56 Comments »

1. Well – having designed, programmed, sold and supported commercial computer systems my suspicion on this one is that it can’t be stabilised because of design flaws that are causing the problems.
   I doubt if anyone in the present government has the balls to say "We approved a system that had inherent design problems so we are scrapping the whole project and starting again"

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 18 Nov 2004 on 6:39 pm | Link

2. well, it wont be the first time that this has happened, and im sure it wont be the last.

   With this one though, the CSA have to pay compensation to people whose claims take longer than 6 months to complete, so this is going to be very costly – and im sure there were no penalties built into the contract to cover this.

   Comment by tony — 20 Nov 2004 on 12:44 am | Link

3. I find it totally ridiculous the suggestion that the delays in moving cases over to the new system is down to a ‘computer software issue’. The new system requires one piece of information from the absent parent i.e. earnings information (something the inland revenue is already in receipt of). The old system requires all sorts of information before an assessment can be made i.e. rent / mortgage, council tax, bills etc. Can somebody please explain to me in a rational way where the complication is in making an assessment of 15, 20 or 25% against an individuals earning level.

   As an ‘absent parent’ myself I fully agree that I have a financial obligation towards my children and have never ‘ducked’ this responsibility. I however do not accept that I should be paying 60% more than I would do under the new system, just because I was assessed 1 month before the new system came into action.

   The new system was put in place to be a fairer system for all concerned. In my view if there is going to be a delay in the migration of cases between the old and new systems, at least the maximum percentages that can be applied should be aligned i.e. 15, 20 and 25%

   I would be interested to hear from anybody who find themselves in a similar position.

   Comment by Barry — 22 Nov 2004 on 5:29 pm | Link

4. I totally agree, even my local MP is unable to give me a substantiated answer when things will be resolved – I am currently paying \xA3150 a month more than I would be if I was on the new system and no light at the end of the tunnel – my ex his obviously chuffed as she is currently saving up this excess money to goto the States for holiday!

   Comment by Phil Davis — 14 Jan 2005 on 1:20 pm | Link

5. i am in the same boat. I am paying at least \xA3130 more a month than I would be under the new system and know that the excess money is not going towards my child but being spent on my ex’s lifestyle. I would really love to hear from others in the same boat, as I think we could get together and all refuse to pay a penny more than the amount shown using the calculator for the new system. Why should we have to pay for the errors of the system. I have paid about \xA32,700 too much in the two years since the new system has come in and I remain paying excessively under the old. I think we should all send IOUs to the CSA.

   Comment by A Darby — 13 Jul 2005 on 2:19 pm | Link

6. After several years of paying maintenance directly for my 1 daughter to my ex-wife, she has had to claim benefits which has resulted in the CSA having to be involved. I am a father on the ‘old’ system but also on the new computer system, and what i would like to know is why i am now having to pay upto 30% of my net income, when new claims are only paying 15%. I asked the CSA when i was going to be assessed under the new system and they said ‘when the government told them’ which i was subsequently told was the CSA’s stock answer!! Is there anyone else in the same boat as me? Can i do something about this ludicrous situation that i seem to have no control over?

   Comment by Tim Graff — 12 Aug 2005 on 10:23 am | Link

7. I have been paying maintenance now for nine years with no areas on the OLD SYSTEM. My reward for has been to be reassed as recently as 2004 under the same rules.Why after assurances in wrighting from CSA that my maintenance would not be changed untill the Goverment was happy the new system was bedded in and working satifactoraly and i would be transfered. Surely to have two sets of legislation applying different rules when assesing child maitenance payments is in breach of human rights legislation ( article 14 Discrimination). perhaps we should all take the CSA to the European Court of Human Rights and flood them with a million applications.

   Comment by M Chandler — 26 Aug 2005 on 3:43 pm | Link

8. Come on Mr Blunkett !!!!

   Give us a fair deal. As the person who originated this message sequence (22/11/04) I am not surprised to find that I am not alone in this predicament. All we are looking for is to be treated with equity.

   Barry

   Comment by Barry — 30 Aug 2005 on 3:27 pm | Link

9. My ex-husband has never missed a payment but through November 2004 to November 2005 I have received a payment of just \xA38. How this was even allowed to be sent out to me is a complete joke and it’s made me wonder exactly what they’re doing with his money and where it’s going. For someone to pay out \xA3220 each month and it not being used on their daughter I would be very annoyed too, as he is.
   I have made regular phonecalls and written letters but have received extremely insufficient replies. I am past the angry, frustrated stage now and am so confused about what step to take next.
   The government have enough money dont they, without having to take a 3 year old toddlers money as well. The government would call this theft if it had been the other way round.

   Nagina

   Comment by Nagina — 11 Nov 2005 on 6:45 pm | Link

10. I was told that I wasn’t to be reassessed until the new system and new calculation came in so I have been making a payment of 230 a month religiously for the last 2 years my ex wife had me reassessed recently and now my payment has doubled under the old rules. This despite my case being transferred to the new system. I know this because my payment defaulted and I have had to set up a new direct debit to rectify the problem. I am now on the new system but still the old rules. I cannot understand how two different calculations can be enforced, surely the reason for having a second calculation means the first was woefully inadequate and causing abject misery for those who have to pay it, so why carry on enforcing it. So as it stands I can’t afford to see my daughter due to the significant amount I am now paying and distance I have to travel to get her. I am not a criminal so why am I being treated like one? And what do I get for my honesty a huge bill while less honest fathers pay nothing or under the new rules a much fairer amount.

    Why can’t they fudge the old rules calc to give us the same result as if we were paying under the new rules calc…..how difficult can it be doesn’t need a phd and more letters than the post office after your name.

    Seems like there is discrimination going on here and just because it is a computer system we have to accept it!!! I think there are definitely human rights issues.

    Comment by nigel gordon — 18 Nov 2005 on 10:43 pm | Link

11. I was told that I wasn’t to be reassessed until the new system and new calculation came in so I have been making a payment of 230 a month religiously for the last 2 years my ex wife had me reassessed recently and now my payment has doubled under the old rules. This despite my case being transferred to the new system. I know this because my payment defaulted and I have had to set up a new direct debit to rectify the problem. I am now on the new system but still the old rules. I cannot understand how two different calculations can be enforced, surely the reason for having a second calculation means the first was woefully inadequate and causing abject misery for those who have to pay it, so why carry on enforcing it. So as it stands I can’t afford to see my daughter due to the significant amount I am now paying and distance I have to travel to get her. I am not a criminal so why am I being treated like one? And what do I get for my honesty a huge bill while less honest fathers pay nothing or under the new rules a much fairer amount.

    Why can’t they fudge the old rules calc to give us the same result as if we were paying under the new rules calc…..how difficult can it be doesn’t need a phd and more letters than the post office after your name.

    Seems like there is discrimination going on here and just because it is a computer system we have to accept it!!! I think there are definitely human rights issues.

