Is CSA1 an exact science? (if so where can I get a copy of the formula) -merged-

kelloggs36

Nobody is villifying an NRP - just responding to the posts which are written - which are very contradictory and unclear. People are actually trying to help you, but the more you post, the more it becomes clear that it is not actually the CSA being at fault, but you arguing against their procedures!

kelloggs36

Here is proof that the CSA have acted correctly and have exercised their rights to refuse to supercede your assessment after you sent in the wrong payslips and then didn't comply with the timescales. It is taken from the decision maker's guide.

9272 If the information is not provided within the appropriate timescale, the DM should decide whether to:

1. supersede the MA on the basis of the evidence available if this is sufficient to enable a decision to be made (subject to the guidance at Part 01)
2. take closure action
3. impose an IMA
4. refuse to supersede the decision

9273 If the information is not provided within the appropriate timescale but is subsequently received at a later date without good reason for the delay, the DM should treat the receipt of the information as a new request for supersession.

It clearly states that if you don't comply with the timescales, then they can treat it as a new application from the date you send in the info.

Loopy_Girl

mothballed wrote: »

There has been some good advice found here.

Its a shame this blighted bythose with an attitude that the NRP is to be villified for the crime of being one.

The PWC camp who have nothing better to do than post negative remarks and applaud each other for it.

From what I recall, Marksoton is a NRP.

And you are not being 'vilified' (correct spelling btw) for being an NRP.

Your story is hugely inconsistent and you refuse to answer direct questions put to you, particulary by Kelloggs, which would enable an accurate answer.

There is no camp on here. I only recall of one other poster that used another site that came on here and used that term - perhaps you know them?

If you went to an appeal the first thing the adjuicator would find out was whether you followed CSA procedure - and you haven't. You cannot blame the CSA for the fact that you sent the wrong documents in.

Your story does not add up and alot of the things you have stated could be seen as for effect and for heated debate and when people have questioned things that you have said previous and then change, you refuse to answer - which is what I suspect happened on the Parents Centre forum. People don't like having their time wasted by people that it seems are making stories up - and the evidence is there and black and white. No one is making baseless comments or assumptions. You cannot deny what you have written as it is there in black and white.

Marksoton's last 2 posts have made alot of sense and it's man-to-man, NRP-to-NRP so that cannot be seen as being vilified for being an NRP. Perhaps you should take heed.

mothballed

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Mothballed - you keep saying how knackered you are for working 70 hours per week and then complain that the CSA are using overtime as a basis for their assessment - this is correct procedure - you work it, they assess you on it - unless it was a one off.

It is a one off, in summer 2007, but with this crazy assessment I had been forced to work as a night coach driver to make up the time and up goes the assessment. Eventually the cookie crumbles.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Reading through your lists of demands

Demands? Interesting choice of word. Is that really how the CSA sees a request to put things right?

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I will tell you now that you won't get them! Your compensation may be in the region of about £100 - £250 if they agree that they have acted incorrectly, but as you said yesterday that they refused to backdate the assessment or do the assessment because you didn't send the correct payslips in, then the onus was actually on YOU to ensure that you sent them the correct info within the correct time.

I think there is an assumption made here. I have not asked the CSA for compensation. A lawfirm referred by the CAB and specialising in litigating an authority (but not related to the CSA appeal) is waiting to start proceedings to claim damages. Its completely separate to the CSA appeal. I have the payslips, I have the DEO, I have a letter from CSA, I have letters asking for them to put things right (and a clear explanation why) and the CSA reply saying I will not be getting it. They say they need the CSA to admit the assessment is wrong before they can start work.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

They don't HAVE to do a new assessment if you won't comply with their requests - and they have exercised their rights to refuse.

The letters and replies I have are clear. I asked in writing setting out why it's wrong and telling them to put things right with clear reasons. My letter of August 2007 is only four lines long and in plain English. The CSA said no because I did not show compelling evidence my income has been reduced by non availablilty of overtime, They followed this up with nuisance telephone calls to my mobile.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You wish to appeal against that - you now say that you did and you lost.

I have to admit, Im not entirely sure on this point. My letter clearly says. (quote)If you cannot or will not correct the assessment according to the above reasons then please start your appeals process and notify me of the hearing date in writing (unquote).

The CSA replied by making lots of telephone calls and I lost it with them. I told them to write to me and keep everything on record. I got automaton letters, threats and a further letter said there will be no appeal.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

An appeal is where a decision maker looks at the facts of the case again and decides if you have a case - they decided you didn't. The next stage was to ask for a tribunal hearing whereby you attend a hearing with a member of the appeals panel who look again at your case and you put forward your ideas (after submitting it all in writing) - they then make a decision which the CSA have to abide by.

NOW you’re talking!

Its all written up (all with supporting documentary evidence). I think I have been confusing an appeal with a Tribunal Hearing. Thank you for clearing that up. Can anyone describe the sequence of events that take place at a Tribunal Hearing?

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You may only then appeal against this on a point of law and you have to apply to the commissioner.

Brilliant! Its all right here!

My grounds are wholly based on legislation, except I still havn’t found the legal definition of Non dependant. Housing benefit seems to think so. If im accepted for HB and CTB then the CSA's goose is cooked.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Moth, for the record can you give us exactly what you pay (in £, not %) per week in maintenance and then in arrears? ARe you paying via DEO at the moment or not?

Yes a DEO in place (fixed at £519 a month). My basic is £713.15 a month. August 2007 I earned £1732.97 because I worked the maximum clock time of 75 hours. I am assessed to pay 30% on the DEO plus arrears 10%. When I work no overtime I earn less than £60.50 a week – and that before I’ve paid any rent or council tax.

