RP partner details

[news.zen.co.uk]

Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to make the
NRP poor.
<Angry>

[Neil Hopkins]

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

The simple answer is that it is not their child, unless they've
adopted it.

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

Should the NRP pay more if the PWC is single or has a partner with a
low income?

Post by news.zen.co.uk
The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to make the
NRP poor.

What would you replace it with then? Can you come up with a simple
model for calculating the amount of child support due? The current
system has some glaring flaws (mainly in the shared care calculation),
but ignoring the income of new partners on both sides is not one of
them.

[a***@asif.com]

OK, so as you say, the child isn't the RP's new partner's (presuming not
adopted), but the child isn't the NRP's new partners EITHER, but her wages
still have to be taken into account...see what I'm saying? What's good for
one ought to be good for the other.

Presuming the RP is a female, her new partner could be earning £50k while
the NRP's partner is earning £10k and the NRP's partners details are taken
into account, making them poorer (usually), while the RP has her CSA and her
new partners wages to play with. Why has no one at the CSA ever thought of
this?!

I don't want smart alec replies to this like I've been reading in other
messages (no doubt from CSA employees), just justification for this huge
flaw in the system.

As for coming up with a better system...well I probably couldn't but if the
government listened to people who are paying out to the CSA every month, and
took their opinions and ideas into account, they might actually come up with
a system that is fair to both parents, where both situations are assessed,
not just the NRP's.

Would it be so difficult for the RP to receive part of the CSA payment as
money to pay for the obvious things like food/housing etc, and part of the
money in 'vouchers' that can be used towards the child's
education/clothing/books etc. This way the RP wouldn't be able to squander
the money on fags and beer.

<frustrated and angry>

Post by Neil Hopkins

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

The simple answer is that it is not their child, unless they've
adopted it.

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

Should the NRP pay more if the PWC is single or has a partner with a
low income?

Post by news.zen.co.uk
The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to make the
NRP poor.

What would you replace it with then? Can you come up with a simple
model for calculating the amount of child support due? The current
system has some glaring flaws (mainly in the shared care calculation),
but ignoring the income of new partners on both sides is not one of
them.
--
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off whatever it is."
Xbox live : neil hopkins

[Neil Hopkins]

Post by a***@asif.com
OK, so as you say, the child isn't the RP's new partner's (presuming not
adopted), but the child isn't the NRP's new partners EITHER, but her wages
still have to be taken into account...see what I'm saying? What's good for
one ought to be good for the other.

That's only on the old CS1 system though - partners wages make no
difference on CS2. In most cases on CS1 where the partner of the NRP
is on a low income it has the effect of allocating a larger percentage
of the shared housing costs to the NRP which reduces the assessment.

Post by a***@asif.com
Presuming the RP is a female, her new partner could be earning £50k while
the NRP's partner is earning £10k and the NRP's partners details are taken
into account, making them poorer (usually), while the RP has her CSA and her
new partners wages to play with. Why has no one at the CSA ever thought of
this?!

Errm, they have. You could try applying for a departure, but I don't
know how likely it would be to succeed.

Post by a***@asif.com
I don't want smart alec replies to this like I've been reading in other
messages (no doubt from CSA employees), just justification for this huge
flaw in the system.

It's not a justification, it's the way the system is, or rather was.
You are arguing about a system which has been superceded. You might be
better off asking why your case hasn't been transferred to the new
system yet. If you really want a better system then you have to start
looking at CS2 as a start and how you might change or improve that.

Post by a***@asif.com
As for coming up with a better system...well I probably couldn't but if the
government listened to people who are paying out to the CSA every month, and
took their opinions and ideas into account, they might actually come up with
a system that is fair to both parents, where both situations are assessed,
not just the NRP's.

Well, the government did take submissions from interested parties into
account in the design of both CS systems, and heavily modified the CS1
system taking all sorts of factors into account to the point where
there could be a hundred of more separate bits of information that
were necessary to calculate an assessment. The end result is that
assessments were frequently wrong and took far too long to process.

CS2 was supposed to simplify the calculation and speed things up, but
the implementation of the IT infrastructure and the transfer of new
cases has been a total disaster.

Post by a***@asif.com
Would it be so difficult for the RP to receive part of the CSA payment as
money to pay for the obvious things like food/housing etc, and part of the
money in 'vouchers' that can be used towards the child's
education/clothing/books etc. This way the RP wouldn't be able to squander
the money on fags and beer.