    Comment by nigel gordon — 18 Nov 2005 on 10:43 pm | Link

12. I was told that I wasn’t to be reassessed until the new system and new calculation came in so I have been making a payment of 230 a month religiously for the last 2 years my ex wife had me reassessed recently and now my payment has doubled under the old rules. This despite my case being transferred to the new system. I know this because my payment defaulted and I have had to set up a new direct debit to rectify the problem. I am now on the new system but still the old rules. I cannot understand how two different calculations can be enforced, surely the reason for having a second calculation means the first was woefully inadequate and causing abject misery for those who have to pay it, so why carry on enforcing it. So as it stands I can’t afford to see my daughter due to the significant amount I am now paying and distance I have to travel to get her. I am not a criminal so why am I being treated like one? And what do I get for my honesty a huge bill while less honest fathers pay nothing or under the new rules a much fairer amount.

    Why can’t they fudge the old rules calc to give us the same result as if we were paying under the new rules calc…..how difficult can it be doesn’t need a phd and more letters than the post office after your name.

    Seems like there is discrimination going on here and just because it is a computer system we have to accept it!!! I think there are definitely human rights issues.

    Comment by nigel gordon — 18 Nov 2005 on 10:44 pm | Link

13. I feel that the CSA situation is against human rights, lets give the powers back to the courts. So everyone can be asset on the individual problems and issues.

    Comment by Mark — 9 Dec 2005 on 2:38 pm | Link

14. i have been fighting to get on the new system since it came out but the csa just fob me off i currently pay \xA3244.00 a month for one child which amounts to 30% of my weekly income and through no fault of my own they have told me im in arrears of 2100.00
    its an absolute disgrace the way ive been treated

    Comment by richard — 21 Jan 2006 on 8:50 pm | Link

15. i believe all of you are lucky.I live alone in wolverhampton but have a child in Stockport. I have a morgage and work as a milkman which consists of early mornings. I have recently been reaccess under the old rules and been told that i must pay a whopping 94.27 a week. My morgage is just over 300 a month and i have the ususal outlets of bills which total about 70 pounds a week.My net income is around 300 a week and i live about 24 miles away from work. what chance of i got of even maintaining my car so i can get to work never mind seeing my son? under the new rules i would pay about 45 a week which is what she was getting before my career change. Where is the incentive in working or even trying to better yourself when the goverment decides you must pay above your means to satisfy there blunders?

    Comment by roger — 7 Feb 2006 on 4:58 pm | Link

16. I am in the same situation as the rest of the people making these comments – I’m assessed under the old system I am curently paying just under \xA3600 a month for one child – I haven’t made any mortgage payments for two months because the CSA/DW&P do not allow me any costs to run a car – Well actually they do 81p a month – Under the old Court system I believe parents were ‘means’ tested ? Would this not be a fairer system ?
    Like the rest of the contributors my payments would be around \xA3200.00 per month on the new system (15% of my take home pay) So I would be \xA3300 to \xA3400 per month better off !
    I have begged the CSA to transfer me – But their stock answer is they are waiting for the Government to tell them when they can ‘Migrate’ "Existing Clients" Well it has been over 3 years now and I was told on Friday that it is unlikely that we will ever be put onto the new system ? If I were a synic – I might say that’s because we are easy to get money out of and we are underpinning the failing CSA – It must be against our basic Human Right to be treated in this manner – I don’t know any system that can apply an attachment of earnings yet not give you the right to attend the court hearing ? Well perhaps Germany in the early 30’s
    I would really appreciate any help in this matter and can be contacted on graham@toppingg.freeserve.co.uk – Perhaps we could form a decent alternative for Fathers for Justice ? It’s a shame that Blunketts Mrs is unlikely to apply for benefits – As he would know first hand what we are having to put up with… I wonder if he would have got discount from the DNA testing company he purchased ?
    PS Has anyone found their MP to have been of any use ?

    Comment by Graham Topping — 7 May 2006 on 9:12 am | Link

17. Hi
    I am in the same situation as most of you i.e
    waiting to be transferred to new system and
    eventually get a life back ( \xA3180 less to pay )
    I have read on another website that someone had
    quoted a "dispute of rights" and amended their payments to match the new assessments and it is
    supposedly legal. Unfortunately I cannot find any
    more information about this ?

    Comment by PAUL BARKER — 9 May 2006 on 9:25 pm | Link

18. I also pay under the old rules and wait to see what disbanding the CSA will do for people like us. There are "Mens’ Movements" that keep an eye on what the Govt are doing, I was in Mankind which is full of tales like ours but also full of reports of what is going on in the background in Govt circles.
    One idea forwardred was that if everyone under the old system gave in writing that they are lowering the amount they pay by \xA310 a month (now the CSA is dead their orders are legal and enforceable?) those offices dealing with us would never be able to cope………

    Comment by Terry Browne — 24 Jul 2006 on 2:07 pm | Link

19. I’m paying under the old rules 30%,i earn approx. \xA316k a yr and am paying just over \xA3300/mnth for my daughter. My colleague who earns more than me and has 2 children pays \xA3180/mnth. I dont mind paying in the least, but let it be fair and the same across the board! The people i know that pay under the new rules are amazed at the amount i pay & count their blessings! Waiting for the migration like many others, though i also have been told by a friend who worked for the CSA till a few weeks ago that it’s very unlikely to happen b4 my daughter is 18. So another 12 yrs…

    Comment by Vinny K — 13 Sep 2006 on 7:09 pm | Link

20. I have just finished two years of a University Course and while in Uni was paying \xA325 per month as I had no income. This \xA325 came out of my Uni Loans, so even as a student I still stuck to my duties as a father.

    This year I returned to work on a year out so I could sort out my finances and hopefully save up so I can do my final year. I returned to work earning \xA315,800pa. My work deduct my travel expenses straight from my wage \xA3105 per month Portsmouth to Winchester train fare – the CSA gave me \xA31.20 a week allowance towards it.

    So, after deductions I have \xA3205 per week left over. The CSA want \xA358 a week. After paying \xA375 rent, \xA345 loan, \xA358 CSA, Food of around \xA320 a week, I’m left with about \xA37. That’s if I get rid of my mobile phone, TV, and anything else that may cost money.

    So I can live to work and pay CSA but have no social life, no TV or internet or even have the money to start a life with a new partner, but at least I’ll have a roof over my head.

    While my ex Wife was at Uni I was paying \xA3170 per month (I was on a much lower wage), and she used it to buy a car because she lived at her parents and didn’t have any costs. My money was pocket momney to her, I don’t think my daughter ever saw a penny of it. I told my ex that I couldn;t afford this kind of payment, hoping she would understand how difficult it is being in Uni. She doesn’t give a damn because she doesn’t even need my money now that she’s a Civil Engineer earning in excess of \xA328,000pa. She wants me to pay because its what I’ve been told to pay. She’s laughing all the way to the bank.

