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
-
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).
It could be vindictiveness but it could be other reasons as well such a genuine belief that a NRP should contribute the prescribed amount to the upkeep of their children even if in the short term it goes on benefits.
Or a dislike of being on benefits and so believing it's fitting that less benefits are taken as the NRP is subsidising them (the benefits).
I was advised by an ex-CSA worker to go on benefits as she claimed the CSA would go through the lying ex's financial accounts with a fine toothcomb. Unfortunately I do not have it in me to deliberately and cynically go on benefits.
She claimed some do though.
Sou
(Edited to add - this is a general comment on the idea that a PWC on benefits would not normally go through the CSA not a specific comment on Blob's situation)
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!
Again, whether it is an assessment or includes arrears, the DEO legislation allows for 40% of somebody's net income to be taken - again, that can't be overridden by anybody because of the working hours rules - I agree that to take MORE than the 40% can be challenged but because of the fact that the legislation states that the maximum is 40%. There was a contradiction between the protected income and 40% of a person's net income - there were cases where more than 40% of somebody's net income was taken but they were being left with their protected income - I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that this is WRONG as the DEO can only be for a maximum of 40% of a person's net income. You have not mentioned arrears up to now, but have been talking about an assessment - which is where I have been coming from. Now I think I understand that you are arguing about a DEO which is in excess of 40% of a net income which would leave you in financial difficulty - if this is the case, then I absolutely am 100% in agreement with you.0 -
Sister just told us she is engaged so will be back tommorow with answers, hope you understand!!
The blole is a nice guy, what he is doing with my sister is anyones guess, siblings who would have them, she see this and I am dead, again!0 -
lol! You love her really.0
-
Lots of questions from lots of people, sorry will just go through them as they came out, please sort out your own!
Protected Income, is a myth and admitted as such, the relevent one is Protected Earnings as when you are on a DEO that is all that counts, as was stated by a regional manager to my MP when we had a meeting and he put that questions to her! Because if you have Protected Income then under CSA1 the Law states that you have to be left with at least £30 a week mor than you would get on benifit. My Protected Earnings were set at a level below the IS rate, hows that work then! The same legislation as confirmed in a letter by the then Sec of State states that the payment of arrears has to be negociated with the NRP, this again has not been changed in Law so the 2 year time period is drival, before you start this has been confirmed by Newcastle very reciently!
Opt out of the 48 hour working time regulations, there are very specific groupes that are not covered by this legislation, armed forces and the like among them [in the Falklands my time was up and I ask if it was OK if I got a boat home, the answer is unprintable even if good natured and in the same way that it was asked]! It matters not if you are a share holder or have signed an Opt Out, as the Judgmetn states TAS is aware of the fact that it can't set an Order to make someone work over 48 hours, the % makes no diference, 48 hours is the limit!
My ex- was on benifit for a short time untill she was invistigated by both the CSA in the form of the Criminal Compliance Team after evidence came out in an Appeal that her income was not what she had decleared! She had also been investigated by the Benifit Fraud office a number of times and has been causioned during an interview, I think that was with teh police for purjury. As I understand it her lifestyle did not match her income, I think it was the difficulty that the invistagitors had with the fact that she was having skying trips and sailing holidays in the Med while on benifit that finally got them intrested, oh yes as well as the new cars, the benifit system must be very generious don't you think for this to be posible?
The % that the CSA were taking from me was put at apx 67% by an ICE investigation wounder why I got scratchey about it. When I took it up with the CSA I was told and I quote " I don't care what happens to you, I am only intrested in getting money out of you". Wounder why I have an attitude problem with them now, because as a result I really don't care about them and will see them in Hell!
Yes the Judgmetn that I sent you is mine and it was me that has fought them this far, and I have no intention of giveing up now. As I say I will be going back to the Court of Appeal when the transcript from the Administration Hearing eventually gets here. I am going to hang them out to dry for at the very least, 'Attempting to pervert the course of Justice' or more commonly put, expose them for what they are, a bunch of liying Ba*****s! It is my understanding that you can go to prision for not telling the truth to a High Court Judge, and believe me when I tell you that is just what I will ba asking for from the Court!
