Acc 21 & 22 ??

cozzie

Latest installment/excuse from the CSA....

The alleged arrears were mistakenly put into the wrong account 12 years ago and forgotten about!!

Would anyone know the difference between the account numbers that would have been used in 1997?

Big ask I know, but, their excuses are becoming so far fetched that I really do think they have just implimented a DEO on contrived reasonings and then each time we point out their mistake they come up with something else to try and get more money from my OH - think they are just outright lying now!!

Thanks in advance again...

PS - Mucho mucho thanks to Kelloggs.

CRANKY40

21 - due to PWC, 22 due to Secretary of State.

Hope this helps

cozzie

Thanks Cranky. The help I have found on here has been fantastic, (buttering you up for another q!)

The difference between the accounts and their mistake is apparently the reason why OH has arrears yet all I can find about any of it in the personal data files is a comment written and typed up (saying exactly the same) in Feb of this year. References to dates in 1996 and 1997 are made but I cannot find anything which correlates to these dates or figures - Shock horror - NOT!!

Also there is reference to accounts 50 & 51, any idea what these are for?

Thank you.

CRANKY40

50 is pwc, 51 is secretary of state. Not sure why putting the arrears in one account or the other would make a difference, unless the pwc asked for his/her arrears not to be collected. If they said there were say £10k arrears which the pwc didn't want collected they would be suspended unless somebody decided that they should have been sos arrears...in which case, unless the pwc states that he/she has been paid the money already by your OH, then they are repayable to the sec of State.

cozzie

CRANKY40 wrote: »

unless the pwc asked for his/her arrears not to be collected. If they said there were say £10k arrears which the pwc didn't want collected they would be suspended unless somebody decided that they should have been sos arrears

Fortunately for ignorant CSA lay-persons like us you do know your stuff don't you?! This is almost exactly the case (according to the CSA). After several failed attempts at recouping some monies from my OH and us fortunately being able to prove them wrong each time, the CSA's last move was to implement over £3000 of arrears from 12years ago as they claim that monies were wrongly due to the PWC, who wrote them off. Now, all of a sudden they have 'realised' that they weren't due to her and are payable. The case has been accessed numerous times over the past 12years, yet they didn't realise their supposed mistake until they had concocted yet another bunch of lies (which we can highlight to them) to implement a DEO.

CRANKY40 wrote: »

...in which case, unless the pwc states that he/she has been paid the money already by your OH, then they are repayable to the sec of State.

Are you saying that if the PWC tells the CSA that the amount of maintenance that my OH has been paying direct pay to her was above and beyond the assessment of the CSA (mutually agreed for pretty much this reason - anything for extra monies is our PWC) then they have to write them off? I doubt they would believe the NRP on just their word alone as obviously none of this was done formally between them, as it transpires, she wasn't declaring the direct pay as she was on benefits. Yup, naive NRP, but, the choice was that or not be allowed to see his kids.

Plus, I have all of the data protection paperwork and at no point can I see PROOF or an explination that the arrears were incorrectly placed into the wrong account besides some recent scrawlings which were typed up, what different paperwork do they have to suddenly 'realise' their mistake and what is to stop them using this same excuse as a last resort with anyone else in the same position?

CRANKY40

Sooo, say the PWC had been told that the £3000 was hers, and she called to tell the CSA that she wanted them written off. What if she wanted them written off because she had been paid the money direct? If your OH then has to pay the CSA the same arrears again to the CSA then he's paid them twice.

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow a logical train of thought. Would the PWC agree that she's been paid already. Then the CSA would have to adjust the arrears. Theoretically the PWC should then repay the overpayment, but as it's down to CSA error she wouldn't have to. I mean she was told it was her money after all.

cozzie

CRANKY40 wrote: »

Sooo, say the PWC had been told that the £3000 was hers, and she called to tell the CSA that she wanted them written off. What if she wanted them written off because she had been paid the money direct? If your OH then has to pay the CSA the same arrears again to the CSA then he's paid them twice.

Yes, this is almost exactly (as I'm understanding) how things have happened.

CRANKY40 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow a logical train of thought. Would the PWC agree that she's been paid already. Then the CSA would have to adjust the arrears. Theoretically the PWC should then repay the overpayment, but as it's down to CSA error she wouldn't have to. I mean she was told it was her money after all.

Don't apologise please, you're helping me! I doubt however that the PWC would agree that she has been paid already, there would be a risk that she may have to repay them, but, I doubt she would anyway just out of damned spite. Yet, if the error was down to the CSA and the PWC 'DOES' agree that she has had the monies, does this not then implying that she should have to pay them back as it is clear that she had the benefits too?

Why does the PWC get to have 3k of arrears cleared off their account as it was the CSA's mistake and the NRP doesn't??

Also, wouldn't that imply that the PWC's word is taken as 'the gospel truth' and the NRP's isn't?? No wonder so many NRP's feel like they are unjustly being bent over a barrel by the CSA, they are probably just being manipulated by 'the gospel truth' telling PWC!

Personally, I am too scared to advise the OH to push this matter with the CSA as we are starting to make breakthrough's with the kids (PAS) and would risk upsetting the PWC and starting the whole venomous ordeal again.

CRANKY40

The CSA error thing only applies to payments made to one of the parties because of CSA error, not payments due, so if they sent your OH a refund and then found out months later he shouldn't have had it then it would be CSA error and not enforceable for him to repay it.

I think your best bet would be to ask for a complete account breakdown of payments due to PWC and payments due to sos, together with details of how payments have been allocated. They will probably say they can't do it - they can but it will take ages. If they refuse then it's time to head towards your local MP and get them to start asking questions maybe.

After all, surely if they are saying that the payments are due to the sos, someone must have already done these calculations, so it will be easy enough for them to let you have a copy of them, right?