| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 13:35:37
i currently pay more than the CSA would take from me, about £50 more, would the OR make me reduce payments? my ex would hit the roof! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:30:20
newcastle play arsenal today so things cant get any worse for a Geordie |
| BankruptC |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:20:20
You're welcome hon.
We're all in the same boat and we're here to help and share our esperiences wherever we can.
The very best of luck to you-keep us posted!
CG. x |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:16:58
thanks c.g, you're a godsend
xx |
| BankruptC |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:14:51
As John says, hopefully it should be absolutely fine, Andrew. Just explain to the OR and with a bit of luck they'll agree. Contrary to popular belief (mine too!  ),the OR's are human too, in most cases! Tee hee.
CG. x |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:12:53
i appreciate i pay 20% but that agreement was reached when i worked shifts, i didnt have the b@lls to change the payments as i like to see my daughter as much as possible
x |
| John |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:09:43
Absolutely CG
www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk
0800 078 9367 |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:08:10
cahoots with my ex? if only... |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:06:59
ps i pay £250 |
| andrew.m |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:05:43
well why should the kids suffer? i only have one and my net is £1200 |
| BankruptC |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:04:57
Yeah, it really is frustrating.
In the case you mentioned, John, the decision went in favour of the BR. Presumably though, where it doesn't and the allowances agreed by the OR are LESS than those in the guidelines, the BR could argue that the amount being offered by the OR is less than mentioned in the guidelines and ask for it to be reconsidered?
CG. x |
| John |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:02:46
Hi again
looking at CG's research, this chap had 2 kids and 20% of his net income was £400 but was allowed £600.
I guess the examiner likes kids!!!!
www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk
0800 078 9367 |
| John |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 14:00:33
Hi andrew & CG
which only goes to prove how frustrating all this can be for anyone facing BR.
There just isn't any consistency.
CG has taken the info from a formal guide for examiners, yet, as per my previous post, many clearly ignore it.
www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk
0800 078 9367 |
| BankruptC |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 13:53:55
oops, sorry!
We posted at the same time John. Ignore me Andrew-John is the expert here with WAAAAAAAAAAY more knowledge than me!
CG. x |
| BankruptC |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 13:52:14
Hi Andrew,
According to the document recently posted by SL44, only 'formal arrangements' are allowed for maintenance payments, which it states as being 15% of net income for one child, 20% for two and 25% for three or more. My guess is therefore that the OR would only allow this much as part of your allowances, but that if you chose to pay more out of your surplus, that would be ok.
Again, not sure I'm 100% correct but am sure an expert will correct me if I'm wrong.
All the best,
CG. x |
| John |
Posted - 30 August 2008 : 13:49:44
Hi andrew
as the amount is £50 up I think you'll be fine.
The CSA set minimum levels based on particular circumstances. If you can evidence, if asked, that you contribute a little more that should be ok, but loads more would raise suspicions that you are setting aside funds and in cahoots with your ex.
I had a client recently that pays his ex wife £600 per month (her rent) and the 2 children live with her. This is a totally informal and mutually agreed arrangement.
The OR allowed the payment in full.
www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk
0800 078 9367 |
