Jump to content


Change to the Law 2013 - Compulsary payments till the child is 18 now!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2386 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Yes, I think that is the amount required for most of the petitions isnt it.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, 100,000 signatures are needed

PPI SUCCESS

2011- Lloyds TSB £3874

2011 - Loans.co.uk (GE Finance) £1504.77

2017 - Moneyshop - £977

2018 - Aquacard £1327

2019 - Citicard - £1071.31

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I would just like to update this

 

I am now paying what I should and everything has been sorted out, I don't want the CSA on my back saying I'm still due XX amount

 

Has anyone heard any more on what was mentioned earlier regarding Jadey's comment ?

 

I still think that the CSA should take into account the fathers living costs etc, it would certainly stop some fathers leaving their job so not to pay their way

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ive signed it as i split from my missus as she cheated on me. I love my kids, but i am being penalised for her actions. Where blame is on the femael party for a breakdown of a relationship, there should be a % reduction.............."

 

So would that mean when it's the male's fault there should be an extra % added? Maybe males make it too difficult for females to stay with them. Please grow up.

 

Csa is not being scrapped, only changed. I'm against parents (both of them) having to pay for a service that's already paid by us taxpayers. I for one couldn't afford to pay them to get money from my ex but I would need the CSA to do so as he'd never keep to a private arrangement. (£5/w btw)(better than nothing).

 

The CSA was so much better under labour. It had great plans for its future application and education projects.

 

The formula the OP is on was created to make calculations simpler for people. It was based on the data of 'old formula' cases therefore making it technically consider housing costs etc but without having to need proof of rent/mortgage etc. only income and number of children.

SAFU

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

I was wondering about this what I was reading on Equal Rights for Seperated Fathers

 

These new laws mean we have to pay now till the Child is 18 where as before it was 16 unless the child was to go to college etc?

 

Or does the below mean just the same rule as before?

 

I thought my payments would stop if she left school at the age of 16 but now with this law she HAS to stay in education till she is 18. So that's an extra 2 years of money going down the drain and paying for her mother to drink or buy herself designer things!! :mad2:

x

 

Law Change in 2013 - Leaving School/Education Age is Raised to 18!

 

In 2013 the law changed, making it compulsory for all UK children to continue in some kind of further education until the age of 18 (that is the end of the school year in which they turn 18). This is not necessarily a full time college course - it can be an apprenticeship or full time employment (over 20 hours a week) that includes some education or training.

 

There are certain higher education courses, such as apprenticeships, that do not count as full-time education, so it is important that you check with the CSA.

 

If your daughter changes her mind and decides that she wants to get a job and not continue in full-time education - which includes studying for 12 hours or more a week - then your payments would end in the September after her final school term. If they have officially come to an end, you may still want to continue supporting your child.

Edited by citizenB
quote box as this is from an article.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What her mother spends money on is irrelevant. Its your child and your responsible. My daughter gets a similar argument "why should I pay for my kids when you have a social life and new clothes" her argument is " I still pay more for our kids than you do and just because I'm not with you doesnt mean my lifes ended"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it irrelevant ???

 

Yes it is relevant, why should she spend the money I give her (through the Child Support) on items for her and not the child?

 

I know it's my responsibility to keep my child in clothing and food and water which she's getting and more! But if she's not spending most of it on the child then it becomes a problem!

 

There should definitely be a Law which is brought in so that 1. The money is converted into Stamps to buy the child clothes etc, and can only be spent on the child and 2. Fathers who want to pay for their kids also get justice in the amount their allowed to live on.

 

At the moment the CSA do not take into account the fathers Rent and Council Tax etc which is wrong! There are fathers out there who try to make ends meet because what's left is barely enough to feed them.

I applaud a father who decides to give up his job if he can't live on the money he has left after all the outgoings like CSA TAX RENT etc, the CSA are corrupt and only benefit one person and that's the mother who swans about in designer clothes, holidays and the child walks about with holes in their socks! How fair is that??

 

There needs to be change in the Law to take into account a fathers income and fairly subtract an amount AFTER his cost of living!!

 

I don't mean this for every mother, I know most are great and spend the money on their kids.....but I know a few, including the one I pay, does the above and it makes my blood boil !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your child is being neglected why don't you go for a residence order? I'm aware some fathers have a raw deal but on the whole, plenty of fathers get away with paying nothing but still want contact. Daughters ex partner doesn't pay a penny and lies to CSA about his income and CSA won't investigate. He still has the cheek to complain that she has a social life and buys clothes so she obviously doesn't need the money so won't pay until she stops having any type of life. She works and always puts her kids first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Why is it irrelevant ???

 

Yes it is relevant, why should she spend the money I give her (through the Child Support) on items for her and not the child?

 

Well how do you know that HER money isn't being jiggled about? Mine is, my maintenance actually is used for my general living expenses on a day to day basis, whilst my Wages and Tax Credits pay for rent and food and bills. It's easier date wise that way. How I organise MY finances is NONE of my ex's business, and the same goes for you.

 

I know it's my responsibility to keep my child in clothing and food and water which she's getting and more! But if she's not spending most of it on the child then it becomes a problem!

