The CSA, bank accounts and the law – some questions

CMAC_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

I presently dont draw an income from the trust for administrating it,

Then I suspect you would fall foul again of CMEC legislation not doing something because you cant and not doing something because you choose not to seems to be the same problem you had pre 2004 divertion/deprevation on income for child support purposes.

As for the boats if they are businesss assests under a limited company they are safe that is if you are a director of the same, but that puts you back in UK jurisdiction. If they are part of a trading as setup they only need to leave you one boat so you can carry on trading. If they are your property been looked after by your friend under his limited company that they can all be removed.
/

Matt_Fry

CMAC wrote: »

Then I suspect you would fall foul again of CMEC legislation not doing something because you cant and not doing something because you choose not to seems to be the same problem you had pre 2004 divertion/deprevation on income for child support purposes.

Thats not what the CSA argues, they say that selling the boatyard and spending the money on another and they say profits = income and levied on operating profit.

CMAC wrote: »

As for the boats if they are businesss assests under a limited company they are safe that is if you are a director of the same, but that puts you back in UK jurisdiction.

Unfortunately you are right, its why I need to decide whether to sell them to the lesee, I have no other reasonable use for them because they are river boats not designed for oceanic work. The CSA has not made issues on this for the moment but I understood bailiffs cannot lawfully take goods that results in disruption the normal operation of a business, is that no longer the case? Damaging a biz damages the economy and might explain lack of CSA interest.

Matt_Fry

marksoton wrote: »

Their history of wrongly and unfairly applying legislation is hardly unwarranted .

I was thinking the same but I dint think saying it was allowed. It does appear the CSA invent the rules as it pleases thinking it will solve the problem.

If the CSA wants to solve the problem then it needs to stop cheating and overcharging people and stop thwarting appeals. I suspect the CSA debt mountain is wrong assessments that are out of time.

marksoton

Matt_Fry wrote: »

I was thinking the same but I dint think saying it was allowed. It does appear the CSA invent the rules as it pleases thinking it will solve the problem.

If the CSA wants to solve the problem then it needs to stop cheating and overcharging people and stop thwarting appeals. I suspect the CSA debt mountain is wrong assessments that are out of time.

What has to be remembered is that when statute is made it may be well intentioned and needed in extreme cases. There are enough PWC's on here alone to suggest more powers were needed.

The problem lies in the application of the law. The CSA will always use these powers on the easier targets. Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or lying.

LizzieS_2

Matt_Fry wrote: »

Thats what I thought, but I dont understand why people are posting this...



The payments I make are in goodwill and comply with my understanding of CS1 25%. I could stop all payments by tonight if I wanted to, and leave the CSA and PWC up a creek without a paddle, and that even if the CSA was able to seize a bank account.

REMO wouldnt work in the Nicosia magistrates court because only parents who choose to be absent are liable so currently I dont have any legal responsility at all.

The point I was making is that to the csa you will probably come across as a lower category of nrp than the regular payers who are doing as instructed. That was not saying you pay nothing at all towards the arrears - it was an observation from your posts so far, you appear to be making the rules yourself (perhaps with good reason) over what you will pay and when, and certainly have some concern over having capital invested in your name in Uk (?) accounts (which reads that the csa have not agreed your terms).

Matt_Fry

Its nothing to do with the CSA not agreeing to my terms, its the CSA not keeping to its own legislation.

As for accounts, I owned the yard from 1991 (employee from 1980) and filed accounts on time every year. The reason for selling was genuine, employment law was becoming very difficult to work with, business rates rocket dwindling profits then the CSA. We just knew it was time to move on and being a family boat building business, it was no longer making us any money. Its suited to a large firm with lots of legal muscle.

Matt_Fry

marksoton wrote: »

Be very careful. Greece is a REMO member. Just because the Greek law would not require payment does not mean they won't enforce a case from England.

You need to ringfence this estate money completely away from your own funds.

The estate has always been ring fenced, its a principle condition of the trust. I am seeing an expert this week to discuss taking the estate offshore or giving investment control to the beneficiaries. Im not keen to do either but I feel my hand is being forced.

I dont know much about child maintenance law in Greece. Cypriot child maintenance law is similar to English child maintenance law as it stood in 1960 when Cyprus gained independence. The basic definition of an absent parent in Cypriot law is different to the UK definition. Ive had employees coming over from the UK to crew our boats and summonsed by the magistrate in Nicosia to answer a REMO from Britain. Every time its dismissed because British child maintenance can include spousal maintenance and this is not child maintenance under Cypriot law.

Child maintenance reciprocating arrangements are subject to compatibility of local laws. In Cyprus, child maintenance is all about making parents who abandon their children pay.

PlayingHardball

What would stop the PWC applying for a UK Court Order which would surely have to be enforced in Cyprus? (Question to the Legal Eagles, Mark and CMAC)

OP has asked a fair few questions. Can I ask OP a question, why do you feel that the CSA assessment is wrong? Is it based on arrears or do you disagree with the 15% of net income payable to the PWC on behalf of your child/children?

PlayingHardball

Correction, 15, 20 or 25% (or 30 in the case of CSA1 as earlier mentioned), sorry, I didn't know how many children you are paying CS for.

CMAC_2

PlayingHardball wrote: »

What would stop the PWC applying for a UK Court Order which would surely have to be enforced in Cyprus? (Question to the Legal Eagles, Mark and CMAC)


Nothing at all