We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
out of the blue arrears demand
Comments
-
Board Guide comment
Please remember to be nice to all posters, even if you do not agree with them, thank you
GOING OFF-TOPIC
Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: While it’s easy to wander off-topic that often prevents newbies finding the information they want quickly and easily (please see this rule). Please keep this thread on topic. If you’d like to discuss non-MoneySaving related topics please continue your discussion in The MoneySavers Arms or Discussion Time. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="%20abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]!!!!!![/EMAIL].0 -
kelloggs36 wrote: »I am aware who Barry Porter is, but that link about his past does not mean anything in relation to this thread. Barry Porter is the head of the Criminal Compliance team of a specific office within the CSA - he does not make policy nor lay down the rules which are made by senior management (which he is not).
er. head of criminal compliance is a pretty senior position and those underneath him will be acting on his orders.
and given his rantings about how they will be forcing nrp's to take out loans etc, exactly what do you think he's going to be implimenting?????
oh, laws and rules are made by the government. it's just that the csa pick and choose which ones they will abide by.NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT. THEY'LL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL AND BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
and, please. only thank when appropriate. not to boost idiots egos.0 -
kelloggs36 wrote: »Being investigated does not mean that they are actually guilty of any offence.
Absolutely right being investigated doesn’t mean you’re guilty, however it is a shame the csa cannot apply the same philosophy when dealing with their clients. My experience with the csa is that you are treated as a criminal regardless of evidence to the contrary.I can't see how informing somebody that they accept credit cards etc is financial advice - it is merely letting them know what their options are.
I recently had a similar conversation with an enforcement officer. He too asked if I could settle my arrears by credit cards or take out a loan. I did ask if he was advising me to take out credit and he did say it was an option. He also asked if I could borrow from friends or family and again I asked if this was advice, he said again it was just an option.
Consolidating debts by taking out loans or credit is financial advice in my view, therefore governed by the FSA.AT the end of the day the debt is still owed and is a priority debt
Agreed, if there is a debt it should be paid and as a priority debt should be deducted at source the same as Tax and National Insurance. If this was the case we would not need the csa or this website. :jTeacher 1+2 = 3
CSA 1+2 = 30,0000 -
I recently had a similar conversation with an enforcement officer. He too asked if I could settle my arrears by credit cards or take out a loan. I did ask if he was advising me to take out credit and he did say it was an option. He also asked if I could borrow from friends or family and again I asked if this was advice, he said again it was just an option.
Consolidating debts by taking out loans or credit is financial advice in my view, therefore governed by the FSA.
Telling you to take a card or loan out as this was the best thing to do in the circumstances is classed as financial advice.
Advising that you could take one of these routes is merely showing that there are options.
No one can force anyone to do anything...we are back to his same old same old....the CSA get the blame for things when, ultimately, every person is responsible for the choices they make in life. If someone thinks aking a loan out is a viable option then fair play to them...but no one is forced.0 -
Agreed, if there is a debt it should be paid and as a priority debt should be deducted at source the same as Tax and National Insurance. If this was the case we would not need the csa or this website. :j
Absolutely spot on...wouldn't really help the shifty ones that go SE to make as little payment as possible for the children they created but am sure they could be a way round it after the yearly acccounts get submitted, the HMRC got their slice for the CS and passed it on to the PWC.
Everyone knows this makes sense but the HMRC won't touch it with a bargepole!!!:D0 -
-
and given his rantings about how they will be forcing nrp's to take out loans etc, exactly what do you think he's going to be implimenting?????
It doesn't say that anywhere
If he was seriously intent on making nrps pay interest on arrears, surely the csa would be looking at creating legislation to add interest :rolleyes:0 -
Loopy_Girl wrote: »
Telling you to take a card or loan out as this was the best thing to do in the circumstances is classed as financial advice.
Advising that you could take one of these routes is merely showing that there are options.
When you seek the financial advise the financial adviser should run through the options available to you. You would not be told but advised of your options, that is very little difference between what the csa state in the phone calls.No one can force anyone to do anything...we are back to his same old same old....the CSA get the blame for things when, ultimately, every person is responsible for the choices they make in life. If someone thinks aking a loan out is a viable option then fair play to them...but no one is forced.
The csa are forcing people to do things they don’t want to all the time. They bend or break the laws to get results, and they don’t care if they are right or not.
The two year steer to collect debts is the problem. Many of these debts have taken up to 10 years to accumulate making it impossible to pay back in 2 years. Other organisations including the Tax Office would not allow a debt to accumulate for that length of time, nor could they go back that far.
Agreed, everyone is responsible for choices in life. So when this agency miscalculates, breaks its rules and makes mistakes why doesn’t it not take responsibility and put it right.Teacher 1+2 = 3
CSA 1+2 = 30,0000 -
Loopy_Girl wrote: »Absolutely spot on...wouldn't really help the shifty ones that go SE to make as little payment as possible for the children they created but am sure they could be a way round it after the yearly acccounts get submitted, the HMRC got their slice for the CS and passed it on to the PWC.
Shifty ones ??? Self assessment is paid every six months and the amount paid would include a percentage for the child support. If the correct amount wasn’t paid legal action would be taken against the person concerned.Everyone knows this makes sense but the HMRC won't touch it with a bargepole!!!:D
I don’t see what the problem is in many cases they share the same building as the csa and other government agencies.
A simple change to the tax code for people who are liable to pay for child support, would end all the csa problems, with variations of that code for the amount of children concerned.Teacher 1+2 = 3
CSA 1+2 = 30,0000 -
Loopy_Girl wrote: »I've thanked you for that comment btw....the weirdo that I am.....;)
I like weirdo's so I thanked you back. *SIGH*0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.6K Spending & Discounts
- 247.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.7K Life & Family
- 262.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards