Child Maintenance (CSA) questions (merged)

kelloggs36

The NRP CANNOT request to have the case transferred to the new system - the PWC can, but would have to close the original case down and wait for 13 weeks before re-applying.

Regarding your appeal:

On what grounds are you appealing? Is it Lifestyle Inconsistent with declared income?

I was a Face to Face Officer with CSA (currently on career break) PLUS I won my case of Lifestyle at a Tribunal and got his nil assessment changed to 76 per week and it was backdated 4 years. He has also got 3 charging orders on his house and a suspended prison sentence over his head, which is in the process of going back as he has breached it so he may well be going to prison in the near future.

The tribunal is quite informal in some ways. It is only a small room with a Chairperson and if required, a financially quialified person to consider accounts and suchlike. There should also be a representative from the CSA to explain their decision. He may be there and any representatives he may have hired, be it from the CAB, his accountant or solicitor.

They will consider the evidence (and here is the crunch point) you must be able to provide evidence of what you are claiming. So, if he bought a new house, you must be able to prove how he paid for it etc. You can get details of how much he paid for the house from the Land Registry as this is public information, and his application form you should have a copy of in the pack provided by the appeals service (or any documents pertaining to the appeal).

If you want any more help, please let me know, but I will need to know some more details before I can advise you properly.

fabianne

Kelloggs-can I PM you about it please? It is pretty complex and I want to be sure everything is pertinent to the Inconsistency of Lifestyle appeal.

I asked today about changing to the new rules when I phoned about his missing payments recently-which they have now received and should be with me on Friday.

fabianne

Also,can I ask if he has to sit in the same room ????as he is a prize

---

(left blank to add your own special nickname).I know his style from being in Court with him in the past,he argues,throws in irrelevant things and just smokescreens to waste time so the precious time is used up on petty argument as he tries to take over (he is very unreasonable and arrogant).I find this very stressful.

ReportInvestor

Observer

Anger at state plans to axe debt owed to other people

".....there is growing unease at anticipated proposals to write off up to £1bn of old debt, affecting as many as 130,000 households. Total arrears amount to £3.5bn, of which £1.98bn has been deemed 'probably uncollectable'.

'Lone parents are incredibly angry that many of their cases are deemed "out of time" and non-recoverable because of CSA inaction over the years,' says Janet Allbeson, policy adviser at the charity One Parent Families. 'Parents are owed a lot of money and to write off what is a legal liability without any attempt to compensate is something we're deeply concerned about.'

'It's all very well the government saying that they want to write off £1bn, but how are you going to compensate the parents who have lost that money?' asks Kim Fellowes, who chairs the CSA committee of family lawyers group Resolution. 'If a parent is on benefits then the money might be owed to the Secretary of State. However, if not, it's owed to the parent. How does the government have the legal right to turn around and say that that debt should no longer exist?'...."

## - What a waste of public money if the CSA has merely raised family's expectations while failing at its main task .

TheImportanceOfBeingIdle

Why am I not surprised?? An idea thought up by the same bunch of incompetents that decided to take money from me to give to the missus even after telling them we were living together.

kelloggs36

I asked my case officer about this and he said that there are no plans to cease chasing NRPs who owe lots of money - in fact there is a whole new section going to be set up in order to get as much money back as possible, so I'm not sure exactly how accurate the reporting is.

ReportInvestor

I've heard this rumoured before, k36.

It may come from a desire to get any new agency off to a good start, leaving behind the baggage and bad news stories of the CSA.

Would that be political spin or practical good sense? I don't know.

kelloggs36

won't be good if they do write it off and not offer the outstanding balances to the PWCs owed money. It just makes a mockery of their child poverty policies if they are happy to ensure that the very children that should be maintained are left to live in the poverty they are supposed to be preventing.

ReportInvestor

That's the opinion at the Observer Money department

Debt write off scheme is a scandal unless there is government compensation in lieu

"The child Support Agency has failed many parents and children all over Britain. The Observer has published countless articles detailing the desperation and frustration felt by those trying to claim support for their offspring. The fact that the agency has failed to collect some £3.5bn will not surprise anyone who has had any dealings with it, but that the government should simply be able to write off £1bn of that is astounding. It's not the government's money to give up. It belongs to the mums and dads who have struggled to make ends meet while their former partners relinquish responsibility.

If the government does include proposals in the forthcoming white paper to write off this £1bn, it must also set out how it intends to compensate those families that have lost out................"

kelloggs36 wrote:

It just makes a mockery of their child poverty policies

Quite. To say nothing of their stand for greater personal responsibility.

kelloggs36

Absolutely - my ex husband made it clear that he wants nothing to do with our daughter merely BECAUSE he would have to maintain her. He has avoided the CSA and got away with it, despite owing me 25k and it rises each week. The Government failed in making the CSA take appropriate enforcement action because the MINISTER and the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of the CSA had an agreement NOT TO PURSUE ORDERS FOR SALE FOR THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES i.e. those with a property which they can get charging orders on, but they could not enforce them because of the policy set out by the Government Ministers. THis flies in the face of the Headlines that the Government have put forward in the past about tough enforcement for those who REFUSE to pay, not those who can prove they can't pay, those who they CAN PROVE CAN PAY BUT WON'T. It is a complete farce.

I am pleased to say that the new Chief Exec has now overturned that policy decision however, it allowed for huge debts to build up with no chance of recovering it because a charging order means nothing unless the person sells their house, either voluntarily or by force. The PWC is always the one who suffers, or rather, the child does as the child gets absolutely nothing because if the PWC and child should lose her home due to the maintenance not being paid then that is just a shame, but lo betide if the deliberatly refusing to pay NRP may lose his home - that is terrible and must be avoided at all costs! Again, it goes against the policy of the children coming first - the child can lose their home, but their selfish parent cannot. Doesn't make sense to me. In some cases the NRP has had more children - his choice to decide to maintain new children to the expense of his existing child so if he can't afford to have more children, then he shouldn't have them. His responsibility should ALWAYS be to children who came first, then his new children. Of course it isn't the children's fault, but he knew he had a child before the new ones came along, so he should make decisions taking into account his CURRENT responsibilities, NOT brush them aside because it is too expensive now!! The Government should NEVER, EVER give up chasing this money owed FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN. If they wish to save money by no longer chasing them, then they SHOULD PAY THE PWC'S ALL THAT IS OWED TO THEM BY THE NRP AND ADJUST THE NRP'S TAX CODE TO RECOUP THE MONEY THAT WAY.