    This is a complete joke. I’m not paying it – I’ve been voluntarily giving my ex \xA3100 per month, which I can squeeze to \xA3130 per month if I push it. I guess my only option is to wait and see if they start taking it out of my wage. If they do, then I’ll have to quit my job and then try and beg and borrow to finish my final year in Uni and hope for the best.

    Comment by Gavin — 15 Sep 2006 on 6:14 pm | Link

21. I am a partner of an NRP who gets constant harassment from his PWC ex-wife for the last 5 years. My partner has been divorced for over 8 years and is on the old rules, has 5 children (but now only 4 qualifying children as his eldest is 23 and the youngest is 13). My partner and I had them every Saturday, took them places, bought them food and clothing, took them on holidays, paid for school trips and gave them all so much love, affection and we are always there to lend a hand or offer support. We are both struggling to make ends meet, and I have been made redundant 3 times in the last 5 years which puts financial strain on our relationship.

    The gist of the matter is that the PWC lives in a 6-bedroomed house, is a Secretary and Director of her and her husband’s business (they have 2 companies – food/toiletries/household products export). They turnover about \xA32 million per year, have no employees and run the business from their home. Because the PWC claims ‘WFTC’ she is assessed at having nil assessable income, therefore leaving my partner to pay her over 30% of his salary. Something stinks here!

    She uses the CSA as a weapon to control my partner even though my partner has tried on many occasions to do a private arrangement. She is a PRIVATE client, but seems to be able to wrap the CSA around her finger by having us assessed every few months. She calls them every time I find a new job and they request my details, which I refuse to give them, therefore giving my partner an INTERIM B assessment, which means he pays her more.

    She applied for a Departure based on ‘Partner’s Contribution to Housing Costs’ over a year ago, which we were stung for paying her almost triple what he pays already. Reason for this? I refused to give any of my details to the CSA so they punished my partner. I have written them letters and have asked them to leave me out of it, the children are not my financial responsibility. Because I refused to give my details (because she is able to see how much I earn but her details are not disclosed to us and she claims she’s a stay at home mother, the youngest is 13, and tells me she doesn’t have to work … BUT I DO? and my human rights are totally ignored ) they took away my partner’s housing cost allowance. We have a \xA31000 a month mortgage on a piddly little house at the lowest end of the housing market all we could afford as we both are in our late 40s and have to start all over again on a 22 year mortgage. We were sunk into the depths of despair unable to pay any of our bills. Our MP was useless as was the CAB. They all said I must give my details. I have still refused on the grounds that this has nothing to do with me and I should have rights too. My partner’s ex’s husband and her income details are not in question. A totally unfair old system.

    The Departure was eventually cancelled due to me losing my job. However she has been at it again and has been threatening to do it all over again. We have had little or no contact within the last year with his children, as his ex-wife has slowly but surely brainwashed and poisoned his children against him and me, and has made it very difficult (now impossible) for us to see them. She was the one who was unfaithful to my partner with his best friend and dissolved the marriage. We have discovered a syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome which explains her behaviour.

    The CSA pander to her every whim, have us assessed almost monthly (my partner has had to put up with this for over 8 years), listen to her lies that "she can barely afford to feed her children" … a pack of lies. She uses his money to fly to France to private villas on holiday! We haven’t had a holiday in nearly 2 years! The government must know that some people use the system to feed their Machiavellian ways. It is a disgrace! If my partner was on the new system, I would not factor into any of this and he would be paying a fair rate. I await daily, the next brown envelope to come into the post. We are not able to relax and live a normal life anymore.

    Comment by Upset — 5 Oct 2006 on 12:50 pm | Link

22. My ex and her lover have the children although this was not agreed or arranged by myself and the kids want more time with me, in fact my eldest (12) want to be with me the majority of the time. But my daughter won\x92t speak up to anyone else and gets ignored by her mum, who purposely moved 14 miles away and changed her school trained as a psychologist and a teacher she knows exactly what strings to pull with CAFCAS . She and her lover earn about 40k pa but still has the cheek to want money from me.

    This will not go towards the kids they are largely ignored from what I can gather. If they take this money from me I will not be able to afford parties, dance class, xmas and birthday presents where the money really goes to them.

    The truth is we have a government trying to apply a system to a wide spectrum of human elements. Real Absent parents who don\x92t have contact yes let them pay, Single \x93Resident Parents\x94 and those in \x93New Relationships\x94 but on a low income then yes they should pay.

    But where a resident parent is above a certain threshold and the NRP who sees his kids but is also starting out again and who is on a LOW INCOME. Should he/she really pay the \x93Resident\x94 parent who is on a much higher income and dose not really need the cash?
    In such cases if anything should be paid perhaps the \x93NRP\x94 should pay into a trust fund for the kids?

    Comment by Mr Thomson — 3 Nov 2006 on 11:48 am | Link

23. My ex and her lover have the children although this was not agreed or arranged by myself and the kids want more time with me, in fact my eldest (12) want to be with me the majority of the time. But my daughter won\x92t speak up to anyone else and gets ignored by her mum, who purposely moved 14 miles away and changed her school trained as a psychologist and a teacher she knows exactly what strings to pull with CAFCAS . She and her lover earn about 40k pa but still has the cheek to want money from me.

    This will not go towards the kids they are largely ignored from what I can gather. If they take this money from me I will not be able to afford parties, dance class, xmas and birthday presents where the money really goes to them.

    The truth is we have a government trying to apply a system to a wide spectrum of human elements. Real Absent parents who don\x92t have contact yes let them pay, Single \x93Resident Parents\x94 and those in \x93New Relationships\x94 but on a low income then yes they should pay.

    But where a resident parent is above a certain threshold and the NRP who sees his kids but is also starting out again and who is on a LOW INCOME. Should he/she really pay the \x93Resident\x94 parent who is on a much higher income and dose not really need the cash?
    In such cases if anything should be paid perhaps the \x93NRP\x94 should pay into a trust fund for the kids?

    Comment by Mr Thomson — 3 Nov 2006 on 11:49 am | Link

24. Why can’t the average cost of bringing up a child be calculated, halved and then that amount be due from the NRP?

    Why do men who have worked very hard to build up a good career have to pay more? As we are going along the people who want to earn more money (those going to university) are having to pay for that and then when they have paid for their education and all of their hard work they have to pay more when they get a better paid job. If they then have children with a woman who they later divorce they have to not only pay through more through the courts to keep the ex’s and children’s standard of living they also have to pay more though the CSA. If the mother receives tax credits (this means she can earn up to \xA355,000 pa) she is seen as not having any income. I get Tax Credits for my two children and I work yet I am seen as being able to afford to pay for half of my children’s upkeep?! (I am the second wife!) After nursery I get \xA340 a month and I am supposed to be able to pay half.

    Surely the fairest thing all round is to work out the average cost of bringing up a child and then halve it. Why shouldn’t the mother have to pay half of the cost? I have to according to the CSA.

