That doesn't sound fair at all but it seems as if it is a flaw in a largely sensible system.

I would like to think most non resident parents do the decent thing and pay for the upbringing of their kids.There will always be a few low lifes who deceid for whatever reason to play the system and do anything they can to avoid paying and leave it to the taxpayer.Unfortunaley its the kids that suffer in these sercumstances.
Life throws up many different challenges,its up to the individual to make the most of it

thank u for your opinion i must say i agree but hoplly they are looking to put a white paper throw once pushed

hi there i do agree but these low lifes also get payed by the tax payer and are getting free training to a good work life after the children need it the resitdent parent cant do these courses as they are looking after the children i want this loop hole closed as it is not far to the famlilys left behind if you agree please say so as i can use this to try and help get justice for long over due famliys and make all aware off what is going on thanks chuckie

Maybe some public service sectors are under staffed and over worked, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, however as a whole the civil service is bloated and inefficient. There have been reports after reports over the years, independent reports at that, to attest to that fact. If private industry was as inefficient as state business, the country would not only be on its knees, but would be lying down waiting to die!

Originally Posted by Jasino341

Maybe some public service sectors are under staffed and over worked, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, however as a whole the civil service is bloated and inefficient. There have been reports after reports over the years, independent reports at that, to attest to that fact. If private industry was as inefficient as state business, the country would not only be on its knees, but would be lying down waiting to die!

Absolutely true, and I suspect that one of the reasons that nothing's been done about it has been the previous Labour administration's attitude to employment, particularly employment law where it's hard to get remove inefficient people from their positions, and to their seeming love of empire-building within the civil service generally - quangos in particular. On a practical side thought, there's also the unfortunate issue that if there were to be major cuts in the civil service and other public sector employees, many of those people would end up having to be paid unemployment benefit and would likely be a major focus of social discontent, particularly among the political left, at a time when it's certainly not needed.

It's my view that we do need to make some serious and significant cuts in the civil and public services, but it's got to be done carefully and gradually, only downsizing when the economy is strong enough so that the private sector can absorb many of those who're out of work.

hi there as i do agree with your point im not sure how it realates to unfair and and unjust goverment policy on child maintance or did i miss the point? thanks chuckie

Originally Posted by chuckie

hi there as i do agree with your point im not sure how it realates to unfair and and unjust goverment policy on child maintance or did i miss the point? thanks chuckie

OK, the thread's wandered a bit as often happens... I'm afraid my personal knowledge of the CSA or anything to do with child maintenance is pretty much zero, so I'll have to bow out of this particular discussion other than to say if we had a bit more personal responsibility around, I'm sure there wouldn't be half the disputes there currently are.

Could I chip in from the other view point? I had an amicable arrangement on the old system with my ex. I ended up through greed of my ex paying twice for nearly 6 month and never got a penny back. As it was an arrangement made private, she shacked up with a new man who convinced my ex that she would be better of, she made the application (without my knowledge) and CSA took 6 months to process it. Annoying but not too much of an issue there with me being not £10 better off, what really got my nanny was the payments I made during their dithering to notify me was classed as a 'gift'.

Round 2, I later went into business paid as I should, then my daughter turned 19 last September. Sigh of relief you would think, not CSA only contacted me in august with 1 payment left and wanted to go through my books and employ my accountant t my expense for the last payment. It took me to talk to a senior level management before they seen how pathetic and wasteful this would have been before they backed down!!!!


Used to get on really well with my ex until, now refuse to talk to her at all.

There are hopefully a lot of people who have benefitted from this system.
I have never met one.
I have talked with mothers whose ex-partners deliberately did a deal with their bosses or got paid cash in hand to prevent CSA payments (which we then fund through tax credits)

I have met fathers who have been screwed to the wall to the extent that they can't afford the access to their children as they cannot provide a suitable environment for them to stay in.

I have been told by people working for the CSA that half the problem is the new computer systems that are constantly being introduced and amended.

How do we proceed in the face of all this?

Originally Posted by uncon

...... How do we proceed in the face of all this?

