We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CSA Right or Wrong
Comments
-
Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »Blob, would you like a 2nd opinion? Im not a lawyer or the CSA so I can give a non biased opinion.
If you got to the High Court on your own, who did your transfer-up? (do you mean the Administrative Court?).
Is this a TAS judgement? or a ruling in the AC?
Any opinion is welcom.
This was a hearing in the Court of Appeal, from the Commissioners, it is the natural progresion. This is a Judgmetn handed down by the actual Court of Appeal. Dose this help?0 -
Kellogs I know that you will not accept this as it basicly distroys part of the CSA and its function to destroy people!
Read what it states and not what you think it states!
"to leave him with a libility that can only be met by working more than 48 hours"
If the libiality can only be met by haveing to work more than 48 hours, it is in breach of the law. I did not put profe of this in the bundle so as it states there was no evidence to back it up, my mistake! It however dose not get away from the fact that it also states that
" Both of them were conscious of teh 48 hour point, and, as I read their decisions, recognise that they could not impose an order which had the effect that he would be working more than 48 hours a week."
Therefor if TAS recognise that you can't put an order in place that can only be met by working over 48 hours a week, as it would be unlawful. It has to follow that if an assesment that has an order made as a result it has also got to be unlawful. Lord Justice Carnwarth makes this point, and as such Trubunal Judges accept this the precedent has been set. QED
To change this it has got to go back to Parliment or to the House of Lords, as it is in a Judgment. It matters not who won it is there!0 -
The court of appeal does not automatically change the law, it sets a precedent for other similiar cases.
I definately read this case as being some-one whose assessment is based on 48 hours or less.
If some-one who does regularly work more than 48 hours (ie opted out of the directive or currently in exempted employment) wishes they can cite this case, however the opposing party is entitled to show that the case is not relevant as it does not match the basic facts of the case cited (ie, it was some-one who had not been assessed on above 48 hours) - basically some-one who is not covered by the direrective cannot use it as a protection.
If some-one does have similar criteria, they can cite this case with initial success. The court then moves onto the stage of determining if in their own circumstances the assessment will force them to increase their hours over 48 - this is what hasn't been successfully shown yet (to my knowledge), so all I can say is that it is a huge can of worms, ie is it the csa assessment or some other decision of the nrp that is forcing more hours.0 -
The CSA legislation is set and has not changed fundamentally since 1993 (save for the new system which was not because of any illegality). The CSA formula is set in legislation and cannot be changed - that is what you are actually asking for - the CSA to ignore how they calculate their assessments which they CANNOT do. Provided that the assessment has been calculated correctly then it HAS to be implemented. Yours is not a case where it has been calculated on a basis of working in excess of 48 hours per week (from the way I am reading it) but that you feel that you have to work those hours to be able to maintain your lifestyle. The CSA are not changing the assessment because it has been calculated in accordance to the legislation.0
-
to leave him with a libility that can only be met by working more than 48 hours"
cannot stand up as you would not be left with such a liability, UNLESS you had reduced your hours and the assessment had not been reduced. As the MAXIMUM assessment can only be 30% of your net income, are you saying that you would have to work over 48 hours to meet that figure??????????0 -
First. Kellogs
Please if you are going to try to quote the law it helps if you get it correct! Under a DEO which is an order based on an assesmetn you can take up to 40% fact! The CSA take far more as has been proved by an ICE investigation into my case, they seem to believe that they can take you down to and below the singel persons basic IS level, unfortunatly this is not an opinion held by either Gov or ICE
Then if an assesmetn was for the sake of discusition based on say a young docters hours and I am led to believe that they still have to work over 100 hours a week and this person is paid on an hourly basis and not on a salary, the assesment will be based on 100 hours a week thus the DEO is on 100 hours, it must therefor follow that this order will be unlawful!
Your stand point is academic as Tribunal Judges have seen this Judgment and agree with me that they now can't as they understand it make an order that can't be paid on the basis of 48 hours reguardless of anyother incom. If these people agree with my interpritation, it is then outside of the remit of the CSA and they have no option but to comply, as failour to do so will lead to appeals that will overturn the assesment. Thus it must therefor follow that yes the law has fundementaly been changed by the Court of Appeal,as the precedent has been set and upheld!
Lizzie S
You have it in one, yes it is the thin end of the wedge, and in my opinion it will be used by many people in the future. This can of worms has just gone bang and the fallout will have far reaching effects. As I say it has now got to go back to Parliment to be sorted. The legislation is a total disaster and is being used to try to save the Gov money and for vengful PWC to use as a weapon, this was not the intent of the Gov when it was set up. There are other sites that are trying to raise money to fight the Gov on HR issues, why this is the cheepest route to get the system changed, 48 hours is now the cap, end of!