Voucher systems in place of cash benefits have been tried before (with
asylum seekers) and they just end up costing more money to administer
and lead to a black market in voucher trading where the claimant swaps
the voucher for less money than it is worth so they can buy something
in a shop that won't accept the vouchers.

Post by a***@asif.com
<frustrated and angry>

If you are frustrated and angry, then fighting old battles is not the
best thing to do - take a deep breath and review your situation :

- check your assessment with a fine tooth comb - there is a good
chance that it is wrong. Post some details here if you like, or join
NACSA for advice.
- make a private arrangement with the NRP to close the case. They will
be much better off working, claiming tax credits and keeping the CS
payment rather than it going to pay their benefits.
- if you have money problems then get advice from Citizens Advice on
debt management, reduce your outgoings or look for a job that pays
more.
- maintain contact with your child and be there for them when they
need you, even if the NRP is obstructive.
- lobby your mp for action on sorting out the current system
- contribute to the debate on designing a better system


Good luck!

[Lee Phillips]

Post by a***@asif.com
OK, so as you say, the child isn't the RP's new partner's (presuming not
adopted), but the child isn't the NRP's new partners EITHER, but her wages
still have to be taken into account...see what I'm saying? What's good for
one ought to be good for the other.

But if PWC Partner's details were taken into account in the same way that
NRP Partner's are then this would make the assessment go UP.

Post by a***@asif.com
Presuming the RP is a female, her new partner could be earning £50k while
the NRP's partner is earning £10k and the NRP's partners details are taken
into account, making them poorer (usually), while the RP has her CSA and her
new partners wages to play with. Why has no one at the CSA ever thought of
this?!

How does taking NRP Partner details into account make the NRP poorer?
Whatever the Partner earns won't make the assessment higher (though it may
make it lower).

Post by a***@asif.com
I don't want smart alec replies to this like I've been reading in other
messages (no doubt from CSA employees), just justification for this huge
flaw in the system.

I agree about the whole lack of privacy issue that's been mentioned on other
threads but the fact that they do take NRP Partner details into account is
to the NRP's advantage and to the PWC's disadvantage.

Hope this doesn't count as a smart alec reply (and I'm not an ex-CSA
employee) - but what you want to hear?
Everyone agreeing with you that the system is crap? Or someone explaining
why the system does what it does?

Post by a***@asif.com
As for coming up with a better system...well I probably couldn't but if the
government listened to people who are paying out to the CSA every month, and
took their opinions and ideas into account, they might actually come up with
a system that is fair to both parents, where both situations are assessed,
not just the NRP's.

That's how the new scheme came about. There was a large consultation about
five or six years ago to look into the flaws on the old system and the new
scheme is the result (though that's got a whole bunch of new flaws).
Everyone hated the whole 'partner thing' which is why it's been removed
(though I think some NRP's are going to get a nasty shock when they realise
what they've lost).

Post by a***@asif.com
Would it be so difficult for the RP to receive part of the CSA payment as
money to pay for the obvious things like food/housing etc, and part of the
money in 'vouchers' that can be used towards the child's
education/clothing/books etc. This way the RP wouldn't be able to squander
the money on fags and beer.

On high assessments I can see your point. However, most assessments are
significantly lower than half the amount a child requires for a basic
standard of living (i.e. the PWC/tax payer has to shell out the rest) - if
the PWC in these cases is spending it on fags/booze then Social Services
will need to get involved.

Lee.

[x x]

Post by a***@asif.com
OK, so as you say, the child isn't the RP's new partner's (presuming not
adopted), but the child isn't the NRP's new partners EITHER, but her wages
still have to be taken into account...see what I'm saying? What's good for
one ought to be good for the other.

Ok, whats good for one being good for the other. If the presence of an NRP
partner can reduce the assessement, then by the same logic the presence of a
PWC partner should increase the assessment? Yes?

Either side could shack up with someone rich like Richard Branson or JK
Rowling, and the assessment wouldn't be affected directly by that (though
housing costs might be more than NRP or PWC income!).

Post by a***@asif.com
Presuming the RP is a female, her new partner could be earning £50k while
the NRP's partner is earning £10k and the NRP's partners details are taken
into account, making them poorer (usually), while the RP has her CSA and her
new partners wages to play with. Why has no one at the CSA ever thought of
this?!

