HELP !!!!CSA £55,166.94 owed

knightshaft

Others may contradict this.

Don't give your wife's income details if she has a good wage. I refused and it cost me an extra £5 a week. If I'd given the details it would have been about £20 per week.

Kellogs36 says the calculation is done on your money alone but partners money taken into account to see if you can afford it. This IS taking your wife's money by the backdoor. The more she earns the more YOU can afford to pay.

The CSA play dirty, use sharp practice & even break the law. Any NRP that fully cooperates gets taken to the cleaners!

knightshaft

knightshaft wrote: »

Others may contradict this.

Don't give your wife's income details if she has a good wage. I refused and it cost me an extra £5 a week. If I'd given the details it would have been about £20 per week.

Kellogs36 says the calculation is done on your money alone but partners money taken into account to see if you can afford it. This IS taking your wife's money by the backdoor. The more she earns the more YOU can afford to pay.

The CSA play dirty, use sharp practice & even break the law. Any NRP that fully cooperates gets taken to the cleaners!

oh yes!

This is on top of being completely incompetent

marksoton

Again i would reiterate that the OP needs to establish where and when the CSA claim to have made contact and whether procedure has been followed. Until they have done this there is no point getting the penalty assessment adjusted.

kelloggs36

knightshaft wrote: »

Others may contradict this.

Don't give your wife's income details if she has a good wage. I refused and it cost me an extra £5 a week. If I'd given the details it would have been about £20 per week.

Kellogs36 says the calculation is done on your money alone but partners money taken into account to see if you can afford it. This IS taking your wife's money by the backdoor. The more she earns the more YOU can afford to pay.

The CSA play dirty, use sharp practice & even break the law. Any NRP that fully cooperates gets taken to the cleaners!

In many cases though the partner's income makes NO difference because the NRP is not receiving a discount due to having a lower income.

RNA

Thanks for all the advice so far. 10 years ago we had a verbal agreement that she did not want any money from me but did not want me to have contact inturn. Does the fact i have not been allowed to see my daughter have any bearing on this assemnt? Does my ex have to be assesed aswell? Is this money paid only when you claim child benifit? If she was not claiming or not entitled to claim would that affect how this case would be assessed? Would you advise signing up with the NACSA and let them deal with my case. I only got this letter yesterday and i am so stressed out!

Caz3121

Access and maintenance have no link
If your ex received benefits during this period the arrears will be due to the Secretary of State as she would only have received the first £10 if it had been paid (if she said she did not want maintenance but was claiming benefits the CSA would automatically have become involved)

mothballed

knightshaft wrote: »

The CSA play dirty, use sharp practice & even break the law. Any NRP that fully cooperates gets taken to the cleaners!

Its not just me then.

OP, I expect the CSA will probably go after any land or property which you hold a beneficial interest. The CSA will need to get a liability order, then an interim charging order, then have the order made final - and potentially order the property to be sold.

Getting a liability order is easy for them. Regardless of the debt being genuine, you cannot defend it because S34 of the Child Support Act prevents a court from considering any defence you make in respect of the assessment. When a liability order is granted you cant do much to stop enforcement other than pay everything up front regardless whether or not it is a genuinely lawful debt.

If you hold a beneficial interest in a property or land then speak to a solicitor and transfer it to your wife as the sole tenant. You could do it yourself by downloading forms TR1 and ID1 from the Land Registry website. The transfer is exempt from stamp duty and you must do this BEFORE the date of the liability order.

If the money is genuinely owed to the CSA then make a written offer of regular payments and keep to it. If the CSA obtains an interim charging order while recorded payments are in place then you can ask the court to have the interim order struck out.

If you have bank or deposit accounts then add your wife's name to the accounts. It doesnt stop the CSA finding out the current balance but it stops bank account arrestment. If you have investments and balances more than £312,000 then you might be better to move them offshore to Switzerland. Credit Suisse offers a fastrack transfer service and you can find their stand at Emigrate2009 at Sandown Park racecourse next month.