    (We are having to move back to my parents house as we cannot afford the assessment due to debt from the divorce and the high assessment as my husband is a high earner. Where is the fairness in that?!)

    Comment by Clare — 10 Nov 2006 on 4:04 pm | Link

25. IM CURRENTLY PAYING 55.00 A WEEK CSA FOR A 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER THIS INCLUDES THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN HAVING TO PAY AN EXTRA 21.00 A WEEK FOR 2 YEARS AS THEY HAVE PUT ME IN ARREARS OF 2000.00 BECAUSE THE CSA COULDNT GET IT RIGHT.MY MP WAS USELESS THE CAB WERE USELESS THERES NO ONE FOR US TO TURN TO THE CSA JUST DO AS THEY WANT.THEY WONT LET ME ON THE NEW SYSTEM AS IVE ASKED FOR THE LAST YEAR.MY OPINION IS SHUT THEM DOWN THE GOVERMENT HAS GIVEN THEM TO MUCH POWER

    Comment by RICHARD BURTON — 26 Nov 2006 on 3:56 pm | Link

26. IM CURRENTLY PAYING 55.00 A WEEK CSA FOR A 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER THIS INCLUDES THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN HAVING TO PAY AN EXTRA 21.00 A WEEK FOR 2 YEARS AS THEY HAVE PUT ME IN ARREARS OF 2000.00 BECAUSE THE CSA COULDNT GET IT RIGHT.MY MP WAS USELESS THE CAB WERE USELESS THERES NO ONE FOR US TO TURN TO THE CSA JUST DO AS THEY WANT.THEY WONT LET ME ON THE NEW SYSTEM AS IVE ASKED FOR THE LAST YEAR.MY OPINION IS SHUT THEM DOWN THE GOVERMENT HAS GIVEN THEM TO MUCH POWER

    Comment by RICHARD BURTON — 26 Nov 2006 on 4:56 pm | Link

27. Hi All, I am looking for some advice…I have a consent order in place Dated Sept 2002 for the maintenance of my 3 kids….It states that this should be reviewed annually and increased by RPI which i understand is a way of "Inflation Proofing" the payments….however i have a separate paragraph that states ""Provided always that in the event of an application to the CSA such maintenance shall be reduced pro tanto to the amount of the CSA assessment"….having now gone through the CSA and recieved an assessment it shows that i pay too much through the consent order….my ex has refused the assessment and is adamant that i will have to pay the increase as per the RPI….what can i do…the order clearly states that i can go the CSA route….but are the CSA allowed to just accept her refusal to this assement being used????
    Thank you in advance for any pearls of wisdom that you can throw my way.

    Comment by Longey67 — 27 Nov 2006 on 12:49 pm | Link

28. Since 1999 I have been paying \xA3355.59 per month. I was assessed when my ex-wife moved to a council house and was on benefit whilst not working. 3 months later she moved her boyfriend and married him 3 months after that.

    I have attempted to get reassessed ever since, until recently I had very low rental costs due to military single accommodation; recently I have an \xA3817 per month mortgage. Got my reassessment letter this morning: They CANNOT change my payment!

    My housing costs have risen from <\xA3100 per month to >\xA3800 and that isn’t reflected in my payment? What is that all about?

    Next month I leave the military and as yet have no job, I also have a child on the way with my lovely second wife, according to my solicitor from the day I no longer earn I am to stop paying and do my own assessment via the CSA site and pay that! Can’t wait!

    I have been telling the CSA on the phone for the past 3 months to ensure they record each conversation and have informed them of my plans for February with regards a new payment plan.

    I will not be beaten by them but if need be I will become a stay at home Dad whilst my wife works.

    Comment by Mr W — 17 Jan 2007 on 8:35 am | Link

29. Since 1999 I have been paying \xA3355.59 per month. I was assessed when my ex-wife moved to a council house and was on benefit whilst not working. 3 months later she moved her boyfriend and married him 3 months after that.

    I have attempted to get reassessed ever since, until recently I had very low rental costs due to military single accommodation; recently I have an \xA3817 per month mortgage. Got my reassessment letter this morning: They CANNOT change my payment!

    My housing costs have risen from <\xA3100 per month to >\xA3800 and that isn’t reflected in my payment? What is that all about?

    Next month I leave the military and as yet have no job, I also have a child on the way with my lovely second wife, according to my solicitor from the day I no longer earn I am to stop paying and do my own assessment via the CSA site and pay that! Can’t wait!

    I have been telling the CSA on the phone for the past 3 months to ensure they record each conversation and have informed them of my plans for February with regards a new payment plan.

    I will not be beaten by them but if need be I will become a stay at home Dad whilst my wife works.

    Comment by Mr W — 17 Jan 2007 on 8:37 am | Link

30. The above comment stipped out my mention of previous rental costs of less than \xA3100 per month up to my current mortgage of over \xA3800. Over \xA3700 per month less to me and still my payment remains as it was, what a farce.

    Comment by Mr W — 17 Jan 2007 on 8:39 am | Link

31. There a bunch of idiots (especially the irish branch) who became very rasist towards me personally, im a lucky one who managed to get away from them, after shelling out \xA32500 pay off, of back dated because they took 18months too sort out a proper amount)not including the 10k id already payed on my shitty 12k a year salary, thats before he was even 6years of age, but i dont think ive heard the last of them. They like the easy targets and are too sodding lazy to do anything about the ones, they actually have to chase, self employed etc, there should be a system where every child is equal say a 30k amount for the 16 years wether you work or dont? you should still owe it untils its paid even if it comes off your giro for the rest of your life. i thought we supposed to be a equal rights country, lets not base it on lifestyle or private schools etc, thats just not fair to the kids that get bugger all….

    Comment by pissed off — 20 Feb 2007 on 6:51 pm | Link

32. THE CSA PUTS SECOND FAMILIES IN POVERTY!!!!!!!!
    The Csa makes an assessment on the NRP giving them income support levels to live on ( and a few extra allowences).The assessment is high not taking into account the PWC’s partners wages which is unfair.The majority of men are the wage earners.
    In our case we are assessed to pay over \xA3400 per month for one child which we dont see.The PWC does not grant access ( why should she she can get more money from the CSA!).Also her husband earns over 60k per year – but his wages dont come into it !
    If the assessment is \xA3400 per month tax free ! does the PWC contribute that much ? -NO why should she when the NRP foots the entire cost !
    Also if the CSA are so bothered about the welfare of children then what about MY children – do i as a parent of a second family get the same allowence ! NO !Why should the PWC child get preference over my children ! It is totally unfair and its not a suprise many NRP’s dont pay !
    THINK ABOUT THE NRP’S SECOND FAMILIES CHILDREN TOO – THEY NEED TO EAT !!!

