A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

New Child Support Regs.....someNRPs be very afraid

  • skodaman
  • skodaman's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358452 by skodaman
Topic started by skodaman
Talked to CSA yesterday. E-mail has been sent to frontline staff to prepare for change to age-20 for ALL systems (not just CSA3) in October. NRPs will not be told until the change has been applied to their case. Plenty of warning then!

How can this be ''fair''? many NRPs will have made plans based upon age 19 and thes can be negated at no notice and, perhaps, even retrospectively !!
.....yes closed cases can be re-opened!

I can see the point of announcing the change early, or phasing-in, so that people can prepare, eg change will apply to all aged 18 or under on, say, 31st Oct, 2012.

Most people, including CSA advisors (my MP too!), and websites seem unaware of this change. How are NRPs supposed to manage in the face of covert financial interference?

Lack of forewarning (and possibly retrospective action) surely means that this change fails any test of ''reasonableness''.....could it be challenged in court a la Judicial Review ?

Another blow for NRPs who have tried to do the right thing for years.

Suggest lots of E-mails to MPs. The reason for the change may or may not be "fair", sudden implementation without warning certainly is not!

  • Fiona
  • Fiona's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358456 by Fiona
Reply from Fiona
I don''t think CSA staff are usually informed of changes until they are imminent. Raising the age of eligibility to 20 years of age has been on the cards since 2008 when the law changed to bring it line with Child Benefit rules. One would hope MPs were aware of legislation passed through Parliament!

It has taken this long to implement the change but it is well documented in consultations, CSA regulations 2012 etc and Wikivorce.

  • leanng
  • leanng's Avatar
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358459 by leanng
Reply from leanng
Skodaman

i so disagree with your comment.

The cost of a child doesn''t suddenly disappear cos they turn 18/19.

You may have made plans but what about the parent housing your child. Maybe she too had plans??

Your child is your responsibility whether they are living with you or not... i think its called support....................

  • skodaman
  • skodaman's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358464 by skodaman
Reply from skodaman
leanng wrote:

Skodaman

i so disagree with your comment.

The cost of a child doesn''t suddenly disappear cos they turn 18/19.

You may have made plans but what about the parent housing your child. Maybe she too had plans?? (based on 19 ? as is current??)

Your child is your responsibility whether they are living with you or not... i think its called support....................


Actually BOTH our resposibilites (:ohmy:) : my elder daughter lives with me....not wanted by PWC once she became too old to be a benefit-source.
However, my point is that this change is NOT flagged on CSA or DWP websites and CSA phone advice may still say 19. The NRP cannot plan for the change.
for example:

It looks as though closed cases can be re-opened and any direct-arrangement between the NRP and their offspring will have to be undone, so that money once again goes into the control of the ‘PWC’.

These “children” will be 19 years old and might want to initiate legal action on their own behalf. Not much the NRP can do (as money will simply be deducted at source) except ‘die’ in the crossfire. A potential nightmare ?

If the change were phased...then it would work.

PS I am currently supporting one child living with me (university next Sept.), my ex- contributes nothing and paying for youngest child. I had hoped that we could support one each, I do understand reponsibility. I also understand that many PWCs want the cake and the ha''penny.

  • leanng
  • leanng's Avatar
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358466 by leanng
Reply from leanng
Skodaman

I understand your frustrations now that you''ve explained your situation and you''ll probably realise most situations are unique.

my ex left when kids were 13, 15 and 19. two years down the line and he still won''t agree a settlement. i presume he is hoping it gets to a time that he doesn''t have to pay CSA and can get 50/50 split.

His solicitors letter stated that the kids are going to get older and less dependent on me thus i do not need any extra money now to house them. he rarely sees kids... he has decided to "desist all contact with them" according to a solicitors letter last July...

I do realise everyone situation is different

  • skodaman
  • skodaman's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358467 by skodaman
Reply from skodaman
Fiona wrote:

I don''t think CSA staff are usually informed of changes until they are imminent. Raising the age of eligibility to 20 years of age has been on the cards since 2008 when the law changed to bring it line with Child Benefit rules. One would hope MPs were aware of legislation passed through Parliament!

It has taken this long to implement the change but it is well documented in consultations, CSA regulations 2012 etc and Wikivorce.


It may be known the ''experts'' but the CSA and DWP sites say 19. Two CSA advisors, last week: 19. It is not generally known and is going to hit a lot of unsuspecting NRPs very hard. Change by all means but at least flag the change well in advance.

Then again, the feckless will be unaffected, NRPs who have played by the rules get ambushed.

NRPs are people too (even if we must register changes of address within 7(?) days on pain of imprisonment). A surprise change it is and this is unjust. Great British democracy/justice and fair play eh?

  • leanng
  • leanng's Avatar
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
More
29 Sep 12 #358468 by leanng
Reply from leanng
and i would quite happily have gone down the 50/50 route if he had kids 50/50 or one of them living with him and not claimed from him via CSA.

I work full time, all my wages go to look after kids, dont really have social life. i was naive to think i might get the odd weekend to myself. lol... one day

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11