Apart from departures which can be done on either side, I have never seen an
NRP partner causing the NRPs assessment to go up.
It can affect the amount payable if that would otherwise be reduced below
the assessment, but cannot increase it.

Post by a***@asif.com
I don't want smart alec replies to this like I've been reading in other
messages (no doubt from CSA employees), just justification for this huge
flaw in the system.

I daresay there are CSA employees on here. I know of one for certain who
does read posts on here.
I've nothing against them posting so long as they give the correct info.


You may not like smart alec replies, but you'll get them. Some of us can
work out the assessment amount without partner income being taken into
account and with partner income details given. On a normal assessment you
won't see a difference between the two.

The flaw in the system isn't partner income. Thats a bonus for some NRPs,
not a bind.
The new scheme ignores partner income almost totally by ignoring housing
costs. And ignoring any calculation to reduce the amount payable.

Post by a***@asif.com
As for coming up with a better system...well I probably couldn't but if the
government listened to people who are paying out to the CSA every month, and
took their opinions and ideas into account, they might actually come up with
a system that is fair to both parents, where both situations are assessed,
not just the NRP's.

But you are one of the people who are paying?

If you and others don't come up with a workable replacement, we end up with
what other people who don't view the problems in the same way (or even
cannot see any problems) coming up with the next scheme.
The government will tend to look at what systems other countries have. Even
though we have a different group of cultures here.
Or look at what they think has worked from our current and previous schemes
(we've had child support schemes for about 400 years now).

Post by a***@asif.com
Would it be so difficult for the RP to receive part of the CSA payment as
money to pay for the obvious things like food/housing etc, and part of the
money in 'vouchers' that can be used towards the child's
education/clothing/books etc.

They do get vouchers. One type is a sort of orange colour and has the number
10 on it, one is a sort of blue colour and has a number 5 on it and so on.
Accepted most places in Britain.

The problem with allocating specific vouchers for specific things is that
sometimes the child doesn't need those vouchers, but does need other things.
And its also then mandarins deciding how people will spend what they have
coming in. Given how wrong people can be, it would be like giving a vegan
some vouchers to be used only in a butchers.

My old school used to have a uniform sale every month. Like a jumble sale
but only for school stuff. Thats people selling their own stuff. Vouchers
wouldn't be useful, but very handy for parents looking to get growing kids
some cheap stuff for school.



This way the RP wouldn't be able to squander

Post by a***@asif.com
the money on fags and beer.

Most families tend to spend the money coming into the house.
So how can someone say they are spending the child support money on fags and
beer? What do they then use to raise the kid? Other money perhaps?

Martin <><

Post by a***@asif.com
<frustrated and angry>

Post by Neil Hopkins

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

The simple answer is that it is not their child, unless they've
adopted it.

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

Should the NRP pay more if the PWC is single or has a partner with a
low income?

Post by news.zen.co.uk
The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to

make

Post by a***@asif.com
the

Post by Neil Hopkins

Post by news.zen.co.uk
NRP poor.

What would you replace it with then? Can you come up with a simple
model for calculating the amount of child support due? The current
system has some glaring flaws (mainly in the shared care calculation),
but ignoring the income of new partners on both sides is not one of
them.
--
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off

whatever

Post by a***@asif.com
it is."

Post by Neil Hopkins
Xbox live : neil hopkins

[Nacsa Chair]

Neil is correct. The PWCs partners income is not included in the assessment,
although if the PWC is not claiming any benefits or Working Tax Credits,
then you could claim a departure on the grounds that the PWCP can contribute
to the housing costs. Does not always make a difference to the amount liable
by the NRP.

And yes, the PWC could marry a millionaire, and it wouldn't change the
liability of the NRP. Theory being that the child is your responsibility -
and whilst the child can enjoy the benefits of the PWCPs wealth, this does
not remove the obligation to pay CS.

The system is however failing - badly - and does need replacing. NACSA have
proposals that you can read on our website www.nacsa.co.uk
NACSA CHAIR-
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240 3343
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by Neil Hopkins

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

The simple answer is that it is not their child, unless they've
adopted it.

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

Should the NRP pay more if the PWC is single or has a partner with a
low income?

Post by news.zen.co.uk
The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to make the
NRP poor.