    Comment by mary — 23 Feb 2007 on 6:07 pm | Link

33. THE CSA PUTS SECOND FAMILIES IN POVERTY!!!!!!!!
    The Csa makes an assessment on the NRP giving them income support levels to live on ( and a few extra allowences).The assessment is high not taking into account the PWC’s partners wages which is unfair.The majority of men are the wage earners.
    In our case we are assessed to pay over \xA3400 per month for one child which we dont see.The PWC does not grant access ( why should she she can get more money from the CSA!).Also her husband earns over 60k per year – but his wages dont come into it !
    If the assessment is \xA3400 per month tax free ! does the PWC contribute that much ? -NO why should she when the NRP foots the entire cost !
    Also if the CSA are so bothered about the welfare of children then what about MY children – do i as a parent of a second family get the same allowence ! NO !Why should the PWC child get preference over my children ! It is totally unfair and its not a suprise many NRP’s dont pay !
    THINK ABOUT THE NRP’S SECOND FAMILIES CHILDREN TOO – THEY NEED TO EAT !!!

    Comment by mary — 23 Feb 2007 on 6:07 pm | Link

34. THE CSA PUTS SECOND FAMILIES IN POVERTY!!!!!!!!
    The Csa makes an assessment on the NRP giving them income support levels to live on ( and a few extra allowences).The assessment is high not taking into account the PWC’s partners wages which is unfair.The majority of men are the wage earners.
    In our case we are assessed to pay over \xA3400 per month for one child which we dont see.The PWC does not grant access ( why should she she can get more money from the CSA!).Also her husband earns over 60k per year – but his wages dont come into it !
    If the assessment is \xA3400 per month tax free ! does the PWC contribute that much ? -NO why should she when the NRP foots the entire cost !
    Also if the CSA are so bothered about the welfare of children then what about MY children – do i as a parent of a second family get the same allowence ! NO !Why should the PWC child get preference over my children ! It is totally unfair and its not a suprise many NRP’s dont pay !
    THINK ABOUT THE NRP’S SECOND FAMILIES CHILDREN TOO – THEY NEED TO EAT !!!

    Comment by mary — 23 Feb 2007 on 6:07 pm | Link

35. "Also if the CSA are so bothered about the welfare of children"

    Where on earth do you get that idea??? If the government (or their mouthpieces in the media) told you there were nuclear weapons in Iran you’d believe them, wouldn’t you?! People are so gullible!!!

    Comment by Troofah — 24 Feb 2007 on 2:15 am | Link

36. "i thought we supposed to be a equal rights country"

    Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well??!! LMAO! Equal rights country?! How about that for prima facie evidence that the "education" system in this country is nothing more than a sophisticated brainwashing program?! Next you’ll be saying you think democracy is alive and well…

    Comment by Troofah — 24 Feb 2007 on 2:30 am | Link

37. I desperately need advice. I am the parent with care and receive no maintenance at all. At our latest tribunal on 21st February I was given 2 weeks (till 7th March) to provide a submission after which a decision will be made. It is concerning loans and borrowings which the father says that he has lived off but the borrowings amount to over \xA3500,000, his lifestyle is excessive with property worth \xA31.2 million, and he draws no salary therefore the money is not taxable.

    This application has been on-going since 1998 and a departure direction was given in May 2003 for a lifestyle inconsistent with declared income. The father appealed and the Commissioner did not accept the father\x92s reasons but ruled that the tribunal had erred technically and that the Secretary of State should revise the decision. They did so by adopting the decision of the May 2003 tribunal and the father then appealed against this. This was not heard again until September 2006 when the Chairman decided to hear the matter afresh because of another mistake by the previous Chairman and extended the relevant period from March 1999 to July 2005. The father had not provided any financial information throughout all this time and the Chairman once again gave directions for substantial financial information to be produced. The father provided some of the information requested but huge chunks were missing. For example there are no bank statements showing where living expenses were paid from or where the moneys received went into and how used. There are no accounts for the developments showing profit and loss.

    It has been shown throughout the period that the father and his wife had been in property development and construction since 1999 and had several businesses, some of which don\x92t trade. They had acquired property worth over \xA31.2 million (2 of these properties are now holiday homes generating approx. \xA324,000 per year each and they have sold other properties). They have had numerous luxury cars, holidays, quad bikes, clay pigeon shooting, keep 4 horses, stables, 2 Weimaraner dogs, mobile phones, computers, family cinema rooms etc. He has and is living a very high lifestyle.

    This has been accepted but at the last hearing he has produced a letter from the Inland Revenue who had been investigating his affairs for the period January 2001-October 2004 which says that \x93I am satisfied that your personal living expenses over and above your earned income declared on your returns were financed by the mortgages and development loans taken out to develop the various properties and personal loans from family and friends and not from an undisclosed source of income\x94. At this point the tribunal seemed to close down on us. We expect it is because in general loans are considered as capital and capital cannot be taken into account for a lifestyle departure. However, we believe that there are exceptions to this, where there are certain provisions for certain capital to be treated as income, which we hoped you could advise us on.

    We have attempted to look up past cases but are worried that we are misinterpreting them. The cases we have found show that it is possible to argue that:

    CCS/4438/2001: This seems to have a lot of similarities with our case. It says that \x93The ability to continue to service such a loan in addition to the later loans \x85. Was a relevant consideration for the purposes of calculating income at a later stage\x94 and \x93it is quite clear that the tribunal regarded the raising of mortgages of such a large aggregate amount to be part of the father\x92s life-style\x94.

    CIS/5140/2002 & Court of Appeal R(IS) 6/03: says that loans from relatives can be taken as income if treated as such even if it is not immediately repayable. That if the aggregate of the instalments outstanding and the amount of the claimant\x92s capital exceeds \xA38,000 shall be treated as income. That payments received on a periodical, recurring basis and available to meet recurrent expenditure are to be regarded as income.

    CCS/2018/2005: Says that \x93the fact that a particular aspect of a parent\x92s life-style is financed by borrowing does not automatically exclude that aspect of his life-style from consideration because the ability to obtain and service a particular loan can indicate that the life-style is inconsistent with the declared income\x94.

    We do not know whether the tax returns in front of the Appeals Service are complete and the same as seen by the tax office but those we have seen show incomes well below the tax threshold, ie. \xA33,500 for one year, some less. We believe that the tax office are doing a different exercise than the tribunal because they are interested in taxable income.

    The loans amount to over \xA3500,000. There are at least 3 substantial commercial loans. He has also provided a letter from his father-in-law which says that he borrowed them \xA350,000 and then \xA3150,000, of which \xA390,000 has been paid back. A friend has borrowed him \xA3100,000 of which \xA384,000 has been paid back.

    The father appears to be paying all living expenses including mortgages (which he said at the tribunal was over \xA35000 per month, on paper we can see \xA31808 per month), to cars, utilities, food and entertainment everything from a very low declared income and tremendous borrowings and loans taken for the development projects but drawing no salary at all from these projects so pays no tax on the money that he has drawn to meet his living expenses. We find it hard to believe that this is legal!