 

There should definitely be a Law which is brought in so that 1. The money is converted into Stamps to buy the child clothes etc, and can only be spent on the child and

 

Ewww why should I be treated like a second class citizen because you don't like how your ex organises her finances? You seriously suggest stamps for food, mortgage/rent, water, electricity, gas, phone etc? ALL of those services?

Edited by citizenB
restored quote box
Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound very bitter. As I said if your child is being neglected you can go for residency. Thousands of mothers shaking in their boots, really?????? There a plenty of women like my daughter who dont get a penny of maintenance and yes she has a social life and her children are not neglected, she's a single parent not dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound very bitter. As I said if your child is being neglected you can go for residency. Thousands of mothers shaking in their boots, really?????? There a plenty of women like my daughter who dont get a penny of maintenance and yes she has a social life and her children are not neglected, she's a single parent not dead.

 

I have to agree here, My ex paid maintenance for 12 months when my son was born hes now 23 and csa never had my ex pay me a penny in the last 22 years. ( yes I know it stops at 16/18 years old).

Not all single women spend on themselves most I know spend maintenance on their kids.

If unhappy esp with neglect do as advised and go for a residency order or open a seperate bank account for your kids and put the money in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound very bitter. As I said if your child is being neglected you can go for residency. Thousands of mothers shaking in their boots, really?????? There a plenty of women like my daughter who dont get a penny of maintenance and yes she has a social life and her children are not neglected, she's a single parent not dead.

 

I quite agree. If you don't agree with how your ex partner is spending the maintenance money then do something about it. Don't penalise the thousands of women who do put their children first

Link to post
Share on other sites
The money which is paid to the mother of the child should governed

 

Pin pretty sure if it was there would be thousands of mother shaking in their boots because they've been spending it on themselves instead of the child

 

It IS governed. By Social Services. If they were concerned they would intervene. If you're concerned call them and get them to investigate.

 

Not spending it how YOU think she should isn't something that will concern them though. To be honest you're coming across as quite controlling :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
It IS governed. By Social Services. If they were concerned they would intervene. If you're concerned call them and get them to investigate.

 

Not spending it how YOU think she should isn't something that will concern them though. To be honest you're coming across as quite controlling :(

 

Social Services has nothing to do with the CSA. They are two entirely seperate organisations. If the OP has concerns about his the welfare of his child then he should contact SS but it will have no impact on how much CSA he has to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will if the op gets residency, if she works, she would have to pay him. Unfortunately a lot of men complain about their ex partners spending money on themselves, its as if because they're no longer together the women should stop living. Social Services would not be happy if they thought the complaint was on that basis. As previously said, he should go for residency if he really thinks the child is neglected, but he had been silent re these suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been in this kind of situation, but my brother is.

He's been paying child support from day one and more than the amount csa said.

He contacted them before his boy was born because the mother just used him for the strongng and good looking genes.

He was forced to take the mother to court because she didn't want him in the boy's life, she just wanted the money.

He was awarded contact two afternoons a week and a full weekend (friday evening-monday morning) every other week.

Going to the money point, he walks 3 miles to work under all sort of weather to save on petrol he needs to go and pick is son up, while she enjoys weekends away with friends, clubbing, designer clothes, convertible car, restaurants etc.

She works part time for £9k a year, so she can't afford all of this luxury.

In all of these outings the boy is parked at the grandparents, so imagine the fun for a 4 year old stuck with two 70 year old recluse.

She won't let my brother keep the boy while she enjoys life and insists on letting him see the boy only during the times imposed by the court.

We reported this many times, including one time she went missing for the whole weekend leaving the boy in her parents 'care'.

The old folks could not get in touch with her (apparently she was on a bender and too drunk to bother) and they called my brother.

He went there to find his son had not been changed and washed for over 24 hours and was crying his eyes out.

Contacted social services with supporting pictures and after talking to the mother (on the tuesday after she sobered up), they decided not to take any further action but to keep the complaint on file.

Moral of the story: is she spending my brother's cash on the boy?

NO!

And after all of these incidents she even tells my brother to buy clothes for the boy because she's broke.

My brother, being a gentle (stupid) kind of guy, complies.

Unbelievable!

The rules are certainly bent in favour of the mothers.

Wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your brother is in an awful position and it can be difficult to prove negligence to SS.

 

However I must say that just because her parents are 70 it doesnt mean they are incapable. As for the £9000 wage, this will be topped up by WTC etc plus you have to take into account CT benefit and housing benefit, so its very difficult to prove that all the maintenance is paying for her life style.

 

I am not doubting your brothers story though, iv seen many cases where a child should be with the father and not mother. However, it works the other way as well, many like my daughter dont receive a penny, despite the father being on a very good wage and still getting to see the children. Its can be a difficult situation all round, with the child/children stuck in the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Social Services has nothing to do with the CSA. They are two entirely seperate organisations. If the OP has concerns about his the welfare of his child then he should contact SS but it will have no impact on how much CSA he has to pay.

 

I'm aware of that. What I mean is, how she brings them up IS governed. If she wasn't feeding them etc it would be a SS matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've spoken to my local MP and I'm hoping he influences the rights of fathers to have a fair amount taken off them for their children.

 

The CSA should deduct the fathers Rent, heating and food costs THEN deduct the percentage of his wage

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...