What would you replace it with then? Can you come up with a simple
model for calculating the amount of child support due? The current
system has some glaring flaws (mainly in the shared care calculation),
but ignoring the income of new partners on both sides is not one of
them.
--
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off whatever it is."
Xbox live : neil hopkins

[Lee Phillips]

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Can somebody please confirm if the RP's partners details (wages etc) get
taken into account in assessments? And if not, WHY NOT!?

On the old rules they are taken into account if the PWC and the Partner have
a child between them.
If the PWC partner earns enough (£80pw approx) then the allowance the PWC
receives for that child is halved.

They're not taken into account anywhere else in the calculation because the
PWC does not have a Protected Income (see below).

Post by news.zen.co.uk
Why should the NRP's partners details be taken into account if the RP's
partners aren't? The RP's partner could be a millionaire and it wouldn't
make a shocking difference to the NRP's assessment!

On the old rules they are taken into account if the PWC and the Partner have
a child between them.
If the PWC partner earns enough (£80pw approx) then the allowance the PWC
receives for that child is halved.

They're not taken into account anywhere else in the calculation because the
PWC does not have a Protected Income (see below).

It wouldn't make any difference if the NRP Partner was a millionaire either.

Although it's generally agreed that collecting partner details is a bit of a
dog's ear, the only reason they do is to see if the payable amount needs to
go down (NOT UP).

There are two stages to calculating an old rules assessment.

1. The Notional Assessment - this is the main calculation and looks at the
NRP and PWC circumstances only.

2. Protected Income - this looks at just the NRP household (including
partner) to see if the Notional Assessment is affordable.

The final payable amount is the LOWER of these two calculations.

Therefore:-
If the lower calculation is the Notional Assessment then the presence of a
partner has made no difference.
If the lower calculation is the Protected Income then the presence of a
partner has made the payable amount go down.

In around 80% of cases the Notional Assessment is the lower of the two.
The 20% that do fall into Protected Income are generally because the NRP
Partner doesn't work or has a very low income.

Thankfully, the new scheme completely ignores the partner and so will put an
end to this debate about whether it's fair/right or not. However, it does
mean that if the NRP is supporting his Partner (i.e. because they're not
earning) - then it's tough.

Post by news.zen.co.uk
The whole CSA is a completely f****d up system that was designed to make the
NRP poor.

How high is your assessment? How many children does it include? How does
that compare to what you earn?
If you can give some details, I'm sure one of us will be able to see if
something's wrong or not.

Lee.

[dan]

The NRP partner can tell the CSA to get f***ed. There is NO onus on this
person to either support the NRP's child or the NRP financially. (Which the
new partner of the NRP WILL do in a roundabout way via a higher assessment
if she/he refuses to supply details of their earnings).

After MUCH harassment from the CSA, including them phoning her place of
work, - my partner moved out to her own place and has stayed there ever
since.

She has nothing to do with my kids, the CSA or my ex - her relationship is
with me. Things are 100% better all round for us NOT to live together.

(Of course, we do stay a few nights at each others flats - but living
seperately has been the only way we have got the CSA off her back).

Roll on NEW scheme!

dan

[Nacsa Chair]

I think the confusion here is through the various sections of the
calculations and how they work.

On CS1 : The NRP is assessed according to HIS OWN income...this is known as
the exempt income section. It provides allowances only for himself and any
natural children living with him (child allowances possibly halved if NRPP
working or not disclosing details). BUT...to ensure that any second family
the NRP may have, has sufficient income to live (according to their rates)
the CSA have to calculate the protected income section. This provides
allowances for everyone in the family - partners, natural children, and
stepchildren. But because it allows for everyone, it will also want income
details of everyone.

If the protected income calculations brings an assessment to an amount lower
than the exempt income section - the liability is reduced to the smaller
figure. In effect - the "real" assessment (ie the exempt income section one)
is reduced to account for the second family. Where the problems lie, is in
cases where the NRP pays through the protected income section, and thus his
assessment is relatively low. Then his partner gains employment and a review
brings the assessment back upto the exempt income section amount. In hard
facts - the NRP has had to pay more because the partner went to work. But in
calculations terms it just means his true assessment has been returned to
the real amount.