The 10% arrears accrues, as does the rent, as does the council tax, as does me borrowing from others to get by, leaving JSA the only way to go.

I think this is by I am being flamed on this forum.

mothballed

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Nobody is villifying an NRP - just responding to the posts which are written - which are very contradictory and unclear. People are actually trying to help you, but the more you post, the more it becomes clear that it is not actually the CSA being at fault, but you arguing against their procedures!

I am not challenging their procedures. I am going by what the law says (porvided by others on this forum) and I argue the CSA is not compling with its own regulations.

I am also suspecting that there is a propensity for CSA operatives to with with clouded judgement when dealing with NRP's and ignore their own rules whenever they become inconvenient. That is now evident by the attitude from others on this forum.

mothballed

kelloggs36 wrote: »

the CSA have acted correctly and have exercised their rights to refuse to supercede your assessment after you sent in the wrong payslips and then didn't comply with the timescales. It is taken from the decision maker's guide.

Point taken.

I understand the CSA when passing secondary legislation cannot rebuke an Act of Parliament. There is an Act of Parliament that says I am entitled to a fair trial in all criminal and civil proceedings. Its also a basic cornerstone of English common law.

Edit: I think this means the CSA has closed it case in this matter ,and I can now proceed to the Tribunal. am I right?

Fran

mothballed wrote: »

I am not challenging their procedures. I am going by what the law says (porvided by others on this forum) and I argue the CSA is not compling with its own regulations.

I am also suspecting that there is a propensity for CSA operatives to with with clouded judgement when dealing with NRP's and ignore their own rules whenever they become inconvenient. That is now evident by the attitude from others on this forum.

As it says on the index page of this forum:

Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info.

Ie, you should not be relying on posts on this forum but checking with your own legal advisors.

Re attitudes, I think you should forget about that side of things, it seems to be taken up too much energy.

kelloggs36

Teh trouble is though, you cannot have an assessment based on your basic salary if you actually work overtime - that is part of the rules! You are on one hand saying that your basic is £713.15 but you are then saying you are working up to 75 hours per week - that is how you are paying the DEO. If you only worked your basic hours, the DEO would fail because it would put you below your protected income amount. If you actually worked your basic hours, then you may have a case, but you appear to be actually working more than your basic hours on a regular basis which means that the CSA must assess you on them. "It is a one off, in summer 2007, but with this crazy assessment I had been forced to work as a night coach driver to make up the time and up goes the assessment. Eventually the cookie crumbles." On one hand you are saying it is a one off, and then say you work as a night driver which implies that you do in fact work over and above your basic wage.

You say it was a one off in Summer 2007 - how long over the Summer? One week would be a one off, a whole Summer would be regular and must be taken into account. At the time that the hours reduce back to regular, basic hours you apply for a supse (new assessment) based on your reduced hours - you send in 2 consecutive payslips which include the relevant week and they look at it again. If you send in the wrong payslips, then that is your problem, not the CSA's! Rather than keep arguing for it to be backdated (as it won't be because you didn't send in the correct info) you just submit a further 2 consecutive payslips showing that you work your basic hours and then you get your new, lower assessment. The problem is that you are working overtime so any assessment will be based on that - you need to actually work your reduced hours to be able to get the lower assessment!!

You don't understand how the assessments work clearly from your list of demands that you wish the CSA to pay for. Even if you were given the full housing costs, doesn't mean that you get a £ for £ reduction in the assessment. The council tax doesn't get deducted at the exempt income stage anyway and so often has no effect on the amount you actually pay - it is given as an allowance in your protected income and in many cases, you still end up paying the full amount! If you can't afford to pay your council tax then that is not the CSA's fault legally.

I dont' think you can actually sue the CSA for damages - you can only ask for a special payment which as I outlined, will be in the region of £100 - £250 if they are proven to be wrong.

Have you actually completed the forms asking for an appeal? You need to complete specific forms and then they will look at the case again. You will be notified of the outcome. If you disagree you can then ask for a tribunal hearing. You appear to have done neither, hence the appeal is out of time.

kelloggs36

mothballed wrote: »

Point taken.

I understand the CSA when passing secondary legislation cannot rebuke an Act of Parliament. There is an Act of Parliament that says I am entitled to a fair trial in all criminal and civil proceedings. Its also a basic cornerstone of English common law.

Edit: I think this means the CSA has closed it case in this matter ,and I can now proceed to the Tribunal. am I right?

An assessment is not a trial! An assessment is not a civil proceeding nor a criminal one, it is an assessment of your liability of maintenance - you are confusing matters here. To be honest, you were told by the CSA that the payslips were incorrect, did you re-submit the correct ones? ONes which included no overtime for 2 consecutive months?

kelloggs36

mothballed wrote: »

I am not challenging their procedures. I am going by what the law says (porvided by others on this forum) and I argue the CSA is not compling with its own regulations.

I am also suspecting that there is a propensity for CSA operatives to with with clouded judgement when dealing with NRP's and ignore their own rules whenever they become inconvenient. That is now evident by the attitude from others on this forum.

Not in this case though. YOu have yourself stated that the payslips were not the ones they needed to make the assessment - that is not ignoring their own procedures, but following them. Just because you don't agree with what they are asking, doesn't make it wrong. I have provided evidence that they are perfectly within their rights to refuse on the grounds that you have laid out, so you can't argue against that unless you can prove that you did infact submit the correct payslips requested at the time and that those payslips contained no overtime?

Why don't you apply for your data protection file, that may show the decision on which they based your non-dependent status.