The CSA, bank accounts and the law – some questions

Matt_Fry

I hear the CSA can withdraw money from a bank account.

I have a long standing dispute with the CSA. They freely accept the assessment is wrong but will not correct it because I am well out of time to appeal. The fact I can afford to pay the incorrect assessment is neither here-nor-there and I only pay what the law says I should pay.

I have transferred my own private bank account balance into a newly opened account in somebody else’s name who has given me the internet access and the debit card to allow me to continue using a secure bank account.

I am concerned about business accounts and the safety of other peoples money.

Can the CSA draw money causing an account to become overdrawn? y/n

Can the CSA draw money from business accounts y/n?

Can the CSA draw money held in a trust account (a child’s money money but I am the trustee) y/n

Can anyone point me to the legislation that enables the CSA to take control of bank accounts.

If the CSA enforces a debt and obtains money after admitting the assessment is wrong, how does that stand with Sections 2, 4(2) and 5 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Many thanks.

CMAC_2

In response to your main question below is a recent article about the new legislation. I suspect your confession that you have transferred funds into another bank account will have the Commisssion taking action against you in any event, under new legislation that they have recently introduced just for this type of action Do you realise that most if not all CSA forums are monitored.

Also if you do ow arrears surly if you can afford to pay them then you should.



Child Support Collection and Enforcement (Deduction Orders) Amendment Regulations 2009 SI 2009 No 1815



NEW RULES WHICH ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO RAID BANK ACCOUNTS

Monday 3 August 2009 will see the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CMEC), formerly the Child Support Agency (CSA), introduce new legislation which will enable them to go straight to deposit takers i.e. Banks and make two new types of deduction.


The regulation amendments will allow the Commission to use deduction orders which are similar to third party debt orders or arrestment in Scotland . The policy will mean that the Commission can take money from non-compliant non-resident parent's bank accounts without the need to go through the Courts. Using these powers will mean that the process should be quicker and more effective than, for example, third party debt orders. Deduction from earnings orders or requests (DEO) can be used to take money straight from the non-resident parent's source of income. However, DEOs do not work effectively for all non-resident parents. They cannot be used for people who are self-employed and for those in transient employment, payment under a DEO frequently breaks down. Other non-resident parents may have access to cash, but do not necessarily work or work in legitimate employment and others may not be self-employed but may have an income. Recovering a large amount of arrears through a DEO can also take a very long time. A deduction order will only be used where a DEO is either not possible or ineffective and the non-resident parent fails to co-operate in making an alternative arrangement for paying their child maintenance

The Process

Once the Commission has decided that a deduction order is likely to be the most effective method of collecting child maintenance and /or arrears it will use information from deposit-takers to identify the most suitable account and decide whether to make a lump sum deduction order or a regular deduction order. The Commission will only ask a deposit-taker for information to help to identify an account if it has good reason to believe that such an account is held with that the deposit-taker. This might happen where, for example, the Commission has established that the non-resident parent has a mortgage with that deposit-taker or it identifies an account through databases that are available to it.

Regular deduction order

The Commission will send the regular deduction order to the deposit-taker, specifying details of the account, the amount, the date from which it will take effect and the dates on which deductions are to be made. A copy of the order will also be sent to the non-resident parent.
The deposit-taker will have a legal duty to make deductions from the account specified in the order and pay the amount to the Commission, ensuring it does not take the account into overdraft. The deposit-taker may also take an amount of up to £10 towards its administration costs for each deduction. It is not intended that a regular deduction order will be a permanent method of collection in individual cases. It will be imposed in cases where the non-resident parent refuses to co-operate with other methods of payment and often where a deduction from earnings order cannot be used - most commonly because the non-resident parent is self-employed. The expectation is that the imposition of a regular deduction order will persuade the non-resident parent to agree to pay by direct debit, which incurs no administrative charge. Direct debit and DEO are the Commission's preferred methods of payment because they are the most convenient methods for most non-resident parents to use and historically have the best compliance rates. The Commission actively promotes these methods of payment.

Lump sum deduction order

An interim lump sum deduction order will instruct the deposit-taker to secure funds up to the amount of the order. A copy of the order will then be sent to the non-resident parent. The non-resident parent and the deposit-taker will then have 14 days to make representations to the Commission against the proposals in the interim order. Once any representations have been dealt with, or after 14 days if none is made, and, unless any representations are accepted the Commission will issue a final lump sum deduction order (which may be for an amount equal to or less than the interim order) instructing the deposit-taker to deduct the funds.

These funds are then transferred to the Commission after a further 21 day period during which anyone affected by the order (the deposit-taker or the non-resident parent) may appeal to a county court/sheriff against the making of the order. If an appeal is received during the 21 day period the funds will remain frozen until the appeal is resolved. Alongside the process outlined above, from receipt of the interim lump sum deduction order until the funds are paid to the Commission the non-resident parent and the deposit-taker will be able to make an application for some or all of the specified amounts to be released from the account. The non-resident parent might make such an application where, for example, the funds are needed to prevent hardship in meeting ordinary living expenses.

The deposit taker might make such an application where, for example, the funds are being used as security against a loan. The Commission will consider any such applications and if it decides that some or all of the funds should be released it will instruct the deposit-taker to do so. Where the Commission refuses to release funds from the account the non-resident parent and deposit taker will have 21 days to appeal to the Court against this decision.