    We are unable to see if he is drawing from the loans at regular times because he has not provided any financial information/bank statements as requested by the chairman. He also says that he is carrying a huge loss but again we have not seen any evidence of this. We believe that he may be including his outstanding mortgages in this and we believe that if the properties were sold he would have a huge profit.

    We can also see that in November 2005 he diverted income to his wife by way of selling her a barn conversion for \xA375,000. This is now one of their holiday homes. The other barns on the development were sold previously for \xA3120,000 and \xA3130,000 (undeveloped) and \xA3249,000 (developed) so you can see that he has sold it for a loss or hardly any profit compared to the others in the same development project.

    We have tried the CAB previously, their recommended solicitors and the CSA themselves but no-one possesses any expertise in the Child Support Act. We would be extremely grateful for any help.

    Comment by Janette — 28 Feb 2007 on 3:26 pm | Link

38. I desperately need advice. I am the parent with care and receive no maintenance at all. At our latest tribunal on 21st February I was given 2 weeks (till 7th March) to provide a submission after which a decision will be made. It is concerning loans and borrowings which the father says that he has lived off but the borrowings amount to over \xA3500,000, his lifestyle is excessive with property worth \xA31.2 million, and he draws no salary therefore the money is not taxable.

    This application has been on-going since 1998 and a departure direction was given in May 2003 for a lifestyle inconsistent with declared income. The father appealed and the Commissioner did not accept the father\x92s reasons but ruled that the tribunal had erred technically and that the Secretary of State should revise the decision. They did so by adopting the decision of the May 2003 tribunal and the father then appealed against this. This was not heard again until September 2006 when the Chairman decided to hear the matter afresh because of another mistake by the previous Chairman and extended the relevant period from March 1999 to July 2005. The father had not provided any financial information throughout all this time and the Chairman once again gave directions for substantial financial information to be produced. The father provided some of the information requested but huge chunks were missing. For example there are no bank statements showing where living expenses were paid from or where the moneys received went into and how used. There are no accounts for the developments showing profit and loss.

    It has been shown throughout the period that the father and his wife had been in property development and construction since 1999 and had several businesses, some of which don\x92t trade. They had acquired property worth over \xA31.2 million (2 of these properties are now holiday homes generating approx. \xA324,000 per year each and they have sold other properties). They have had numerous luxury cars, holidays, quad bikes, clay pigeon shooting, keep 4 horses, stables, 2 Weimaraner dogs, mobile phones, computers, family cinema rooms etc. He has and is living a very high lifestyle.

    This has been accepted but at the last hearing he has produced a letter from the Inland Revenue who had been investigating his affairs for the period January 2001-October 2004 which says that \x93I am satisfied that your personal living expenses over and above your earned income declared on your returns were financed by the mortgages and development loans taken out to develop the various properties and personal loans from family and friends and not from an undisclosed source of income\x94. At this point the tribunal seemed to close down on us. We expect it is because in general loans are considered as capital and capital cannot be taken into account for a lifestyle departure. However, we believe that there are exceptions to this, where there are certain provisions for certain capital to be treated as income, which we hoped you could advise us on.

    We have attempted to look up past cases but are worried that we are misinterpreting them. The cases we have found show that it is possible to argue that:

    CCS/4438/2001: This seems to have a lot of similarities with our case. It says that \x93The ability to continue to service such a loan in addition to the later loans \x85. Was a relevant consideration for the purposes of calculating income at a later stage\x94 and \x93it is quite clear that the tribunal regarded the raising of mortgages of such a large aggregate amount to be part of the father\x92s life-style\x94.

    CIS/5140/2002 & Court of Appeal R(IS) 6/03: says that loans from relatives can be taken as income if treated as such even if it is not immediately repayable. That if the aggregate of the instalments outstanding and the amount of the claimant\x92s capital exceeds \xA38,000 shall be treated as income. That payments received on a periodical, recurring basis and available to meet recurrent expenditure are to be regarded as income.

    CCS/2018/2005: Says that \x93the fact that a particular aspect of a parent\x92s life-style is financed by borrowing does not automatically exclude that aspect of his life-style from consideration because the ability to obtain and service a particular loan can indicate that the life-style is inconsistent with the declared income\x94.

    We do not know whether the tax returns in front of the Appeals Service are complete and the same as seen by the tax office but those we have seen show incomes well below the tax threshold, ie. \xA33,500 for one year, some less. We believe that the tax office are doing a different exercise than the tribunal because they are interested in taxable income.

    The loans amount to over \xA3500,000. There are at least 3 substantial commercial loans. He has also provided a letter from his father-in-law which says that he borrowed them \xA350,000 and then \xA3150,000, of which \xA390,000 has been paid back. A friend has borrowed him \xA3100,000 of which \xA384,000 has been paid back.

    The father appears to be paying all living expenses including mortgages (which he said at the tribunal was over \xA35000 per month, on paper we can see \xA31808 per month), to cars, utilities, food and entertainment everything from a very low declared income and tremendous borrowings and loans taken for the development projects but drawing no salary at all from these projects so pays no tax on the money that he has drawn to meet his living expenses. We find it hard to believe that this is legal!

    We are unable to see if he is drawing from the loans at regular times because he has not provided any financial information/bank statements as requested by the chairman. He also says that he is carrying a huge loss but again we have not seen any evidence of this. We believe that he may be including his outstanding mortgages in this and we believe that if the properties were sold he would have a huge profit.

    We can also see that in November 2005 he diverted income to his wife by way of selling her a barn conversion for \xA375,000. This is now one of their holiday homes. The other barns on the development were sold previously for \xA3120,000 and \xA3130,000 (undeveloped) and \xA3249,000 (developed) so you can see that he has sold it for a loss or hardly any profit compared to the others in the same development project.

    We have tried the CAB previously, their recommended solicitors and the CSA themselves but no-one possesses any expertise in the Child Support Act. We would be extremely grateful for any help.