I am now putting togeather a further case to take to the Court of Appeal, and the fallout of that one may lead to people going to prision, for attempting to pervert the course of justice, I am led to believe that the Courts take a dim view of this, see Lord Archewr 's case for details!0 -
First. Kellogs
Please if you are going to try to quote the law it helps if you get it correct! Under a DEO which is an order based on an assesmetn you can take up to 40% fact! The CSA take far more as has been proved by an ICE investigation into my case, they seem to believe that they can take you down to and below the singel persons basic IS level, unfortunatly this is not an opinion held by either Gov or ICE
I thought this case centered around an actual assessment, not arrears too.
Protected income on csa2 is 40%. That % is also mentioned on csa1 literature. Also on csa1 literature is another formula for protected income (forgive me if I get this wrong), it is either the benefit levels plus a bit more for the household, or a single person's allowances if a departure has been applied for housing and all household income not supplied.
Then if an assesmetn was for the sake of discusition based on say a young docters hours and I am led to believe that they still have to work over 100 hours a week and this person is paid on an hourly basis and not on a salary, the assesment will be based on 100 hours a week thus the DEO is on 100 hours, it must therefor follow that this order will be unlawful!
No. The 48 hours only covers those who actually do work 48 hours or less. The example I gave you was to show the differences as to why it doesn't apply to everyone - in this instance the junior doctor is either exempt from protection under the European Directive, or as opted out of it - in other words you cannot use the Directive to say you can work then say for child support you cannot (it has to be like with like).0 -
Your stand point is academic as Tribunal Judges have seen this Judgment and agree with me that they now can't as they understand it make an order that can't be paid on the basis of 48 hours reguardless of anyother incom. If these people agree with my interpritation, it is then outside of the remit of the CSA and they have no option but to comply, as failour to do so will lead to appeals that will overturn the assesment. Thus it must therefor follow that yes the law has fundementaly been changed by the Court of Appeal,as the precedent has been set and upheld!
Is the case you sent me yours? (you don't have to answer).
Lizzie S
You have it in one, yes it is the thin end of the wedge, and in my opinion it will be used by many people in the future. This can of worms has just gone bang and the fallout will have far reaching effects. As I say it has now got to go back to Parliment to be sorted. The legislation is a total disaster and is being used to try to save the Gov money and for vengful PWC to use as a weapon, this was not the intent of the Gov when it was set up. There are other sites that are trying to raise money to fight the Gov on HR issues, why this is the cheepest route to get the system changed, 48 hours is now the cap, end of!
I don't think we agree over who is covered by this ruling (and I'm struggling to see where arrears deductions come into it as there's nothing on that judgement to suggest arrears). I agree the floodgates will open, but this one didn't go far enough to know what the csa would counter the claim with, ie it's fine if you live with a partner working 48 hours too, your home is the common range of values where you live, you have no debts, children are all yours, you have few if any luxuries - none of that is reality and it's very hard to draw a line to say only the csa is creating the extra hours when other burdens are not actually legal ones.
I am now putting togeather a further case to take to the Court of Appeal, and the fallout of that one may lead to people going to prision, for attempting to pervert the course of justice, I am led to believe that the Courts take a dim view of this, see Lord Archewr 's case for details!
Afraid I don't know all the history here0 -
As you say " don't know all the history here" that is a fact!
I will not go into details yet, but my application is supported by;
i. District Judges
ii. Curcute Judges
iii. CSA baristers, and they were acting for the CSA!
At this end we have had a very convivial evening and the red has been flowing and friends have been round, [the inexpencive kind, not as I drank before I got married you understand]!
The clocks go forward about now and it is my intention to take communion in the morning. I will address your othe point after lunch as we have a family lunch for my mother on the morrow[84] grandchildren not aloud to attend by their mothers refusl. For my part that is something that the CSA would not approve of, a lunch for an elderly mother/grandmother!
I can cnofirm that both of my children have issues with their mother and the way that she comes after me for money when we dont have it, they understand that the CSA will only be taking money from them! An outstanding success for the Agency when children think that they are taking money from them to pay them! Bet Kellogs has not got any answer for that point!0 -
Blob, I appreciate what you have provided, even though we disagree over some of the content. All I can say is that what may be right in your circumstances isn't necessarily true of the next person.
That red has been flowing (joke) - the clocks move at 2am (don't ask me why).
It's a shame over the birthday do - I can't condone the children being disallowed to attend.
Your last paragraph does suggest your ex is on benefits and only gets £20pw of what you pay. If they get that then there's no issue overall. I don't understand how a pwc on benefits would apply for a re-assessment when they stand to gain nothing, other than as you say vindictiveness - is it always the pwc in that case or is there some other over-riding legislation (I genuinely don't know here).
My posts are based on my own legal background experiences, both private and professional (not this area) and I can only go on what I can see as facts provided.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards