CSA Right or Wrong

Last_Legs

Some years ago now - probably 6/7 - I was paying my monthly payment regularly, when out of the blue I received a letter and a cheque from the CSA. The letter stated that that my case was closed and back dated. This apparently was because the other party had not been in touch with the CSA for a considerable amount of time in response to paperwork/forms/information etc. that was required by the CSA.
The amount I received from the CSA was for the amounts of money I had payed monthly, minus my arrears. So in theory, my slate was clean. Ididn't owe them anything, my arrears were cleared and I stopped making myb monthly payments.
After a period of about 5 or 6 months - again out of the blue - I received quite a large bundle of mail from the CSA basically stating that the other party had made contact with relevant information. My case had been re-opened. I now owed them:
a) The arrears that I previousley had.
b) Arrears for the amount of the cheque they sent me.
c) An amount of arrears from when I stopped making my payments.

I was in touch with the CSA staight away, saying surely you cannot close a case and then just re-open it..........or can they?
My feelings are that, day one should have started on the date the case was re-opened.
Has anybody else had a similar experience?

Blob

Hi

You are not alone in your situation, it sounds very fimilar, yes been there done that, and yes they can do this!

When dealing with these people you have to rewmember two things, first the CSA is not there to get money for your kids but the Gov. The other point is that they do believe that they are above the law, and as such can make it up as they go along.

You should now ask ICE to look into your case and inform them that you have to go through this process to get to the Ombudsman, you will also have to inform the CSA that you are going to ICE. At the same time see your MP, though they may tell you that under the new legislation that brought C-MEC into being, they have no imput with them anymore! The CSA will tell you a different story, but you have to get as many lines of investigation going as possible.

Don't let the CSA tell you that there is a law that states that you have to clear your arrears in 2 years, as that is twaddel! Under the law they are obliged to enter in to negociations, it clearly leaves it open as to how long you have to repay your arrears as the Gov thinks it may take more than that!

Hope this helps, and keep your chin up.

Loopy_Girl

Blob wrote: »

When dealing with these people you have to rewmember two things, first the CSA is not there to get money for your kids but the Gov.

Sorry I don't agree with this - how can a case between private clients be getting money for the Government? And why, if what you are saying you think is correct, are PWC no longer obliged to use the CSA if they are on benefits? And why from next year will PWC on benefits be able to keep ALL the CSA money PLUS their benefit entitlement?

The CSA is there exactly to get money for children - they have many many flaws but I fail to see how the Government gains from a NRP paying a PWC.

kelloggs36

I would definately query this - the whole point of them closing the case months ago was because the PWC failed to respond to their requests for info - that isn't your fault but the PWC's and so she (assuming it is a she) would have to forgo any arrears now. However, there may have been mitigating circumstances as to why she hadn't responded.

Last_Legs

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Sorry I don't agree with this - how can a case between private clients be getting money for the Government? And why, if what you are saying you think is correct, are PWC no longer obliged to use the CSA if they are on benefits? And why from next year will PWC on benefits be able to keep ALL the CSA money PLUS their benefit entitlement?

The CSA is there exactly to get money for children - they have many many flaws but I fail to see how the Government gains from a NRP paying a PWC.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
Please Loopy Girl.
I'm trying to get some advice/help on this situation without any 'less than helpfull/sarci imputs by you. But I thank you - on behalf of many others that ( atcually - reading that 'quote' several times I think its an automatic input from the CSA) Infiltrator

kelloggs36

I don't believe that Loopy was being sarcastic - she was responding actually to the sarcastic remark made previuosly that CSA was only interested in saving money for the Government - whilst this may be true in part, it is not wholly the reason it was set up as otherwise it would ONLY have dealt with benefit cases. Loopy is merely pointing out that as the rules are changing to allow benefit cases to keep all the CSA money on top of their benefits, then there is clearly no agenda for child maintenance to be for government savings.

Loopy_Girl

Thanks Kelloggs you were quite correct.