    Comment by Janette — 28 Feb 2007 on 3:26 pm | Link

39. I recently annoyed my ex-wife by reporting her new bloke for abusive texts to my daughter.Her only response was to let me know that she had contacted the CSA and wanted money from me.Since my divorce in 1993 I have always given my daughter everything she has ever needed.Shoes,school books,uniforms,trips,play clothes ,toys,basically everything.I refuse to give her any money as she will spend it on herself, going on holiday,getting plastered etc.I have taken my daughter almost every weekend since she was three years of age as the ex was always out man hunting.My daughter turned 16 in Feb 2007 , which under Scottish Law makes her an adult.The Residency Order finishes the day of her 16th birthday.The form that is filled in claiming CSA by the PWC clearly states that anyone knowingly providing false information is committing a CRIMINAL offence.My ex did and I have questioned the Child Support Agency and was told by the home visitor from Long Benton (who’s name I am giving to the MP for full enquiry)that it is not in the public interest to charge her.I disagree,as one sided use of any law against one section of society is a breach of their Human Rights and the persons involved should be charged by the Government as prohibition of discrimination is one of the 16 new acts put into the British constitution by this government.At a talk at a local DWP meeting a member of CSA staff(Name given to MP) stated:
    a)Charging PWC under Child Support law would not be good for the CSA’s public image.
    b)No PWC has ever or will ever be charged.
    c)The changeover from the Old system to the New system will never take place as the computer systems are incompatible.
    d)\xA3120million has been given to the CSA to change their name to C-MEC Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission.
    e)No plans to make CSA fairer only further enforcement against NRP’s.
    These are only a few statements made in the public arena and I urge every person reading this to get their MP to get Government Policy clarification from the Head of DWP/Minister of state and then pursue them under Human Rights Act for clear and blatant discrimination.Myself and other witnesses are prepared to testify (with names and meeting times)in any court or tribunal hearing against the Government and CSA should they try to deny that this is their course for the future.If you are presently awaiting a decision on CSA and are already looking after your child ask them to use their power of discretion not to make an interim decision as any assessment made would be detremental to the child and its welfare would suffer.
    Finally,use your MP’s to hastle the minister of State and do not be fobbed off with any rubbish they may try to use,ask for a clear statement of policy and get your MP to follow this up.Good Luck.I will let you know how we get on. Ian

    Comment by Ian — 1 Mar 2007 on 1:36 pm | Link

40. I recently annoyed my ex-wife by reporting her new bloke for abusive texts to my daughter.Her only response was to let me know that she had contacted the CSA and wanted money from me.Since my divorce in 1993 I have always given my daughter everything she has ever needed.Shoes,school books,uniforms,trips,play clothes ,toys,basically everything.I refuse to give her any money as she will spend it on herself, going on holiday,getting plastered etc.I have taken my daughter almost every weekend since she was three years of age as the ex was always out man hunting.My daughter turned 16 in Feb 2007 , which under Scottish Law makes her an adult.The Residency Order finishes the day of her 16th birthday.The form that is filled in claiming CSA by the PWC clearly states that anyone knowingly providing false information is committing a CRIMINAL offence.My ex did and I have questioned the Child Support Agency and was told by the home visitor from Long Benton (who’s name I am giving to the MP for full enquiry)that it is not in the public interest to charge her.I disagree,as one sided use of any law against one section of society is a breach of their Human Rights and the persons involved should be charged by the Government as prohibition of discrimination is one of the 16 new acts put into the British constitution by this government.At a talk at a local DWP meeting a member of CSA staff(Name given to MP) stated:
    a)Charging PWC under Child Support law would not be good for the CSA’s public image.
    b)No PWC has ever or will ever be charged.
    c)The changeover from the Old system to the New system will never take place as the computer systems are incompatible.
    d)\xA3120million has been given to the CSA to change their name to C-MEC Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission.
    e)No plans to make CSA fairer only further enforcement against NRP’s.
    These are only a few statements made in the public arena and I urge every person reading this to get their MP to get Government Policy clarification from the Head of DWP/Minister of state and then pursue them under Human Rights Act for clear and blatant discrimination.Myself and other witnesses are prepared to testify (with names and meeting times)in any court or tribunal hearing against the Government and CSA should they try to deny that this is their course for the future.If you are presently awaiting a decision on CSA and are already looking after your child ask them to use their power of discretion not to make an interim decision as any assessment made would be detremental to the child and its welfare would suffer.
    Finally,use your MP’s to hastle the minister of State and do not be fobbed off with any rubbish they may try to use,ask for a clear statement of policy and get your MP to follow this up.Good Luck.I will let you know how we get on. Ian

    Comment by Ian — 1 Mar 2007 on 1:37 pm | Link

41. Started by the tories and backed by a labour goverment that says we live in a free country,so why are we the absent ones as they call us living a life of total distruction and misery,all having our hard earn money stolen off us to pay our ex,s. Over the top amounts of money that no one in a right state of mind would spend on the childern.Twisted ex partners who are just greedy and selfish,they do not care for the children,just on seeking revenge through finacial gain.The Csa the answer to there preys!!

    The new reforms! Ha! what a joke. Funny how parts can be introduced to suit the oh so poor parents with care of the child..

    Yes you guessed it, Im a little annoyed.

    Been paying under the old system since the year 2000 Happy Milenium eh!

    I was totally up front with the Csa in the beginning,suppling all the information they required But oh yes there is a but! I made then a nice presentation pack all colour coded and child friendly to understand, all proof backed by others ie Bank manager Solicitor and my Employor!
    Total waste of time! they told me my ex wife says you can do overtime so you can afford the \xA3412 a month only taking home \xA31k so losing that hurt.and for a child of a year and thats after giving my ex \xA344k Yes you read it right,leaving me with nothing just my job but i was just trying to stay on good terms so i could see my son,again waste of time, she did a runner and ive not really seen him since.

    Now for final kick in the head from the Csa. Told me the amount to pay was high because i had gone back to my parents, If I bought a house of my own it would be reduced!! liars! Did that and had to move over 100 miles away from friends and family cos i couldnt afford one in Chelmsford Essex so moved to Derby,then i thought hang on the csa give you an allowace for travelling over 150miles a week if you use your car to work. Ace I thought, im quids in here! My own house and travel to work by car,its gonna be reduced! Liars!
    Here are their replys to my new situation.

    First the house part. We dont have to take that into account if we or I as the woman on the other end of the phone put it.Ok!

    Well I’ll get them with the travel to work bit! Doh! again not if i dont want to she said!

    Anyway she continued as you work on the railway you can get freight trains to work if there are no passenger trains. Really I thought wasting my time.
    So went through the complaints part of the Csa.
    Wasting my time again as you deal with the same people who your trying to reason with.No independent company just another office on maybe another floor in the building.So lost the house as couldnt afford it.did they care? what do you think!
    There is more to this story but it would go on forever!

    So we keep on paying till the end thats seems such a long way away!

    Thanks for reading this.

    Steven

    Comment by Steven Davidson — 29 Mar 2007 on 8:36 am | Link

42. It’s all a farce! I agree with the woman that said second families are treated like dirt.

    My partner pays \xA3xxx per month for a child his ex hasn’t allowed him to see for almost a year – since I gave birth to my daughter (incidentally – the ex lied that she was on the pill, and then disregarded his feelings when he said he wasn’t ready to be a Dad). As well as trying to blackmail us with the threat of 10 years backdated CSA (payments had always been cash-in-hand to ensure access) she threatened me, sent me abusive texts and harassed myself and my daughter on a daily basis for months.

    What happened? Was she carted off for unacceptable behaviour? Made to offer us access? No – the CSA takes my daughter’s tax credits and gives them to her, as well as factoring in my earnings, without taking any of my debts into account such as the credit card bill I ran up whilst at university – BEFORE I MET MY PARTNER!!!

