CSA Right or Wrong

kelloggs36

You are the one who uses the term you find so offensive - nobody else does! As you said, there is no such thing as an absent parent, so stop referring to them as such! They are non-resident otherwise there can be no claim for child support - that is part of the legislation.

Mr_Green_Genes

Kelloggs is being delightfully naive in her belief about the original intentions for the gestapo. The original intention of the the legislation was exactly as Blob states - check it out, the Secretary of State at the time of the origins of it all way back at the end of the 80s was Tony Newton. Yes I know that non-benefit claimants also get to "enjoy" the services of the gestapo but, as ever with governments, legislation creep means that the end result frequently bears little resemblance to the original intention. And, as far as I'm aware, LG definitely doesn't work for the gestapo.

But I digress.

OP - I suspect that the gestapo will say that they never really closed the case so, if you don't have a letter with the word "closed" and preferably "for good" somewhere as well, you may be in a bit of difficulty. I would be interested to know what kind of mitigating circumstances would allow this to happen - btw it's funny how these never seem to work in the NRPs favour.

Of course, you must use the appeals process to the max, and involve ICE, and contact your MP and use the PO if possible (but all in the right order!!) because it seems to me that there is something decidedly fishy going on.

They did try this on me, after a gap of about 4 years, during which I had gone from being the NRP (actually Kellogg I WAS officially the AP as I was on CS1) to being the PWC and had collected a lot of money from the former Mrs GG. Out of the blue, I had a demand for over £1300. Needless to say, I went for them, threatened all sorts of things and even contacted the police about the gestapo demanding money with menaces and attempted fraud. Eventually I got an admittance of error and a large sum of money as a consolatory payment but it took time to sort out. The moral of the story is "don't let the bastids grind you down".

Finally, I'm not surprised by Blob's tale of lawbreaking by the gestapo and would love to know how it all pans out.

Blob

kelloggs36 wrote: »

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! /quote]

You may like to try to tell this to the PWC that try and in a lot of cases succed in stoping contact after the marrage/relationship has ended mostly for financial gain or to creat hardship for the former partner as a way of getting back at them. Again I speek from experiance here, some will try anything to stop contact. My ex had me arrested claimed that I was not safe to be with children, said that I was going to take the children overseas to live, you name it she tried it, and to fight it was little old me on my own, because the CSA left me with not enough to pay for a solicitor! However as a former Royal Marine and as some would say a typical 'Bootkneck' we are not known for running away when it gets a little difficult and the casulties mounted on the other side, to state but a few;

2 Senior CSA officers removed and disdiplined Regional Manager level, [one got it from a Judge in Court, it appeared his evidence did not match his statment, oups!]
2 Police officers disiplined 1 no longer a police officer.
CAFCAS lost one of thers as well, the judge did that in Court
Social Services got thrown out of Court as waisting the time of the Court by a Senior Circuit Judge.
One solicitor nolonger practices law in this area, the law society got him.
One Barrister had to explain her conduct to the Barr Council, and has not been seen in this area since. How sad!

As for your contention that girls that get themselvs pregnent will not do this to better themselvs, the comment that springs to mind is unprintable, it has happened and will continue to happen from the dawn of time to the end of time, it is called nature and not even the CSA can get round that. Clean Break Divorces were ther to do just that and to leave people in a position to be able to rebuild their lives financially from ground zero, now they just keep getting ground under foot by people that dont care what damage they do! They were never ment to break the tie between child and parent!

Your other point fails compleatly, because if the parents were togeather then as you say they would struggel to get by and manage, they would also be able to claim benifit/tax credits as well and all that money would go into the family pot to pay for the children and to live. This system fails them and encourages the very thing that you say it targets!!

Simply put, not you, the CSA or the Gov can fight nature it is to powerful and will always win in the end, fact! In the mean time it is left to those of us that have the nerve and guts to get in there and fight, the CSA can and has to be beaten before it claimes the lives of more people, to that end they have last year lost their 'Crown Imunity' and at least one police force is waiting for its opportunity to go for them as in the words of a seniour police officer, "my view is that they are responsible for the death of one of my officers and I will make them pay". If it has got to this level, it can only be a matter of time before they are held to account, and trust me I will be there on that day!

kelloggs36

You too are not too powerful !

You have totally misunderstood what I have said, but then I expect nothing else.

