CSA Arrears Trouble

Rivergreen

kelloggs36 wrote: »

They can justify it because that is what they have to do!

What does that even mean?!


Thanks everyone, I will try Nacsa, the ICE and my MP if all else fails!

kelloggs36

I mean that in response to your question how can they justify continuing to charge you when you didn't notify them of a change in your income, is because that is what the rules say they have to do!!!!!

kelloggs36

They cannot apply a retrospective change of circumstances to your case UNLESS you can prove that you had notified them AND that they received that notification. If you can't then the assessment has to remain as it was.

Rivergreen

Ah yes. I know, I meant I can't understand how they can justify not being able to change it, despite me sending proof that it is wrong. Whenever I've asked one of there advisers they say "because that's how it is" or "because we can't" or something similar.

Seems like just a way to make extra money to make up for the people that don't pay at all.
(Which I am not one of, I only refused to pay anything when my ex refused me any contact, which was perhaps silly but I'm sure most people would understand. I wouldn't wish being kept apart from your child/children on anyone).

I'm not bitter or anything

kelloggs36

Seems like just a way to make extra money to make up for the people that don't pay at all.

Do you think that the PWCs of those who don't pay get money because I can assure you they don't!! It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and I'm afraid that you have been told the truth - it IS the way it is and there is nothing they can do about it.

Rivergreen

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Seems like just a way to make extra money to make up for the people that don't pay at all.

Do you think that the PWCs of those who don't pay get money because I can assure you they don't!! It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and I'm afraid that you have been told the truth - it IS the way it is and there is nothing they can do about it.

Yes, and I am saying it is a stupid system that it IS like that. That seems to have riled you for some reason?!

My ex-partner is on benefits so isn't seeing very much of that money, so it's going somewhere.

kelloggs36

The money is going to the treasury to offset what benefits are being paid out for your children.

Whilst you may feel it is stupid that it is like that, there has always been the opportunity for you to have kept in contact with them with your up to date circumstances to ensure that your case was reflective of your earnings. This situation has not changed since its inception in 1993.

It hasn't riled me, but you don't seem to understand that some things just can't be changed - it is written into the rules so you won't change that. There are some circumstances where it can be done as I said before - if you can prove that they failed to act on a notification that you gave them. This is an obvious exception as it would be unjust to ignore things like this - there is a difference between the two. If you knew the CSA were involved, whether or not they actioned your details, the onus was on you to chase it up and keep them informed.

blimey40

The money is going to the treasury to offset what benefits are being paid out for your children.

I was given a penalty assessment of well over £100 per week, how much of that goes towards child benefit? I've only found out recently after 12 years that this was in place. So it is swings and roundabouts.

Rivergreen

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The money is going to the treasury to offset what benefits are being paid out for your children.

Whilst you may feel it is stupid that it is like that, there has always been the opportunity for you to have kept in contact with them with your up to date circumstances to ensure that your case was reflective of your earnings. This situation has not changed since its inception in 1993.

It hasn't riled me, but you don't seem to understand that some things just can't be changed - it is written into the rules so you won't change that. There are some circumstances where it can be done as I said before - if you can prove that they failed to act on a notification that you gave them. This is an obvious exception as it would be unjust to ignore things like this - there is a difference between the two. If you knew the CSA were involved, whether or not they actioned your details, the onus was on you to chase it up and keep them informed.

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from at all. Why are the rules like that? Why can't they retrospectively change the arrears IF you can prove they are incorrect? No-one at the CSA ever gave me an answer to that except for "because those are the rules". You repeatedly telling me the same thing isn't much use to me, thanks for your input anyway.

FWIW I have had to grudgingly accept that for now I am paying £3000+ arrears that I never should have owed. I wonder if you would just say "oh they're the rules, I better pay it" if you were in that situation.

Loopy_Girl

Rivergreen wrote: »

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from at all. Why are the rules like that? Why can't they retrospectively change the arrears IF you can prove they are incorrect? .

Because you should have been keeping them up to date with any employment changes or change of address. You've admitted you decided to ignore the fact that they weren't taking money - why didn't you chase that up?

You've faffed about for years and now you have decided to pay then it's too late to start asking them to play by your rules and backdate assessments. You had a child and you were working. Whether you were a temp or whatever you would have known that CS would be due for your daughter.

Btw I don't understand that you didn't pay when you didn't see your daughter - is she a pay-per-view commodity that you have?