Common sense triumphs over CSA!

highlandgurl

Hi,

Just a quick good news story about common sense winning over the CSA.

My OH was taken to court by the CSA because when he completed his MAF he didnt include details of his self employment. He was employed but also had his own business part time. He didnt put this on the form as the business was running at a loss so we assumed (wrongly) that it wasnt income. He was taken to court on a charge under the Childrens Act of failing to disclose earnings despite the fact that when this business was assessed it was found to make no difference at all to his maintenance payments.

Today after numerous court appearances he was admonished by the court so no conviction or sentance!

I'm still a bit annoyed at the worry this has given us, the time he has wasted attending court and the cost to the tax payer (as he was unemployed by the time it came to court so he got legal aid). This could all have been avoided if the CSA had had a little sense in the first place and just queried why he had not included this.

Still a rare but happy story of someone getting one over on the daftness of the CSA! :j

Lil2002

Not sure if you realise - he has been convicted.

The sentence has been just an admonishment but it is a conviction.

blimey40

Thought admonishment was a Warning?

CRANKY40

Possible Sentences

Admonishment You may be admonished, which means that you get a conviction on your record but no penalty


Found the above on a Scottish law site....

kelloggs36

Which means that he was found guilty of failing to provide information under the Act.

blimey40

bit confused.

So what happens now, if this is the case?

The lady says no conviction or sentence.

marksoton

blimey40 wrote: »

bit confused.

So what happens now, if this is the case?

The lady says no conviction or sentence.

As far as i am aware nothing.

The court has recognised that technically a breach of the legislation has taken place. Which in this case is absolutely pointless as it did not affect the assessment.

So was the prosecution in the public interest morally or financially..

I dare anyone to claim it was and justify it... :rolleyes:

kelloggs36

A waste of time in real terms, but they are trying to show their teeth by the looks of things - failing to provide information is a criminal offence and they have taken action as per the law - regardless of whether it affects the assessment.

marksoton

kelloggs36 wrote: »

A waste of time in real terms, but they are trying to show their teeth by the looks of things - failing to provide information is a criminal offence and they have taken action as per the law - regardless of whether it affects the assessment.

I understand the sentiment but come on there are plenty of other cases far more worthy of prosecution both on the PWC side and NRP.

This prosecution had no merit whatsoever. A complete waste of time and money. I would suggest the only reason it took place was because it was an easy victory for the CSA.

kelloggs36

I agree they should have gone for a case where an outcome would have been worth it.