Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
(you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
in september,

Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
again).  Here's an extract:

> the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic

>  "everyone has the right to be believed"

> Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...

My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
reports
above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?

Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?

Cheers.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.

On 28 Jun, 12:06, le_fr...@trashmail.net wrote:
> Having been stuck on the old scheme since time began
> (you know how time drags when dealing with these low-rent
> csa scum) - and yes, paying 30% net for one child (ouch! cue
> violin, no make that a full orchestra - I friggin' well deserve it),
> my son is leaving school and will be looking for work, probably
> in september,
>
> Now his mother is a devious chiseller and oft economical with t'
> truth at the best of times.  And I've just read a alarming post (by a
> certain Charles Finzter dated July 7) on this forum which got me
> bothered at the sheer bare-faced injustice of this country (yet
> again).  Here's an extract:
>
> > the ex biatch has verbally told them a
> > false leaving date of when my daughter dropped out of college.  I have asked
> > them to get evidence from her to back up this claim.  They have told me they
> > have no powers (yes thats wot i said........no powers) to enforce such a
> > thing on the PWC.  They then came out with this........its a classic
> >  "everyone has the right to be believed"
> > Yeh right........everyone except the NRP...
>
> My question is, how do the C Scum A independently verify that a
> child is no longer eligible for maintenance given the above?
> Presumably the child's NI contributions?  Or is it, as Chuckie
> reports
> above, simply a matter of what the PWC says goes?
>
> Also, what criteria determine ineligibility - ie. age, education?
>
> Cheers.

The only thing you can do is to contact them and register a Change of
Circumstance, if you can show that he has left school and has started
work.  Eligibility is determined by age and education, i.e. beyond 16,
the child remains eligible if s/he is in certain types of education (A-
levels or equivalent for example) for more than 12 hours per week.

Part of the problem of course is that neither party is required to
volunteer a CoC so a dishonest PWC is hardly likely to contact the CSA
with news that would end the maintenance.  The other part is, as you
correctly identify, that they will believe the PWC rather than the NRP
under most circumstances.