Kellogs as for the people that I actually love they are my children and thats it, everyone else I might have some affection for are very few in number, and the number that I actually trust is fewer than that. Work with on this, that is why I am still alive, I dont ask you to understand or condone it, that is just the way that I am and have been made by the jobs that I have done to defend this country. It is only now I am begining to ask if the country was/is worth it, and you dont want to know my answer to that question as the CSA have tainted it! I believe that Stella Rimington former head of SIS had it about spot on in the interview that she gave and has been reported on, a Police State was it!
Hope it helps, any more questions and I will get back to you, when I can!0 -
Lots of questions from lots of people, sorry will just go through them as they came out, please sort out your own!
Protected Income, is a myth and admitted as such, the relevent one is Protected Earnings as when you are on a DEO that is all that counts, as was stated by a regional manager to my MP when we had a meeting and he put that questions to her! Because if you have Protected Income then under CSA1 the Law states that you have to be left with at least £30 a week mor than you would get on benifit. My Protected Earnings were set at a level below the IS rate, hows that work then! The same legislation as confirmed in a letter by the then Sec of State states that the payment of arrears has to be negociated with the NRP, this again has not been changed in Law so the 2 year time period is drival, before you start this has been confirmed by Newcastle very reciently!
Ok wrong words but meant the same. Were your protected earnings set as a single person with housing restrictions too (you know why I'm asking)?
I think all the regulars know the 2 year rule is a Government steer rather than actual law. Negotiation is in the legislation but what 'should' happen if 2 parties disagree is anyone's guess (eg, to take the other extreme you could have some-one earning say 100K paying wanting to pay arrears off at £1pw).
Opt out of the 48 hour working time regulations, there are very specific groupes that are not covered by this legislation, armed forces and the like among them [in the Falklands my time was up and I ask if it was OK if I got a boat home, the answer is unprintable even if good natured and in the same way that it was asked]! It matters not if you are a share holder or have signed an Opt Out, as the Judgmetn states TAS is aware of the fact that it can't set an Order to make someone work over 48 hours, the % makes no diference, 48 hours is the limit!
I still disagree on this, as Kellogs said if some-one is assessed on their actual hours then they do have a right to change both future hours and assessments. I could see only one situation where the greater than 48 hours could accidently arise, and was sure that could be corrected quickly.
My ex- was on benifit for a short time untill she was invistigated by both the CSA in the form of the Criminal Compliance Team after evidence came out in an Appeal that her income was not what she had decleared! She had also been investigated by the Benifit Fraud office a number of times and has been causioned during an interview, I think that was with teh police for purjury. As I understand it her lifestyle did not match her income, I think it was the difficulty that the invistagitors had with the fact that she was having skying trips and sailing holidays in the Med while on benifit that finally got them intrested, oh yes as well as the new cars, the benifit system must be very generious don't you think for this to be posible?
I'm sure there are lots more like her on the benefit front, NB not saying all here.
The % that the CSA were taking from me was put at apx 67% by an ICE investigation wounder why I got scratchey about it. When I took it up with the CSA I was told and I quote " I don't care what happens to you, I am only intrested in getting money out of you". Wounder why I have an attitude problem with them now, because as a result I really don't care about them and will see them in Hell!
I wasn't sure over how the 2 different levels worked with csa1, Kellogs has already confirmed that 40% is the maximum they could take in your case.
Yes the Judgmetn that I sent you is mine and it was me that has fought them this far, and I have no intention of giveing up now. As I say I will be going back to the Court of Appeal when the transcript from the Administration Hearing eventually gets here. I am going to hang them out to dry for at the very least, 'Attempting to pervert the course of Justice' or more commonly put, expose them for what they are, a bunch of liying Ba*****s! It is my understanding that you can go to prision for not telling the truth to a High Court Judge, and believe me when I tell you that is just what I will ba asking for from the Court!
Don't blame you at all.
Kellogs as for the people that I actually love they are my children and thats it, everyone else I might have some affection for are very few in number, and the number that I actually trust is fewer than that. Work with on this, that is why I am still alive, I dont ask you to understand or condone it, that is just the way that I am and have been made by the jobs that I have done to defend this country. It is only now I am begining to ask if the country was/is worth it, and you dont want to know my answer to that question as the CSA have tainted it! I believe that Stella Rimington former head of SIS had it about spot on in the interview that she gave and has been reported on, a Police State was it!