If the NRPP refuses to provide her details - which she is at liberty to do,
the CSA simply refuse to calculate the protected income section. If the NRPP
is working - its very unlikely the protected income section would come into
effect anyway - and the CAT B interim assessment is quite simply the exempt
income calculations. This is why in most cases the not disclosing of partner
details will not make any difference to the assessments

You do then however have to consider the departure scheme and the effects
this may have on any assessment being paid.

I hope that explains it all a little better.
NACSA CHAIR
--
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240 3343
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by dan
The NRP partner can tell the CSA to get f***ed. There is NO onus on this
person to either support the NRP's child or the NRP financially. (Which the
new partner of the NRP WILL do in a roundabout way via a higher assessment
if she/he refuses to supply details of their earnings).
After MUCH harassment from the CSA, including them phoning her place of
work, - my partner moved out to her own place and has stayed there ever
since.
She has nothing to do with my kids, the CSA or my ex - her relationship is
with me. Things are 100% better all round for us NOT to live together.
(Of course, we do stay a few nights at each others flats - but living
seperately has been the only way we have got the CSA off her back).
Roll on NEW scheme!
dan

[partner]

But will this still allow at least 50% allowance for the children with
current partner if she refuses to supply her income?

Post by Nacsa Chair
I think the confusion here is through the various sections of the
calculations and how they work.
On CS1 : The NRP is assessed according to HIS OWN income...this is known as
the exempt income section. It provides allowances only for himself and any
natural children living with him (child allowances possibly halved if NRPP
working or not disclosing details). BUT...to ensure that any second family
the NRP may have, has sufficient income to live (according to their rates)
the CSA have to calculate the protected income section. This provides
allowances for everyone in the family - partners, natural children, and
stepchildren. But because it allows for everyone, it will also want income
details of everyone.
If the protected income calculations brings an assessment to an amount lower
than the exempt income section - the liability is reduced to the smaller
figure. In effect - the "real" assessment (ie the exempt income section one)
is reduced to account for the second family. Where the problems lie, is in
cases where the NRP pays through the protected income section, and thus his
assessment is relatively low. Then his partner gains employment and a review
brings the assessment back upto the exempt income section amount. In hard
facts - the NRP has had to pay more because the partner went to work. But in
calculations terms it just means his true assessment has been returned to
the real amount.
If the NRPP refuses to provide her details - which she is at liberty to do,
the CSA simply refuse to calculate the protected income section. If the NRPP
is working - its very unlikely the protected income section would come into
effect anyway - and the CAT B interim assessment is quite simply the exempt
income calculations. This is why in most cases the not disclosing of partner
details will not make any difference to the assessments
You do then however have to consider the departure scheme and the effects
this may have on any assessment being paid.
I hope that explains it all a little better.
NACSA CHAIR
--
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240 3343
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by dan
The NRP partner can tell the CSA to get f***ed. There is NO onus on this
person to either support the NRP's child or the NRP financially. (Which

the

Post by dan
new partner of the NRP WILL do in a roundabout way via a higher assessment
if she/he refuses to supply details of their earnings).
After MUCH harassment from the CSA, including them phoning her place of
work, - my partner moved out to her own place and has stayed there ever
since.
She has nothing to do with my kids, the CSA or my ex - her relationship is
with me. Things are 100% better all round for us NOT to live together.
(Of course, we do stay a few nights at each others flats - but living
seperately has been the only way we have got the CSA off her back).
Roll on NEW scheme!
dan

[Nacsa Chair]

yes - if the partner is working, and has sufficient income, OR if she is not
dislcosing details - the NRP can only have half allowances for the children
in the exempt income section
NACSA CHAIR--
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240 3343
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by partner
But will this still allow at least 50% allowance for the children with
current partner if she refuses to supply her income?

Post by Nacsa Chair
I think the confusion here is through the various sections of the
calculations and how they work.
On CS1 : The NRP is assessed according to HIS OWN income...this is

known

Post by partner
as

Post by Nacsa Chair
the exempt income section. It provides allowances only for himself and any
natural children living with him (child allowances possibly halved if NRPP
working or not disclosing details). BUT...to ensure that any second

family

Post by Nacsa Chair
the NRP may have, has sufficient income to live (according to their rates)
the CSA have to calculate the protected income section. This provides
allowances for everyone in the family - partners, natural children, and
stepchildren. But because it allows for everyone, it will also want income
details of everyone.
If the protected income calculations brings an assessment to an amount

lower

Post by Nacsa Chair
than the exempt income section - the liability is reduced to the smaller
figure. In effect - the "real" assessment (ie the exempt income section

one)

Post by Nacsa Chair
is reduced to account for the second family. Where the problems lie, is in
cases where the NRP pays through the protected income section, and thus

his

Post by Nacsa Chair
assessment is relatively low. Then his partner gains employment and a

review

Post by Nacsa Chair
brings the assessment back upto the exempt income section amount. In hard
facts - the NRP has had to pay more because the partner went to work.