    Ridiculous!

    Comment by Anna Bowman — 30 Mar 2007 on 4:08 pm | Link

43. long story, in short..

    originally disputed paternity as encounter was a one-night stand.

    Paternity determined mid march 2003 (relevant effective date february 2002). Accepted responsibility and was assured by the CSA at the time that case would be assessed as per the satement on the website under the NEW rules (CSA2), as NO assessment had been made prior to 3rd March 2003 (the start date of the new system).

    Heard NOTHING until July 2005 (yes over 2 years). They finally made an assessment end of October 2005 of \xA3380 / month for one child BUT on CSA1(would have been about \xA3230 on CSA2). Plus arrears of \xA317,500 backdated to Feb 2002!!!

    Move on 12 months, and I now have a mortgage of \xA3500 / month so requested a re-assessment on October 2006. Just had the letter back – denied as it qill not alter my assessment by more than \xA310 per week – ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

    Now apart from all the human right issues one thing that struck me was a statment / qoute that the average assessment (spread over all cases) by the CSA is less than \xA350 per week, so how the hell can it have to change by more than 20% for them to even consider it????

    Does anyone have any advice?

    I’m going to appeal the decision (nice they don’t send the appeal form along with the decision letter – mind, nice that they always say please use the enclosed envelope to reply – never one of those either) and contact my MP, I’n not sure what good it will do, and I can’t even be bothered doing it tonight anyway.

    Comment by Andy — 1 Apr 2007 on 8:24 pm | Link

44. long story, in short..

    originally disputed paternity as encounter was a one-night stand.

    Paternity determined mid march 2003 (relevant effective date february 2002). Accepted responsibility and was assured by the CSA at the time that case would be assessed as per the satement on the website under the NEW rules (CSA2), as NO assessment had been made prior to 3rd March 2003 (the start date of the new system).

    Heard NOTHING until July 2005 (yes over 2 years). They finally made an assessment end of October 2005 of \xA3380 / month for one child BUT on CSA1(would have been about \xA3230 on CSA2). Plus arrears of \xA317,500 backdated to Feb 2002!!!

    Move on 12 months, and I now have a mortgage of \xA3500 / month so requested a re-assessment on October 2006. Just had the letter back – denied as it qill not alter my assessment by more than \xA310 per week – ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

    Now apart from all the human right issues one thing that struck me was a statment / qoute that the average assessment (spread over all cases) by the CSA is less than \xA350 per week, so how the hell can it have to change by more than 20% for them to even consider it????

    Does anyone have any advice?

    I’m going to appeal the decision (nice they don’t send the appeal form along with the decision letter – mind, nice that they always say please use the enclosed envelope to reply – never one of those either) and contact my MP, I’n not sure what good it will do, and I can’t even be bothered doing it tonight anyway.

    Comment by Andy — 1 Apr 2007 on 8:25 pm | Link

45. I have been seperated from my ex for 12 years and have a monthly agreement of how much to pay for my two girls.Now that the older one has reached 18 and I suggested now only paying for the younger one she has decided to maximise her holiday fund by using the CSA.
    This is the first time I have been on this site and reading other peoples stories just makes me feel so sad
    We all want to look after our children, but at what price.
    Today I decided to contact The Sun newspaper who have a justice site.
    I have attached this site as a file in the hope it is read and acted upon.
    Maybe a few more people should follow it cannot do any harm

    Comment by David Collins — 16 Apr 2007 on 8:51 pm | Link

46. I have been seperated from my ex for 12 years and have a monthly agreement of how much to pay for my two girls.Now that the older one has reached 18 and I suggested now only paying for the younger one she has decided to maximise her holiday fund by using the CSA.
    This is the first time I have been on this site and reading other peoples stories just makes me feel so sad
    We all want to look after our children, but at what price.
    Today I decided to contact The Sun newspaper who have a justice site.
    I have attached this site as a file in the hope it is read and acted upon.
    Maybe a few more people should follow it cannot do any harm

    Comment by David Collins — 16 Apr 2007 on 8:51 pm | Link

47. Well what a sad state of affairs. My ex partner has left the Army and has now gone AWOL of his responsibilities which is I guess fine as he hasn’t seen his kids for four years anyway so I suppose why should he pay for them is what he is thinking (his choice not to see them not mine).

    Anyway two and a half months ago I asked the CSA to make enquiries at his new work place. Today I telephone them to chase it and they have not bothered to make the phone call. If they can’t even do that then I am afraid there is no hope for the future… 🙁 in the meantime, my kids go without and I guess eventually I will be the one who brought them up and guess what I will be very proud…

    Comment by Lilly — 27 Apr 2007 on 8:25 pm | Link

48. Well here I go again. I have a 16 yr old daughter who is just about to leave school. About 8 yrs ago the CSA told me that I had to pay \xA3107 per week maintenance, nearly half of my net income at that time. Well needless to say I was so overwhelmed with my desperate situation that I totally lost it, hung myself and very nearly died.

    While I was hospitalised my father contacted the CSA and got the payments down to \xA389 per week. Now I know I have financial responsabilities to my daughter but I have paid that \xA389 per week for the past 8 years. My wife and I have lived on the poverty line ever since.

    Imagine my horror the other day when they send me a deduction from earnings order for \xA3104 per week. 30% of my net income. I will lose my house and everything! They haven’t assessed me for 8 years, just this.
    However they have graciously allowed me \xA399 per week protected earnings to keep 2 adults and a mortgage. How nice! How do I escape this living hell called the CSA? Death seems the only way out for me!

    Comment by Meirion Smith — 13 May 2007 on 9:45 pm | Link

49. Hi there

    I have a 12 year old daughter and was with her mother until she was 4. Since then I have only seen her 3 times as her mother (my ex) will not allow me to visit or her to visit me. I am with another family step son and girlfriend whom I love dearly but I pay \xA3169 per week to my ex I know there are arrears but I would feel much better if I was allowed to see my daughter.

    Have you any advice – should it not be worked out at the cost of bringing up a child?? My girlfriend accepts \xA3170 per month from her ex-partner for her son and I feel useless as I would like to support them more as they are my family and look after and care for me as I do them.

    Comment by nicholas rhodes — 14 May 2007 on 4:03 pm | Link

50. Hi there

    I have a 12 year old daughter and was with her mother until she was 4. Since then I have only seen her 3 times as her mother (my ex) will not allow me to visit or her to visit me. I am with another family step son and girlfriend whom I love dearly but I pay \xA3169 per week to my ex I know there are arrears but I would feel much better if I was allowed to see my daughter.

    Have you any advice – should it not be worked out at the cost of bringing up a child?? My girlfriend accepts \xA3170 per month from her ex-partner for her son and I feel useless as I would like to support them more as they are my family and look after and care for me as I do them.

    Comment by nicholas rhodes — 14 May 2007 on 4:04 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.