full assessment backdated to default assess date

Mr_Green_Genes

chickalittle wrote: »

Thanks - I see what your saying but the info from the CSA website does state that if the full assessment is more than the default assessment than the higher amount is back dated to when then the default was put in place. Conversely it states that if the full assessment is lower than the default amount than it only applies from the date the NRP provided the info.

Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

Cozworth806

You can appeal the effective date used in the assessment if you feel it is incorrect.
Also if he is self employed and either living a lifestyle beyond his declared income, or diverting income you can ask for a variation.

LizzieS_2

What you are legally entitled to claim after jumping through various appeal hoops is very different to the amount actually paid. In your opinion is the amount you receive a fair contribution to what your child actually costs? If yes, accept it. If not, dispute it. Don't dispute though just because you can.

chickalittle

LizzieS wrote: »

What you are legally entitled to claim after jumping through various appeal hoops is very different to the amount actually paid. In your opinion is the amount you receive a fair contribution to what your child actually costs? If yes, accept it. If not, dispute it. Don't dispute though just because you can.

The default amount is £30 which in my opinion, isn’t an unreasonable contribution?

Due to the time it has taken for my ex to respond ( deliberately I believe), if the lower amount is backdated I am out of pocket by several hundred pounds. It seems unfair that he can play all these delaying tactics but doesn’t incur the penalties for doing so and that yet again, as the PWC I will be out of pocket.

As for the earlier suggestion of claiming lifestyle inconsistent with income – we live some distance away from each other and I would really struggle to provide the detailed information needed to pursue that action.

Thanks for all the responses though

marksoton

chickalittle wrote: »

The default amount is £30 which in my opinion, isn’t an unreasonable contribution?

Well that all rather depends on what the NRP's income is doesn't it.

michelefauk

Can I just ask how long it too before the CSA put the IMA in place? I ask because my ex and his employer took 11 months to give the CSA his income details (and by then he had left the company) I asked the CSA why they did not put an IMA in place after it was obvious he wasnt going to respond in any reasonable time scale, and was told it was rarely if ever used and only in a last resort. If 11 months isnt a last resort, I dont know what is!

Just wondered how it had worked in your case? (More ammunition in my fight to get the CSA to pull their finger out)

kelloggs36

DMDs are only used where NRP is self employed or a director and can't provide info - unlike CS1 they aren't used as a punitive measure to get them to provide info - that is the difference in your case. The expectation was that the info was freely available only the NRP failed to provide it through choice. Once info was provided it would have added to arrears - he wouldn't have paid DMD amount either though, would he?

nuckinfobhead

chickalittle wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. My ex has been at the same address with the same contact details all along so unless him saying he never received any requests for information is a valid reason and one accepted by the CSA I can't think of anything else.......
Guess I will have to wait and see what they come back with.

hey chick, from everything you've said i could almost say you were my ex. the only thing that made me realise you were'nt was the fact you can spell.

but hello all the same

chickalittle

kelloggs36 wrote: »

DMDs are only used where NRP is self employed or a director and can't provide info - unlike CS1 they aren't used as a punitive measure to get them to provide info - that is the difference in your case. The expectation was that the info was freely available only the NRP failed to provide it through choice. Once info was provided it would have added to arrears - he wouldn't have paid DMD amount either though, would he?

Sorry this has confused me - not hard I know! There are arrears on the default maintenance and they are apparently going down the route of a Liability order or some sort of enforcement action. The arrears though will be reduced now by the lower assessment that they have backdated to the original date. I'm not quite sure about your remark that a DMD is not used as a punitive measure although it was in CS1 - I'm assuming CS1 related to the old method and cS2 to the new - so why would it be any different regardless of which system was used?

kelloggs36

Under CS1 if an NRP failed to provide info, they were assessed to pay 1.5 times the maintenance requirement which was a huge amount of money per week, in the hope that it would gee them up into providing the info. Overall this failed!!! DMDs were set up to help those who could not provide the info for genuine reasons, eg newly self employed who did not have a set of accounts ready because they had not traded for over a year or whose accounts were just not yet ready. They were given a set amount per child to pay so that it got money to the children without punishing them unduly as it was not their fault they could not provide the info. There is no such punitive action for those who still chose to ignore the requests - in theory it wouldn't matter as the info is available from the HMRC, BUT some are worknig cash in hand and don't go through the books, so the info isn't available to get. Either way, it was hoped that the lower amount would encourage payment - whether this has worked, I have no idea but there are cases where nothing will work, short of prison which takes so long!