But

Post by partner
in

Post by Nacsa Chair
calculations terms it just means his true assessment has been returned to
the real amount.
If the NRPP refuses to provide her details - which she is at liberty to

do,

Post by Nacsa Chair
the CSA simply refuse to calculate the protected income section. If the

NRPP

Post by Nacsa Chair
is working - its very unlikely the protected income section would come

into

Post by Nacsa Chair
effect anyway - and the CAT B interim assessment is quite simply the

exempt

Post by Nacsa Chair
income calculations. This is why in most cases the not disclosing of

partner

Post by Nacsa Chair
details will not make any difference to the assessments
You do then however have to consider the departure scheme and the effects
this may have on any assessment being paid.
I hope that explains it all a little better.
NACSA CHAIR
--
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240

3343

Post by Nacsa Chair
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied

and

Post by Nacsa Chair
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by dan
The NRP partner can tell the CSA to get f***ed. There is NO onus on this
person to either support the NRP's child or the NRP financially. (Which

the

Post by dan
new partner of the NRP WILL do in a roundabout way via a higher

assessment

Post by Nacsa Chair

Post by dan
if she/he refuses to supply details of their earnings).
After MUCH harassment from the CSA, including them phoning her place of
work, - my partner moved out to her own place and has stayed there ever
since.
She has nothing to do with my kids, the CSA or my ex - her

relationship

Post by partner
is

Post by Nacsa Chair

Post by dan
with me. Things are 100% better all round for us NOT to live together.
(Of course, we do stay a few nights at each others flats - but living
seperately has been the only way we have got the CSA off her back).
Roll on NEW scheme!
dan

[x x]

The CSA cannot contact a partner, or a partner's employers unless explicit
permission has been given.

Which is why they ask the NRP for partner income details.

Yes, she is nothing to do with the CSA, your ex or your kids. But while
living there she does affect how many people you may have to support (ie not
just you). Its a way of reducing the amount payable.

Think of a scenario. NRP works for £150 a week, no housing costs. Normal
assessment would be £45 a week.
Then partner comes along, not working. Suddenly assessment drops to less
than £30 per week. Partner affects the assessment.

Another alternitive. NRP on £1000 a month net pays the CSA £200 a month. JK
Rowling (income £100 million a year) shacks up with him at his house.
provides income details to CSA or refuses to. Assessment remains at £200 a
month.


A partner NEVER has to supply their details. The penalty assessment for that
merely ignores protected income, and treats exempt income exactly as though
the NRPP could help support anynjoint kids they have with NRP (ie NRP new
family).


Martin <><

Post by dan
The NRP partner can tell the CSA to get f***ed. There is NO onus on this
person to either support the NRP's child or the NRP financially. (Which the
new partner of the NRP WILL do in a roundabout way via a higher assessment
if she/he refuses to supply details of their earnings).
After MUCH harassment from the CSA, including them phoning her place of
work, - my partner moved out to her own place and has stayed there ever
since.
She has nothing to do with my kids, the CSA or my ex - her relationship is
with me. Things are 100% better all round for us NOT to live together.
(Of course, we do stay a few nights at each others flats - but living
seperately has been the only way we have got the CSA off her back).
Roll on NEW scheme!
dan

[dan]

My new partner's work details were supplied by a friend of my ex. In full
breach of the data protection act I would add. However, my new partner does
not have the financial resources to prove this. The CSA were constantly
ringing up her place of work and demanding salary info - at one time they
told her employer it was HER child she was not supporting.

She made a written complaint to the CSA - got f*** all back apart from - we
cannot discuss the matter as the case files are not yours etc...

What has happened here has been CRIMINAL. She has been called in to see her
bosses and explain about what should be a personal matter and which is
nothing to do with her or her job. Other people she works with but who do
not have the full facts now view her differently and one person even asked
her how she could walk out on 'her' child!

