Child support Agency charging single parents

[Bob]

There is a big debate going on this morning on breakfast telly.

I just wondered what everyone thought of this......

 

[tek-monkey]

Not sure I understand, charging for what? It's a while since I was at school, but I seem to remember 2 parents being involved in most breeding.

 

[Withnail]

Not sure I understand, charging for what?.

The (welfare reform) bill includes proposals to charge single parents to use the Child Support Agency (CSA) in order to access payments from their former partners. This will be opposed by a group of Conservative peers, led by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was Margaret Thatcher's Lord Chancellor in the late 1980's.

The government wants single parents who use the agency – 97% of whom will be the mother, according to DWP figures – to pay £100 upfront (£50 for unemployed parents) to use the agency, as well as a series of ongoing commission-style charges on each payment subsequently made to the parent.

Lord Mackay has made it clear he is unhappy with the proposed arrangements and has put down an amendment that would allow single parents who have no other option but use the agency to be exempted from the fees.

He told the Lords in November:

When a woman as a typical example has taken all reasonable steps and done all she can to reach an agreement but cannot manage it, I do not agree that she should be charged by the CSA for her application … That is utterly unfair. If anyone is to pay for that, surely it should be the person who has caused the difficulty by trying to escape from his moral obligations.

 

[Hetairoi]

Not sure I understand, charging for what?.

The (welfare reform) bill includes proposals to charge single parents to use the Child Support Agency (CSA) in order to access payments from their former partners. This will be opposed by a group of Conservative peers, led by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was Margaret Thatcher's Lord Chancellor in the late 1980's.

The government wants single parents who use the agency – 97% of whom will be the mother, according to DWP figures – to pay £100 upfront (£50 for unemployed parents) to use the agency, as well as a series of ongoing commission-style charges on each payment subsequently made to the parent.

Lord Mackay has made it clear he is unhappy with the proposed arrangements and has put down an amendment that would allow single parents who have no other option but use the agency to be exempted from the fees.

He told the Lords in November:

When a woman as a typical example has taken all reasonable steps and done all she can to reach an agreement but cannot manage it, I do not agree that she should be charged by the CSA for her application … That is utterly unfair. If anyone is to pay for that, surely it should be the person who has caused the difficulty by trying to escape from his moral obligations.

Why do they always penalise those who are working?

 

[tek-monkey]

Funny really, the CSA is so **** that the father of my GFs son hasn't paid a penny in about 8 years. He just tells them he's changed his circumstances every few months and they reset the paperwork, utter bollocks if you ask me.

 

[shoes]

Wow that really is something. I agree, on the whole, with the welfare reforms (if I'm honest they're still way too generous and poorly thought out) but this is ridiculous. I cannot see how this could possibly considered fair!?

 

[Jonah]

I thought the CSA was in existence to make the absent parent (mother or father) pay their share towards their child's upbringing so the taxpayer didn't have to. How will charging those people who are trying to get the other parent to cough up their fair share help?

 

[wmrcomputers]

Funny really, the CSA is so **** that the father of my GFs son hasn't paid a penny in about 8 years. He just tells them he's changed his circumstances every few months and they reset the paperwork, utter bollocks if you ask me.

Same applies under our roof mate. I have 3 step kids with 2 dads who don't pay either, despite CSA being involved on several occassions.
It doesn't bother either of us and we cope just fine anyway, but even my wife has just said that if she had been charged £100 to enroll their services 8 years ago, to date she'd still be £100 out of pocket!

 

[Em L]

"If anyone is to pay for that, surely it should be the person who has caused the difficulty by trying to escape from his moral obligations"

Damn right!! If they just coughed up for their kids in the first place the CSA wouldn't even be necessary, why should the parent with custody of the children have to pay to get the absent parent to shoulder their financial responsibility? Odds are they are going through the CSA cause they need the money desperately and would find it hard if not crippling to pay £100 (and commission) and in cases where it's an incredibly small amount received from the absent parent, it just wouldn't be worth paying that kind of money!

This has really annoyed me, i'm going to go off and chunter about it now lol

 

[henryscat]

Odds are they are going through the CSA cause they need the money desperately and would find it hard if not crippling to pay £100

Unfortunately there are some who resort to the CSA because they are greedy - sometimes the absent parent has been coughing up, but the parent with custody thinks they should get even more.

 

[Goldilox]

Charging the remaining parent for their services is a dramatic change of tack from the tale one of my friends tells the CSA (in early to mid-90s I guess - he's my age) trying to convince his mother to tear up the solicitor drawn up agreement that formed part of his parents divorce settlement, so that they could go after his self employed Dad for more.

 

[tek-monkey]

Well surely if the CSA says you should get more, you should? If the absent parent is not paying enough then **** them. Why not say if they decide you are already getting the right amount, then they charge you? Charging people to initiate a claim, before they realise that the CSA is completely useless seems like a scam to me!

As for the ongoing payments, again charge the absent parent. Say either they pay on time, or get a 10% raise on what they owe. My GFs ex owes thousands according to the CSA, must be near 10k by now, but they can't collect it because it would mean doing real work. Instead they just go quiet for a few months, she chases them and the whole thing starts again. I'm sure if she was on benefits they'd do something, but because she works they don't care.

NI numbers of parents should go on birth certificates, allowing an easy way to tax anyone who does a runner.