EIGHTOF8

I have a similar experience.
My Daughter lived with me for 4 years due to her mum moving away from our home town. When this happened, me and my ex wife both wrote letters to the CSA on the old system to cancel her claim. When my ex wife came back to the town, my daughter moved in with her and even though i was paying my ex by standing order, she decided to go through the CSA. They contacted as they do and tried to re-open the old case. I told them that case was closed and after much ado, they discovered it was. They instantly closed the claim. However, my ex re-applied using the new system and that went through ok.
During this time of CSA incompetence, I didn’t have to pay, however I always paid directly anyhow. They could not have claimed it back as the old claim was invalid and it took the CSA 8 Months to make the new assessment.
I hope this helps. The CSA are absolutely incompetent.
PS. I have always wanted to and paid for both my children with or without the incompetent CSA, and it was my ex wife who did the dirty: just for the record. You will see her on Deal or No Deal end of April till May21. Lynne. Greedy Selfish Bit*h

Blob

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You too are not too powerful !

You have totally misunderstood what I have said, but then I expect nothing else.

I am just a little person that has chosen to fight rather than go under, and I have never claimed to be too powerful, on the contary, I have no power, just a will to survive! If I have misunderstood then so be it, but so have you,

From past post on a number of other sites, we are on two different sides of this discussion, and I summise that we will never be on the same side. You for what ever reason feel hard done by from your ex and have goen to lengths to extract your revenge on him. For my part I have tried to survive, and in doing so have had to take on the system, and even the Court of Appeal has said that I have done a good job! I dont claim anything like that as I know the cost it has taken on me and my new family. I also understand that there are people out there that will simply roll over and play dead and let the system walk over them. There are also the people that use the system to gat at there es's for what ever reason, but basicly revenge!

If I have as you say got the wrong end of the stick, it is probablely because I will fight a system that you have worked within and by your own admission support, and I despise. The system that you support is not snactioned to take life as it has done, it has failed to do what it was set up to do and without doubt has broken both the law of this land as well as EU law. As such it should be shut down as soon as possible if for no outher reason than to save life! You may disagree, but that is your right and my friends and I have fought for you to have that right, some of them did not come home!

Conversly it may be you that has failed to understand my point of view, fortunatly a number of Judges have sided with me, it must beg the question as are we correct or are you?

LizzieS_2

Divorces do give clean breaks between the couple themselves, unless the children are shot/taken into care there will always be (as pre csa days) some method of both parents supporting the children.

The csa didn't introduce a support system that was not already there, it merely came up with a standard formula applicable to all (and open to abuse by both parties). The problems over divorces are actually more to do with the courts not being made aware of all the financial implications, so they can only work on what they have been given by both parties.

A few examples (using most likely scenario's of men being nrp's, women pwc's to keep it simple):

1) Both parties work and all assets/liabilites are split 50:50 - nrp is only paying for children.
2) Both parties work and although assets are split 50:50 nrp has to wait until children grow up before house can be sold and his equity released. The nrp is effectively paying extra for housing (which on csa1 may be taken into account) and csa for children. Solution which should have applied with a good solicitor - rent is charged for being absent from own home (ToLATA), whilst this cannot be directly ofset against csa payments it can help force a sale later (a well written agreement will allow for a small claim court to re-inforce the rent or force sale).
3) Pwc doesn't work and (2) applies with regard to equity. The court should be made aware of all costs of the nrp including csa. If it isn't affordable then a sale is the only viable solution to the nrp - courts can back these as the children will be housed by the council anyway. The problem here is uprooting the children, and those nrp's who choose not to fight do so in their children's interests by finding cheaper alternatives - frequently when a nrrp comes along this decision then seems to become a major issue.

kelloggs36

Blob wrote: »

I am just a little person that has chosen to fight rather than go under, and I have never claimed to be too powerful, on the contary, I have no power, just a will to survive! If I have misunderstood then so be it, but so have you,

