other options, they ruin families, deprive children of caring parents, and the only real purpose it solves is reducing the money given to parents on benifits, but the social cost of the CSA to children and parents cannot be measured.

As someone else mentioned, another way to get round the CSA is to become self-employed.

I am not advocating avoiding responsibility for your kids.....but that responsibility isn't just financial, it's social as well.

[croyde]

Cheers for the info.

Thankfully we are being sensible and fair about money but I have nightmares about her turning nasty and taking me to the cleaners.

I'd top myself before letting those CSA feks destroy me.

[Amused2death]

croyde said:

Cheers for the info.

Thankfully we are being sensible and fair about money but I have nightmares about her turning nasty and taking me to the cleaners.

I'd top myself before letting those CSA feks destroy me.

And if you can get some medical back up to show your mental state can't deal with the CSA then that may give you the get-out clause.....what could be more harmful for a child than losing a parent through suicide?

Like a lot of things involving officialdom...play by their rules and you can still win

[jazzyjeff]

zcacogp said:

jazzyjeff said:

zcacogp said:

I once heard that the CSA was a knee-jerk response by the Labour government to the problem of young inner-city black males who would sleep around with no precautions, produce large numbers of illegitimate children and make no attempt to support them. The CSA was introduced to attempt to 'bring such people to book', but (like so many Nu Labia projects) only goes after the soft touch targets - employed guys who have split from previous long-term partners, most of whom would support the mother and children anyway.

I wonder how true that is?

Not true at all - that was probably just a rumour circulated by disgruntled right-wing twonks previously happy for the state to pursue profligate chavs but due to circumstances hoist by their own petards ... CSA was actually introduced by the John Major gobbermint in 1993. I'm sure to many it feels like its been around for a lot longer than that

Very helpful, thanks!

(Have to say, the more I hear about the CSA the more I hope I never fall into their clutches. They sound like a total shower ... bad even when compared to other gubbmint departments. And that's saying something ... )


Oli.

Actually, the last thing I heard was that the CSA was to be abolished (although that was at lease a year ago). But it's still here??? I know it takes any shade of government a matter of years to make any kind of meaningful decision - but even so...

JJ

[davemac250]

jazzyjeff said:

zcacogp said:

jazzyjeff said:

zcacogp said:

I once heard that the CSA was a knee-jerk response by the Labour government to the problem of young inner-city black males who would sleep around with no precautions, produce large numbers of illegitimate children and make no attempt to support them. The CSA was introduced to attempt to 'bring such people to book', but (like so many Nu Labia projects) only goes after the soft touch targets - employed guys who have split from previous long-term partners, most of whom would support the mother and children anyway.

I wonder how true that is?

Not true at all - that was probably just a rumour circulated by disgruntled right-wing twonks previously happy for the state to pursue profligate chavs but due to circumstances hoist by their own petards ... CSA was actually introduced by the John Major gobbermint in 1993. I'm sure to many it feels like its been around for a lot longer than that

Very helpful, thanks!

(Have to say, the more I hear about the CSA the more I hope I never fall into their clutches. They sound like a total shower ... bad even when compared to other gubbmint departments. And that's saying something ... )


Oli.

Actually, the last thing I heard was that the CSA was to be abolished (although that was at lease a year ago). But it's still here??? I know it takes any shade of government a matter of years to make any kind of meaningful decision - but even so...

JJ

True, wasn't it going to be replaced by the Agency for Child Support???

Or is that too cynical?

[pits]

evolution666 said:

this why you owe so much money haha


on a serious note, with what you have stated, what could they possibly do, if you cant pay, you cant pay simple as that.

But I don't actually have kids, I hate them enough to glove up.

JumboBeef said:

Wrong, I'm afraid. If you earn £200 per week, they will just get an attachment of earnings order and take an amount direct from your employer: exact amount could be anything from a few quid to most of it. They don't care if this leaves you without enough to live on.

From someone who has dealt/fought with The CSA for nine years now and counting.

Edited by JumboBeef on Monday 15th November 17:15

Self employed and can be paid cash and not use a bank account, just paying all the tax, so the CSA couldn't remove said money at source.

Lets also just say that the money that is owed for said children the youngest is now 24-25 the other 4.


Sorry not replied all, just completely forgot

[Piersman2]

Allanv said:

SplatSpeed said:

Allanv said:

SplatSpeed said:

and yet they won't let guys be steralised till they have kids and > 35.

the take CSA 1/3 of you money after tax ouch

I was 34 and have no kids but they let me have the snip.

thats unusual, they usually get worried that you will change your mind. if i was free and single i would want the snip

At that point we had been together 12 years (20 now) and they knew we were adament, and I did it so that my wife could come off the pill. So for us and the doctors it was a reasonable request.

I had the snip at 32 or 33. 3 kids already spawned by that time.

Had it reversed about a year ago at 41.

Circumstances change.