 

[Goldilox]

Well surely if the CSA says you should get more, you should? If the absent parent is not paying enough then **** them.

If you're referring to my friend's Dad he was hardly an absent parent. He bought a house nearby had my mate and his sister every Wednesday and weekend; gave them lifts to and from their activities; turned up at every school play & parents evening; put up with me and his son messing around with his tools; building steam engines that never worked in his workshop and setting fire to stuff in his garden. I can't claim to know the ins & outs of their financial arrangements, but I should imagine, given his line of work (hand building rather wonderful dolls houses), his income would have been decent but wildly inconsistent & I'm sure that was taken into account when the solicitors drew up an agreement that meant he could pay in full & on time every month.

Also, if both parties were happy with the arrangement why would it be any of the CSA's business?

 

[Gramaisc]

I remember there being many instances of the CSA refusing to acknowledge pre-existing mutual agreements, particularly in the early days.

 

[tek-monkey]

Sorry, mine was to henryscat. I just took a while writing it and your post appeared in between! The CSA never award a large amount anyway, certainly not what it costs to house/feed/clothe a child, so I can't see an issue with going by what they determine to be right.

As for Goldilox your mates dad sounds like a decent one, my GFs son hasn't stayed overnight with his dad in about 4 years and only sees him once a fortnight for a few hours at his grandads. He has more kids now so doesn't seem to think its his problem

 

[Glam]

I remember there being many instances of the CSA refusing to acknowledge pre-existing mutual agreements, particularly in the early days.

When I split up with my ex,we went thru the whole court thing,access - which I never got, payments - £80 a month to be paid by standing order into his bank account 28th of every month etc etc. He decided the amount wasn't enough so took me the csa. I wasn't earning much at the time,around £130 a week part time. The csa decided they wanted £120 a month off me and said it needed be back dated to when I left him. My rent at the time was £60 a week. I was told by a woman at the csa,that what I had left was enough to live on. The £120 was for 2 children,when my daughter reached 18,the amount didn't drop. I still paid the same. This carried on until my youngest lad reached 18. I still had buy a house,pay bills etc. I was working 12/13 hr days just to live. I then got a letter off the csa,saying that,due to a mistake on their part I had overpaid them by £800 and would I accept the cheque they had enclosed? I thought Christmas had come. Month later I got another letter,saying same thing,but the amount was for £300. This carried on until they decided to notify payroll at work not to deduct owt else off me. I couldn't tell them,it had come direct from csa.
In all that time I didn't see my youngest 2 ever,they had been told stuff about me that wasn't true,but,because "dad" had told them,it were true. I finally got to hold my youngest for the first time in 7years last April,he moved in with me that day and I can't get rid of him now! Daughter still isn't talking,and I don't expect her to.

 

[Em L]

Unfortunately there are some who resort to the CSA because they are greedy - sometimes the absent parent has been coughing up, but the parent with custody thinks they should get even more.

I know, it's disgusting. Same everywhere with all kinds of benefits though hey, you always get someone who tries to milk it for a little more. I know full well if I went through the CSA I'd get more off my ex than I AM getting (almost double, going off a letter I got), but I asked him how much he thought he could afford as I'm fully aware of the fact he has a mortgage etc, and I accepted that. Don't get me wrong, more money would be really helpful but I'm logical and reasonable and don't see the point in ruining someone just to get a little extra.

 

[Gadget]

This isn't right, because the parent with the children the second they need to claim benefits are forced to fill in the forms and get the csa involved. To charge them £100 for a service they are forced into using is just plain wrong. As for commision does this also aply to the payments they withhold to pay whatever costs they claim? Freind of mine has had several payments withheld to cover some thing and thats on the rare occasions her scumbag ex pays anything.
G x

 

[Floss]

Odds are they are going through the CSA cause they need the money desperately and would find it hard if not crippling to pay £100

Unfortunately there are some who resort to the CSA because they are greedy - sometimes the absent parent has been coughing up, but the parent with custody thinks they should get even more.

Greedy! Are you for real? How can expecting the abscent parent to pay their fair share be greedy? Some abscent parents make small token gestures rather than paying the correct amount, anyone who uses the CSA system surely would do so as a neccessary means. And just because a parent with the care may earn a good wage it shouldn't be an excuse for the abscent parent not to pay the full amount. That's a ridiculous statement you made because payment would be worked out on earnings so therefore if the abscent parent was paying the right amount anyway no more money would be asked for and using the CSA to work out that payment isn't greedy it's common sense for anyone in that situation.

 

[wmrcomputers]

This isn't right, because the parent with the children the second they need to claim benefits are forced to fill in the forms and get the csa involved. To charge them £100 for a service they are forced into using is just plain wrong. As for commision does this also aply to the payments they withhold to pay whatever costs they claim? Freind of mine has had several payments withheld to cover some thing and thats on the rare occasions her scumbag ex pays anything.
G x

Not true... this was changed some time ago. The parent with care is no longer "forced" to fill in the forms.... actually they never were. If they refused to they could lose £20 a week from their benefit but this no longer applies, it's now a free choice.

If I'm wrong then someone please correct me. Me and wife 1 were constantly hassled and when discussing it with CSA on the phone they told me that we don't have to have their involvement anymore even if one parent is on benefit. Wife 1 rang them when I told her this and we've both been free of them since. (It seemed stupid anyway as we had one child each, and as far as we were concerened we were both sharing care and costs accordingly anyway)