Committal Hearing - Can I attend?

Rorkes_Drift

Sensemaya, I honestly don't know how you accessed a committal proceeding three times.

You may have been invited or were Mckenzie'ing for someone? are you from a charity or an advice group? Your NRP cannot be committed three times, well not the same debt. Maybe the court staff couldn't differentiate civil from criminal proceedings and assumed a committal hearing is the same as prison sentencing.

Rorkes_Drift

kelloggs36 wrote: »

the debt exists and there is no part of legislation that will allow it to be wiped out.

That's right, the debt still stands after completing a prison committal.

At the end of the day, if the NRP still doesn't pay there's not alot the CSA can do about it. Tyring to get blood from his gravestone. Most prisoners leaving debtors prision rarely lead a productive life or showing a willingness to build a secure future knowing the CSA will only pull the rug from under his feet the minute he obtains an asset or a sizeable bank balance.

pd001

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

The law says the court must be of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay his liability. The burden rests with the CSA to prove.

If you say you are skint then the CSA will need to produce evidence you have the means to pay. Having a credit card with a £50K limit is not enough. Have a read S40 of the CS Act 1991.

If all other enforcement has failed then a committal is likely to fail unless the defentant wants access to a prison (e.g. to make new connections with drug dealers or users) so he'll make his assets safe but visible to the CSA and use S40 of CSA'91 to access the prison service.

The following link is a pdf file on the DWP website detailing the 1991 act as mentioned above

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/lawvols/orangvol/pdf/o_0301.pdf

Still reading! Probably be a while....:beer:

Trying to understand section 40................

Rorkes_Drift

I wouldn't take the DWP interpretation of the law too seriously, here's S40 on opsi: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910048_en_3#pb6-l1g40

pd001

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

I wouldn't take the DWP interpretation of the law too seriously, here's S40 on opsi: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910048_en_3#pb6-l1g40

Ok,
I have had a look at that link, and particularly section 40 paragraph 3 which reads as follows,

(3) If, but only if, the court is of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the liable person it may—
(a) issue a warrant of commitment against him; or
(b) fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions (if any) as it thinks just.


Looks like you may be right,

If you have not willfully refused to pay (you have nothing to pay with such as spare cash) or you have not made you own situation so bad thatyou are unable to pay, (current economic climate..anyone can lose their job at the moment) then it looks unlikely that you will be sent to prison.
Remember, the prisons are full as well!!

pd001

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

That's right, the debt still stands after completing a prison committal.

At the end of the day, if the NRP still doesn't pay there's not alot the CSA can do about it. Tyring to get blood from his gravestone. Most prisoners leaving debtors prision rarely lead a productive life or showing a willingness to build a secure future knowing the CSA will only pull the rug from under his feet the minute he obtains an asset or a sizeable bank balance.

Good point!
Bit sexist though

Rorkes_Drift

Its because every CSA prisoner has been male.

The CSA might be good at saving taxpayers money, but the audit commission discounts the indirect damage to the economy the CSA causes by putting NRPs on benefits, deterring them from asset aquisition, encouraging them into money laundering and tax evasion for their keep. The CSA case loads are all predominately low-income households and each civil prisoner costs the state over £2000 a week. Internationally Britain is ridiculed for arresting debtors and imprisoning them without trial. Its akin to kidnapping and ransom and the French media caught Britain condemning Zimbabwe for doing the same.

kelloggs36

However, the NRP can't merely state verbally 'I haven't got any money' in order to get out of this. They would have to have to provide ample evidence if they have ignored the CSA altogether. If they can prove that they have made payments by any means, and provided evidence of their inability to pay then committal will fail. Sadly some NRPs like my ex, choose not to acknowledge the CSA and this was viewed in the eyes of the courts as wilfully neglecting to pay - it didn't matter if he couldn't pay, he didn't even try!

Light_Speed_Cruiser

Proof of ability to pay lies with the accuser. Refusing to acknowledge doesn't mean willful refusal to pay.

If what you say is true then the CSA is subverting centuries of common law, even a part-qualified duty solicitor at the court can get him off unless the CSA shows an ability to pay, e.g, he has an asset.

Unlike liability order hearings, the magistrate can challenge the assessment and dismiss a committal application, the court can even quash liability (but not the assessment itself) if there is any shred of doubt as to the integrity of the CSA's claim.

koolmummy

Thanks for all of your replies - I guess I will not be going along!
I don't think he will attend either, he will ignore it and a warrant will be issued.

In this case the CSA have a great deal of evidence to show the court that he has the ability to pay- it's been to criminal compliance who obtained all of his bank statements by court order. Credits into his personal accounts led to the assessment of £900 per month.

He's never paid anything for our four children despite earning over £100k a year.

He supplied the CSA with false info about his income that lead him to be assessed at £5 per week, by the time the CSA had uncovered the truth, years had passed and the debt was £24,000. This is now up to somwhere nearer £40,000. He has willfully refused to pay.

I hope they prosecuted him for supplying false info, the criminal compliance notes (that I saw as they were in the appeal submission bundle) certainly stated that he had supplied false info that misrepresented the truth. I guess I will never know.

I don't expect to ever get the money, really I would just like him to be making a regular and reasonable contribution to the financial upkeep of the children - fat chance. It just really annoys me that I'm constantly telling the children they can't go on school trips, or have new shoes right now as I'm so skint, whilst their father has a fabulous lifestyle and seems to feel ok about just cutting them off.

I'm furious at this crxxp system that penalizes decent NRP's who want to pay and allows NRP's like my ex husband to flout the law. I guess we all have that in common!