I'm afraid you are going to be on the receiving end of some of the most disgusting tactics offered by the CSA. The government is skint and pressuring its departments to clear a £23bn hole in the overall tax take made by the credit crunch.

RNA

marksoton wrote: »

Again i would reiterate that the OP needs to establish where and when the CSA claim to have made contact and whether procedure has been followed. Until they have done this there is no point getting the penalty assessment adjusted.

The CSA said they had a mailing address for me that they used in 1996. A form was sent to this address but i had moved on. They said the letter was returned with a forwarding address but they never sent anything there. They told me they tried contacting my last employer and gave me a name of a company i never worked for and the date was when i was at university. I have been working for 4 years and paying tax an NI but they have not contacted my employer. They have now got my details as now i am redundent and went to claim job seeker allowance. How would i know if they have followed the correct procedures or not? Surley they will not admit to anything which may affect the assesment?

blimey40

In a round about way, by going on benefits you will be better off. Thats how the system works.

They can only go back to July 2000 if you do not have a DEO. Interesting too see you are not the only one getting letters after years of not getting anything. You are dealing now with an agency who are finally gettting there act together after years of inept performances.

Its amazing you get a letter after 12 years which I guess asking for you to pay it back within 7 days, which is exactly what happened to me.

Sounds like you are in a similar position.

The Nacsa web-site is very good, though they do take time to respond to personal cases. The CSA work on a fixed time of two years to get the arrears paid, but you can negiotiate to pay it back over 5 years if you show a willingness to pay. The next stage if you do nothing will be a liability order against you. Never speak to anyone on the phone at CSA, do everything in writing. CSA are under strict guidelines to be heavy on arrears following the recent comments from Hutton "stamping down heavily on non-complient fathers". They have let enormous arrears grow and I am sure each enforcement officer now finds great pleasure in tracking down someone they have not contacted for years and years. Its there fault in many cases for not sending letters for years, but because vast summs have been accrued, don't expect them now to go away.

the fact is, in most cases fathers always want to pay for there kids and each case is different, which seems lost on a government organisation only intent in taking the PWC's side in all cases.

LizzieS_2

Agree with some and disagree with others.

mothballed wrote: »

OP, I expect the CSA will probably go after any land or property which you hold a beneficial interest. The CSA will need to get a liability order, then an interim charging order, then have the order made final - and potentially order the property to be sold.

Possibly, an order for sale however, would not be made against a genuine attempt to pay the actual arrears.

Getting a liability order is easy for them. Regardless of the debt being genuine, you cannot defend it because S34 of the Child Support Act prevents a court from considering any defence you make in respect of the assessment. When a liability order is granted you cant do much to stop enforcement other than pay everything up front regardless whether or not it is a genuinely lawful debt.

Agree

If you hold a beneficial interest in a property or land then speak to a solicitor and transfer it to your wife as the sole tenant. You could do it yourself by downloading forms TR1 and ID1 from the Land Registry website. The transfer is exempt from stamp duty and you must do this BEFORE the date of the liability order.

Not a very good idea. Not sure how far the csa's legislation allows them to go, but I do know that the civil courts have the right to assess beneficial interests in property irrespective of whose name is on the title deeds. Doing what you suggest simply incurs greater court costs requesting the court to do a 'declaration of interests' in the property. More importantly as it prevents a CO application, it is more likely to end up as an order for sale. The history cannot be deleted on Land Registry records so it is pretty obvious to the court what has happened.

If you have bank or deposit accounts then add your wife's name to the accounts. It doesnt stop the CSA finding out the current balance but it stops bank account arrestment. If you have investments and balances more than £312,000 then you might be better to move them offshore to Switzerland. Credit Suisse offers a fastrack transfer service and you can find their stand at Emigrate2009 at Sandown Park racecourse next month.

AFAIK there is legislation due to come into force that will allow the csa to arrest bank accounts where the nrp is one named party and the account has had payments into it from say nrp wages.

The government is skint and pressuring its departments to clear a £23bn hole in the overall tax take made by the credit crunch.

Nothing to do with the credit crunch. This is something that has been targetted for years but the legislation has been slow at arriving.