Quite honestly I think the only way to proceed is to scrap everything and start again. As with so many schemes introduced by governments (on both sides, but mainly by the left) introduced for either partly political or social engineering reasons, the CSA has been a colossal waste of time and money and from what I understand, has caused nearly as many problems as its solved. OK, good intentions, but any scheme like this needs to be looked at from a totally practical point of view and needs to be set up and run with the minimum possible amount of bureaucracy and the maximum degree of personalisation; and zero political interference. When you're dealing with individual people with unique sets of problems, a bureaucratic 'one size fits all' approach rarely works.

i do think you have a point here, is food for thought the csa who are dealing with all of the unfair problems have been telling people to go to there mp if not happy fair and the right thing to do i think but hang on csa members have now been made not to say this as the mps are aware BUT will not look at this untill at best 2011 MAYBE how long do children and parents have to suffer before we all get feed up and do something about it i for one am speaking to westminster about this as we speak so to all of you that agree it needs to be change for mothers fathers and children now please let me know if we speak out about inequality i believe people power can work come on lets let them know its time to change things

Originally Posted by chuckie

i do think you have a point here, is food for thought the csa who are dealing with all of the unfair problems have been telling people to go to there mp if not happy fair and the right thing to do i think but hang on csa members have now been made not to say this as the mps are aware BUT will not look at this untill at best 2011 MAYBE how long do children and parents have to suffer before we all get feed up and do something about it i for one am speaking to westminster about this as we speak so to all of you that agree it needs to be change for mothers fathers and children now please let me know if we speak out about inequality i believe people power can work come on lets let them know its time to change things

Are you saying that the state is getting overly involved in some cases and is being played in others?

i think i am yes and it needs to be addressed not brushed under the carpet because we think we cant do any think we can and we should it is unacceptable and the new government are going to put it right they might not no it yet but they are thanks chuckie

Originally Posted by chuckie

Hi there ive come accross this a few times and i wonder what you all thought lets say you are i non reseindent parrent working paying 300.00 pounds maintance now all they have to do is sign on to be a full time student for a long time eg 6 year course and they become 0 rated they dont have to pay anything not a penny also they can earn upto 100 pounds a week and still not have to pay not including there burrsiery loans grants etc now if a person on the doll has to pay a normal amount towards there responsibltys why not students of all ages does this seem far and just to the children and resident famliys i would like your views as i am looking to take this further

Could you clarify a few points?
1, Is the student in question an international student or does it apply to all students?
2, Do eanrings of £5,200 and less get taxed for low earners and students?
Not paying tax but pays, their of burserie, grants and loans; students pay the maintainance loans and tuition fees and therefore will pay back there responsebilities once they start earning.

hi there the student is English don't no about international as for 5200 thats what they can earn before paying any maintenance plus bruisers loans grants ect on top when they do start work which can be 6 to 7 years later after course has finished they will have to pay loans and grants but not a penny to there children the csa ? government give absence parent the chance to start a hole new life with good earn potential and not to care for there responsibility the parent that does look after the children has no such luxury as they can not do any of the opportunitys the absence parent can or have the ability to increase there earnings that much i think it is wrong that people can get out of there responsibility so easy and it should be changed

Originally Posted by chuckie

i think i am yes

Do let me know when you are sure duckie

Originally Posted by seperateddads.co.uk

Income of less than £200 a week, but still more than £100. That qualifies you to pay maintenance at a reduced rate. The calculations can be fairly complex, but it means £5 each week plus a percentage of your income over £100.

All earnigs less than £100 a week don't get taxed even if your not a student.
You don't pay if:

Originally Posted by seperateddads.co.uk

There are situations where you can have parental responsibility, but not have to pay maintenance for your children. However, this only occurs if you’re a full-time student, or aged 16-19 and in full-time advanced education, or if you’re living in a nursing home and receiving help to pay the fees.

I do think this is wrong they should have to pay the CSA (possibly as an add on to their loan), but it may be done like this to encourage people in general to carry on in education and get a better job later on' thus paying more CSA in the future.
To take this further will be hard, mostly student loans may be reduced or axed making this scenario impossible. If student loans still exist then your constituent MPs, family groups, such as farthers for justice and parents at nurseries and schools etc might be able to help.

hi i agree that some of what you say makes sense but in my case i am a resident father it is the mother that is choosing not to support her children as for encouraging education of course this is good but she left payed work as a teacher paying tax to become a student and picking a course long enough that the children will be to old to pay maintenance for i have spoke with many c s a employees and they say this is very common in 35 to 40 age group of parents o by they way a parent on the dole has to pay a minimum amount, but they do pay. its taken at source and they are on less than students?how can a system that rewards parents that do nothing be fair on the children that have done nothing be right!

im sure lol

I definately agree that students should pay at least the minimum amount at the time it is needed, preferably means tested. I would push for it being added to the student loan so the parent/student pays the company back afterwards.
I do agree its not fare.