CSA victims go beyond immediate parents and kids.

dan

[x x]

She should demand a written apology from the CSA.

They know, and have known for years, what they can and cannot do with
partners.

Someone giving the CSA personal information about your partner isn't a
breach of data protection, but CSA using it without permission is.

Doesn't matter if they didn't reply last time - put a new complaint in to
customer service manager about the problem and the lack of response.


Martin <><

Post by dan
My new partner's work details were supplied by a friend of my ex. In full
breach of the data protection act I would add. However, my new partner does
not have the financial resources to prove this. The CSA were constantly
ringing up her place of work and demanding salary info - at one time they
told her employer it was HER child she was not supporting.
She made a written complaint to the CSA - got f*** all back apart from - we
cannot discuss the matter as the case files are not yours etc...
What has happened here has been CRIMINAL. She has been called in to see her
bosses and explain about what should be a personal matter and which is
nothing to do with her or her job. Other people she works with but who do
not have the full facts now view her differently and one person even asked
her how she could walk out on 'her' child!
CSA victims go beyond immediate parents and kids.
dan

[Nacsa Chair]

I have to agree - we do get a number of cases where the CSA have been
calling the employer of the NRPP...

The CSA should not under any circumstances be contacting people for
information regarding the partners income - but they do.
NACSA CHAIR--
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk 0870 240 3343
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions.

Post by x x
She should demand a written apology from the CSA.
They know, and have known for years, what they can and cannot do with
partners.
Someone giving the CSA personal information about your partner isn't a
breach of data protection, but CSA using it without permission is.
Doesn't matter if they didn't reply last time - put a new complaint in to
customer service manager about the problem and the lack of response.
Martin <><

Post by dan
My new partner's work details were supplied by a friend of my ex. In full
breach of the data protection act I would add. However, my new partner

does

Post by dan
not have the financial resources to prove this. The CSA were constantly
ringing up her place of work and demanding salary info - at one time they
told her employer it was HER child she was not supporting.
She made a written complaint to the CSA - got f*** all back apart from -

we

Post by dan
cannot discuss the matter as the case files are not yours etc...
What has happened here has been CRIMINAL. She has been called in to see

her

Post by dan
bosses and explain about what should be a personal matter and which is
nothing to do with her or her job. Other people she works with but who do
not have the full facts now view her differently and one person even asked
her how she could walk out on 'her' child!
CSA victims go beyond immediate parents and kids.
dan

[Client]

Post by x x
She should demand a written apology from the CSA.
They know, and have known for years, what they can and cannot do with
partners.
Someone giving the CSA personal information about your partner isn't a
breach of data protection, but CSA using it without permission is.

I think it could be a breach of the Data Protection Act. The CSA will
use any trick in the book to try to get information and will not be
held accountable for using dodgy tactics. However, disclosure of
personal details held by one organisation cannot be disclosed to
another individual or organisation who does not have the legal right
to that information. Thus the CSA have the right to information about
a NRP and his/her employer cannot refuse to disclose. However, if the
CSA shouldn't be asking for info on a NRPP it is a breach of the DPA
to disclose that.

In Dan's case, though, if the details were leaked by another person,
those waters are very murky.

Post by x x
Doesn't matter if they didn't reply last time - put a new complaint in to
customer service manager about the problem and the lack of response.

I would suggest as well that, if there is a possibility of a breach of
the DPA, it would be worth taking it higher than a customer service
manager. After all, breaches of the DPA can be serious and the
penalties correspondingly quite harsh.

Post by x x
Martin <><

Post by dan
My new partner's work details were supplied by a friend of my ex. In full
breach of the data protection act I would add. However, my new partner

does

Post by dan
not have the financial resources to prove this. The CSA were constantly
ringing up her place of work and demanding salary info - at one time they
told her employer it was HER child she was not supporting.
She made a written complaint to the CSA - got f*** all back apart from -

we

Post by dan
cannot discuss the matter as the case files are not yours etc...
What has happened here has been CRIMINAL. She has been called in to see

her

Post by dan
bosses and explain about what should be a personal matter and which is
nothing to do with her or her job. Other people she works with but who do
not have the full facts now view her differently and one person even asked
her how she could walk out on 'her' child!
CSA victims go beyond immediate parents and kids.
dan