From past post on a number of other sites, we are on two different sides of this discussion, and I summise that we will never be on the same side. You for what ever reason feel hard done by from your ex and have goen to lengths to extract your revenge on him. You may think that ensuring that he fulfils his moral and legal obligations towards his daughter as revenge, but I don't. I have merely fought for what is right and proper. It is obscene that any parent should be allowed to walk away from their offspring in that way. For my part I have tried to survive, and in doing so have had to take on the system, and even the Court of Appeal has said that I have done a good job! I dont claim anything like that as I know the cost it has taken on me and my new family. I also understand that there are people out there that will simply roll over and play dead and let the system walk over them. There are also the people that use the system to gat at there es's for what ever reason, but basicly revenge!You have every right to fight if you feel that you have been wronged, but in my situation it was my daughter that has been wronged and her father allowed to just walk away scott free because of his lies - he could have tried to fight but he didn't because he knew that his lies would be found out. In my case it had nothing to do with him rolling over and playing dead, but him trying to avoid his obligations. Telling a child that they don't want anything to do with them any more is nothing more than child cruelty. I have not used the system for revenge as I have said - it was there for me to use in order to obtain child support for a child that we both brought into this world. It is not my fault that he decided that it was no longer convenient to his life to have to support her - don't forget he didn't acknowledge her once he had left - not like some fathers (and mothers) who maintain contact with their children and ensure that they are loved. No, he walked away and thought that is was perfectly okay for him to do so. Well, sorry for having some moral fibre in my body, but that is wrong and should not be allowed. I stand for anybody who fights for their rights in that way. You have fought - now I don't know the ins and outs of your circumstances so I don't know why you are fighting - of course if it is against maladministration then of course you should take it all the way, but if it is merely to avoid paying towards a child that is yours then that is wrong. You are the only one who knows why you are doing it.

If I have as you say got the wrong end of the stick, it is probablely because I will fight a system that you have worked within and by your own admission support, and I despise. The system that you support is not snactioned to take life as it has done, No system takes life, people make their own choices. it has failed to do what it was set up to do and without doubt has broken both the law of this land as well as EU law. That remins to be seen - if you feel that this is the case, then good luck in proving it - I mean that genuinely. As such it should be shut down as soon as possible if for no outher reason than to save life! You may disagree, but that is your right and my friends and I have fought for you to have that right, some of them did not come home!

Conversly it may be you that has failed to understand my point of view, fortunatly a number of Judges have sided with me, it must beg the question as are we correct or are you?

Many judges have also misunderstood which is why these things never are straightforward. I don't know the ins and outs of your case as I said, so whilst you may feel that the CSA are ignoring instructions, it may be that they are fighting for what they feel is correct and are awaiting further instructions or seeking clarification. You won't have been told that I'm sure. It's not over yet. I do hope that your case is sorted out properly and correctly within the law as it stands. Any changes will be implemented if it has been discovered that they have acted wrongly. The law as you are aware is so open to interpretation, hence the policies and rules that are passed to caseworkers - these change often as interpretation changes and believe me caseworkers are as fed up as their clients with the changes.

Blob

What I do know as have been told by people in the system is that there is 'Executive intrest' in my case as well as Ministerial intrest at my own makeing.

As for the CSA following the law, I supplied a copy of the Judgment handed down by Lord Carnworth, who is also the head of teh Appeals Service, so let us assume that he knows what he is talking about. It is very clear in what it says about the 48 hour working week laws. The CSA stated in writing that they are not bound by this, to me that is contempt.

As for my children, I will fight to the gates of Hell and beyond for them, and God have mercy on anyone or anything that gets in the way as I wont, see the history of people that have tried and wished that they had not!:A I will see some of the people that work in the CSA go to prison one way or another as well, or in hell if they prefer, and yes I know the way!

Over and above what the CSA take for them, I have managed to set up a savings scheam for both of them, and have managed to make sure that they have had a holliday/break every year since the divorce, this year we cannot manage it as CSA have again put up the amount that I have to pay and invited me to take them to ICE again over it as well as other points, you guest it we are on our way! The ex on the other hand goes on holiday without the children has no money put aside for them when they are older, and complains to many people, who tell me that they are frankly now feed up with her bleating that I dont pay enough, as she has to work and cannot go skying and have a holiday in the Med every year and cannot get a new car when the new model/plates come out!

For the record my ex also wants me to have nothing to do with the children at all, even to the point of telling people that she has removed 'Parental Responsibility' from me! I have untill now let this ride, however it is now efficting what the children can do as they will not be selected to do things as a result. She has also tried to stop our son from going away with the Royal Marines for a work experiance type trip that he was looking forward to and is not readly available to people, but as they know me they will take him!

Careing mother, I think not!:mad:

kelloggs36

What have the working hours got to do with your assessment? Your assessment is based on the hours that you have worked or do work, so even if it is over the 48 hours, if you have worked it, you will be assessed on it. Unless I have misunderstood the issue?