Many people think the same over the country, for many different reasons. Of course you love your children and like many have a close circle of family/friends. Trust is something we all have at differing levels - it is only when someone or something lets us down that we rightfully lose it.
Hope it helps, any more questions and I will get back to you, when I can!
Would be interesting to see your past appeals etc, and how your current one is going. Hope you aren't offended that we don't agree on absolutely everything - sometimes looking at other peoples views helps with what you may face as a defence etc.0 -
As I suspected, it is the arrears that have caused the problem due to them taking in excess of the assessment and leaving you with the exempt income figure (this is the protected earnings figure).
As Lizzie said, have you been assessed as a single person as your partner hasn't given her info - housing costs etc?
I spoke to my linemanager a couple of years ago about the taking more money than 40% and she was also outraged that this was happening! So, not all CSA staff are out to get you - we do actually agree with some limitations such as the restriction of 40% actually meaning the 40%. I hope that you win on this issue.0 -
Hi all, been helping others and not available sorry, as stated their need is greater. Their son was killed in Falklands and body never recovered, am sure you understand. I am sure that you may even condone the action taken at the time if I told you, but no one will evey get that out of me unless I decide to tell them, and I have told a few!
There is a world of difference between the 'Protected Income' and the 'Protected Earnings' the problem is that most of the people that work in the CSA don't know the difference!
Housing cost have been given, but my partner will only give her infomation if me ex's current husband's income is taken into account, and she is within her wights under the Law on this point!
As for the 40% issue, thanks for your comment but I personally think that the system is so loaded, that I have more chance of becoming a mother than that happining!
Then to the £100K, totally agree with this point, it has to be the rule of reasonablness that is the govening factor, both sides have to live after the split. In my case the inital figures that the CSA came up with would have ment that I would still be paying CSA providing that I lived that long when I was 106! I poiunted this out to a District Judge and he asked for the CSA's answer, they had none, and that was a Regional Manager that was handling my case at that time! I put forward a repayment shedual that was in my view both fair and reasionable, the Judge agreed with me, the CSA then also agree to this! However it is now strange that the CSA has lost all records of this agreement and are trying to put it through on the steer! My proposal would have had any arrears paid off by 2017 and not some time after 2060, reasonable or what? Mine were within the written law and not some dream! It is funny that Judges seem to have a deal of sympathy with this attitude that was shown by me and none with the CSA's!!
48 Hours a week, matters not what we mortals think, the Judges have spoken and all we can do is live the best we can with that decision!
Benefit cheets, neither am I but the ones that get found should be shown no tolarance, and a statoritory prison tearm should follow, my opinion only!
Agreed 40% is the max that should be taken, it is not. A deterant should be put in place so that the people within the Agency are held accountable personally when they take over this amount and when an assesment is set at over 48 hours, again my opinion but no chance of this happening, as the number of cases would clog up the system would be prohibitave!
Transcript has now arrived, only waiting for the Judgment to be approved, basicly this attitude of the Agency in this case is an assalt on the law and the legal system of this country and has got to be landed on! Thanks for your comments on this one!
People at work try to get me to talk about my life, and find it hard to understand that I wont talk about some parts of it as they think that they have a god given right to know what I have done. Others understand or at the very least think they do. The one saying that I have that they think about and then mostly agree with is when I say " There are 60M people in this country, I will not get on with all of them, so why should I try. I have enough friends and am not bothered about makeing more enemies"!
I am sorry but can not grant you access to the appeals there have been about 15 to date, will keep you posted on the ongoing Legal ones, but the others may be going to be revisited by the Sec of State as I understand that is the level that I have got to as well as 'Executive Intrest' from the CSA. Must have got to someone anyway!
Please belive me when I tell you that I have no problem with you haveing a different stand point to mine, I have fought for you to have that right, and will gladly do so again! We live in a country where free speach is a right that has been won and should be protected at all costs, I have seen countries that dont have this, and it is not an option! Am dam sure that we will be on different side in future, we will also be on the same side, so what does that make us, enimies, friends, or educated people that have an opinion and a right to express that!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