Once any appeal or further appeal against the making of the order has been concluded (or after 21 days if no appeal is filed), depending on the outcome of the appeal, the Commission will either issue a prompt to the deposit taker asking for the funds to be deducted and paid to the Commission or direct the deposit-taker to discharge the order. If there are insufficient funds to deduct the full amount, any amount available will be deducted and the order may remain in place to allow access to any further funds credited to the account. The deposit-taker may also deduct an amount up to £55 towards its administrative costs for each deduction made; this aligns with the amount a deposit taker may currently deduct for processing third party debt orders which are made by a Court and follow a
similar procedure.

CMAC_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

I hear the CSA can withdraw money from a bank account.

I have a long standing dispute with the CSA. They freely accept the assessment is wrong but will not correct it because I am well out of time to appeal.

If the Commission accept your assessment is wrong they can change it under revision regulations as no time limit applies.

If the Tribunal made the decision and the Commission accept it is wrong then again they can now change it with out the need to go back to the Tribunal.

So I am at a loss as to why no one will change a desicion that they say is wrong because of a time out rule.

The only real rule concerning time is the 13 month rule to bring an appeal but that would only be when the commission are saying the the original decision is correct but the indivdual is challanging it.

i_hate_the_csa

So what if you had x amount saved for a deposit on a house,somebody renting at that time.Can the CSA take that money and leave you unable to buy a home for your family?

marksoton

i_hate_the_csa wrote: »

So what if you had x amount saved for a deposit on a house,somebody renting at that time.Can the CSA take that money and leave you unable to buy a home for your family?

They certainly can.

trevormax

Indeed, at the rate the CSA are going, they will soon be able to just take whatever they want, whenever they want and they wont care if this makes the NRP homeless or in an even worse debt situation.

And don't try to argue as all you will get is "but think of the children!!!"

Wont be long before they start demanding a pound of flesh for not paying them.

marksoton

trevormax wrote: »

Wont be long before they start demanding a pound of flesh for not paying them.

Even better than that, the proposals are that you get charged if you do pay them.

Getting charged for a " service " you don't even want....

Matt_Fry

CMAC wrote: »

If the Commission accept your assessment is wrong they can change it under revision regulations as no time limit applies.

So I am at a loss as to why no one will change a desicion that they say is wrong because of a time out rule.

The only real rule concerning time is the 13 month rule to bring an appeal but that would only be when the commission are saying the the original decision is correct but the indivdual is challanging it.

You answered your own question. The CSA says they are right and I disagree.

Until 2004 the CSA treated the profit from my Ltd company to be income, we had a boatyard and chandlery. I sold the biz in 2005 to a French marina and used the money to buy a boat chandlery in Cyprus, my wife is Greek Cypriot. The money going to the CSA stopped and they said its depriving them of income. I argued that income paid to other directors including my wife is lawful but the CSA say its diverting income and charged maintenance on their remuneration. The true reason for selling up is because work is too seasonal, we had had enough of Britain anyway and the sale of the biz was already on the cards. We now consider this aspect of the dispute to be irresolvable and is no longer a threat.

My reason for coming here is I am the executor in an estate where I am also the legal guardian for two, now teenage children and I hold their deceased fathers estate upon trust until they each attain 25. I am under a duty to invest the estate safely securely and concerned the CSA might try to pass more new laws and seek to embezzle that money. I need to decide whether to advance their money to them now under the powers conferred to me under the Trustee Act 1925, or take it offshore. Both beneficiaries live with us and not ready for their own place yet.

I also seek advice whether business accounts are vulnerable. I dry-lease several river boats to a friend who has a yard in Cambs and charters them out. The hardware is classed as business property and cannot be seized like a house or a car but I receive a small remuneration which pays my pension.

sfm82

As other peoples money is a stake if I were you I would either contact a lawyer who specialises in this type of situation or call the citizens advice bereau and see what they can do. The CSA are a law unto their own and they make things up and bully you in to paying what they think you owe.

Matt_Fry

I sought professional advice from probate lawyers trust companies and solicitors but nobody seems to know the official position. They all suggested I sign over trusteeship to them to protect the deceased estate. Their contracts all wanted fees ranging 5% to 12.5% of the estate and I would ultimately lose control of the estate. The estate is currently worth £820,000 and I have worked hard to invest wisely and a principle remit of me being appointed executor is to prevent losing control of the estate and having their money absorbed in high lawyers fees and poor investment management.

LizzieS_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

I have transferred my own private bank account balance into a newly opened account in somebody else’s name who has given me the internet access and the debit card to allow me to continue using a secure bank account.

Whatever your dispute, the above shows you as a NRP willing to go to any length to avoid paying.

Matt_Fry wrote: »

I sought professional advice from probate lawyers trust companies and solicitors but nobody seems to know the official position. They all suggested I sign over trusteeship to them to protect the deceased estate. Their contracts all wanted fees ranging 5% to 12.5% of the estate and I would ultimately lose control of the estate. The estate is currently worth £820,000 and I have worked hard to invest wisely and a principle remit of me being appointed executor is to prevent losing control of the estate and having their money absorbed in high lawyers fees and poor investment management.

Your biggest danger here is the fact that it appears you have no accounts yourself - it could be viewed you are using the trust to hide your own income too. Maybe you could have a paper trail proving where everything has come from, gone to, profits etc, but after the admittance in your first quote you may well find it more difficult than the average regular payer.