Committal Hearing - Can I attend?

pd001

Blob wrote: »

What, even if there is no other cloth? You even say that it comes before putting food on the table, that is providing that you have a table! As the saying goes "Assumption is the mother of all F*** Ups". This as they say proves a point if nothing else!

If the NRP can't afford to live then they can't pay for anything else as they can't support themselvs. It is very simple in reality, you have to be able to survive in the first place to be able to meet the other commitments. To quote a Judge when he gave very direct guidence to the CSA, " Don't kill the goose that lais the Golden Egg' or you will get nothing"!

My opinion is that the CSA do not just try to kill the goose but are in the process of attempting to exterminat the whole spiecies!

Agreed, they made me homeless by taking over 50% of my net take home pay by means of a deo. At the same time they started other enforcement action ie sending in the bailiffs.
Landlord asked me to leave and I ended up living in my car!

Took months to get the deo sorted and I ll be unable to have my own place for many years to come. I am still without a permanent home.

blimey40

Kelloggs does give very good advice, but on this one Light Cruiser is relaying alot of what I have been told by my solictor.

Kelloggs, I think your ex had assets/property. Thats the big difference.

Many NRP's do not have these and by going bankrupt the court are less likely to send a person to jail, added to this in many cases CSA are calculating old arrears based on information that may have been provided with many years ago. By the CSA not doing the job properly in the first place after many years it leads to major mis-calculation which is up to the CSA to prove they have right.

As it stands a NRP can only go to jail if they fail to pay "NOTHING" and refuse to pay. It is a standard 42 day sentence which in 99% of cases gets sorted by some means before then.

blimey40

Lightcruiser is spot on when he says

The magistrate always asks the NRP can you pay? if the answer is' no' then the magisrtrate will dismiss the case. The burden of proof is with the accuser and the CSA must show he has the ability to clear the debt.

Though it is likely CSA will have criminal compliance teams on your case and will know alot more about you then you think, especially if you hold certain bank accounts etc, that you think are untouchable. So yes, if genuinely you cannot afford it you'll be okay, but anything found by the CSA that you don't provide before a magistrates, could have you in big trouble.

kelloggs36

The courts will not let a person who claims they can't pay not pay. They will tell them to pay a certain amount, be it a fiver or a tenner per week off the arrears. They will not tell them that they don't have to pay - the CSA legislation has set that the NRP must pay a set amount by law, there is no argument about that, therefore they must pay.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

He was forced to remortgage his house.

Child Support enforcement legislation has never worked like that.

If your ex had a house then the CSA will have a charging order on it long before the enforcement process reaches committal proceedings.

If your ex was forced to enter into a credit contract with a regulated lender then the loan can be revoked under Section 75 because any credit agreement must be made without placing the borrower under duress.

pd001 wrote: »

Very interesting!

Light Speed Cruiser..
You seem very knowledgeable on the subject. How do you know all this stuff?

I speak to lawyers, though I'm not a lawyer myself. Many years ago before the Child Support Act became law I worked as a (qualified) paralegal in a lawfirm.

blimey40 wrote: »

Kelloggs does give very good advice, but on this one Light Cruiser is relaying alot of what I have been told by my solicitor.

Lawyers are experts with legislation. Kellogs seems well versed with CSA modus-operandi.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The courts will not let a person who claims they can't pay not pay. They will tell them to pay a certain amount, be it a fiver or a tenner per week off the arrears. They will not tell them that they don't have to pay - the CSA legislation has set that the NRP must pay a set amount by law, there is no argument about that, therefore they must pay.

It's not for the courts to mediate between CSA and debtor. The appeals service does that - and very well!

kelloggs36

He was given a choice to remortgage or go to prison as he failed to pay - simple as that. Had he failed to pay, he would have lost his house as the CSA were going to apply for an order for sale. You do not seem to have the full facts I'm afraid and are giving people false information.

kelloggs36

The appeals service does not deal with the debtor - only on the matters of whether an assessment is correct or not when somebody appeals. The courts will tell the debtor to pay X amount off the debt (not ongoing maintenance, it is in respect of a debt for which a liability order has already been granted) if they want to give then another chance to pay. In my ex's case he was told to pay £50 per week off the arrears until they were paid off or face prison. He chose to pay the £50 per week which he stuck to for a year. The CSA then had to take him back to court for a Show Cause hearing as he had failed to pay and failed to notify them of any reason why he had stopped. He failed to attend and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested and bailed to attend court where he was given a further chance to pay his debt. As he had property he said he could remortgage and the courts told him that if he didn't pay, then he would expect to go to prison. After a further 4 hearings where he had applied for his remortgage but not pursued it, the courts lost patience with him and told him that he had to pay the full amount by the next hearing date or he was going to prison - end of. There was no longer any question of a repayment plan over time as he had proven that he was unreliable. Even if the CSA had not got a charging order over his house at that time, he would have been required to remortgage or face jail. Jail is however the last option which is why every other option has to be exhausted for a specific debt at a time.

Your advice is misguided I'm afraid as you are not in receipt of the full facts.

Light_Speed_Cruiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I'm afraid and are giving people false information.

I have had a good read of your posts on this forum, you are very good at giving positive advice to PWC's whereas your positive help for NRP's is seemingly absent.

LizzieS, I also see you are not new to clocking-up Kelloggs brownie score. I hope its making you feel better.

marksoton

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

I have had a good read of your posts on this forum, you are very good at giving positive advice to PWC's whereas your positive help for NRP's is seemingly absent.

LizzieS, I also see you are not new to clocking-up Kelloggs brownie score. I hope its making you feel better.

Very unfair to both posters IMO

blimey40

Kelloggs apologises.

I'm not saying you don't pay anything.

I'm saying that if you offer to pay something (however small), you will not be sentenced to jail. Thats the only thing I was trying to get across and obvviously if the NRP owns property/or has extra assets thats a different matter. Many NRP's don;t have this.