It seems to me that the OP may think I work for the CSA.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I would of course give my background for the benefit of Last Legs and also offer some helpful advice since I have had many many years of dealing with the CSA as a PWC but I really can't be @rsed if they are going to come out with comments like that...suffice to say I don't work for the CSA however:D

Blob

I would have thought that you Kellogs as you have stated on other sites would at least stuck to you previous statments, but as you have worked for the CSA, and for all I know still do in Hastings is it, I understand why you change your stand point so often.

The CSA was set up to reduce the cost to the Gov of benifit payments to single parents by makeing the AP responsible for the benifit payments. You will forgive me if as I understand it is getting money for the Gov and not the children.

Only with the advent of C-MEC has this change a little and then due to the public outcry against the CSA, due to the well documented mess that they have made and the number of people that they have driven to take their own lives, I believe that the running total to date is 62!

The simple truth is that if the person that put this post up wants to take action against this system that is blatent in its disreguard to both the Courts and the Law then they could get the ball rolling in the way suggested by me. This route works, trust me as I have done it, and the CSA dont like it if you stand up to them. The more people that stand their ground the sooner the system will have to be changed to one that takes into account the needs of the children and not just the Gov or the PWC, by distroying the AP!

kelloggs36

I haven't changed my standpoint at any time. I have also never worked in Hastings.

I repeat, whilst there may have been an element of trying to save money, if that had been the sole intention as you keep saying, it would have only been set up for benefit cases - this has never actually been the case as there were many private cases, which meant that there was no benefit to the government whatsoever. And there is no such thing as an AP - that was outdated years ago.

Blob

The terminology may be dated but the intention is clear. If there is no such thing as an Absent Parent, who do the CSA go after, the parent with care! I think not!

Again the cost to the Gov was aprox £6Bn per annum, the CSA was set up to counter this in some way, as anyone on benifit did not get the money that the CSA took it went and still goes to the Gov, end of! Again at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if someone was on benifit they had no option but to hand the case to the CSA.

Further as you are well aware with the advent of the CSA the option of a 'Clean Break' divorce went out of the window fact! The result is that all of the problems that are now created by the CSA came into being, and the death rate started to rise because of this!

Untill the last few months, privet deals were by and large against the Law because the CSA had to be involved, Big Brother or what. Perhaps this is where I should quote Dame Stella Rimington former head of SIS, the Gov has created a police state in this country on the QT!

My first whitness to support this;

The CSA! They act and believe that they are above the Law and the Courts, and even refuse to comply with a Judgment of the Court of Appeal, I know as I got the Judgment and they refuse to comply with it! However on this point they will have the opportunity to explain to a Law Lord just why they know more about the Law than he dose, they also lie in Court, again I am told that the next hearing in the High Court where they will have the opportunity to explain this will be too 3 Law Lords. For my part I will be pushing for a custodial sentence for the person from the CSA that lied through his back teath!

kelloggs36

Clean break means between the two parties, there can and must never be a clean break between parents and their children - you have misunderstood the purpose of that!

I am actually in favour of the Government recouping money that has been paid out in benefits for children when the children have 2 parents - I certainly do not believe that parents on benefits should be able to keep all the maintenance on top of benefits - that is so wrong as it will encourage unscrupulous PWCs to try and trick poor unsuspecting potential NRPs into fathering children just for the money - much more than now. I just hope that they all keep their trousers on and don't go along with it!!! Joking aside, the serious issue is that the PWCs on benefits will be potentially much better off than a hardworking family of 2 parents who have to work and struggle. There are PWCs out there with more than one NRP a lot of the time - which means lots of extra maintenance on top of benefits. As an example, take a PWC with 3 children with 3 different partners. They get £60.50 per week for themselves and child tax credits for each child, plus housing benefit and council tax benefits (if they aren't working) so in effect free housing. Then the 3 NRPs are earning let's say £25k per year - not a huge amount, but enough. PWC will get 12% of each of their gross incomes, which is £57 per week from EACH of those people making £171 per week extra on top of their benefits. Now call me cynical, but that just cannot be allowed - this country has gone enough to the dogs already without encouraging !!!!less behaviour for the rather large financial gains out of it. So sorry for not agreeing - I believe that there should be caps on the amounts allowed. I think we should be encouraging people to take more responsibility for their actions and choices in life, not less!!