CSA arrears - can they do this?

kelloggs36

But equally disgusting that an NRP can claim they have paid child support when in fact they owed the PWC money from something else. It pays to protect oneself by getting it signed to say that the money received is for X to Y period and is for child support - it is very simple and therefore difficult to backtrack on later. Without that evidence there is only one person's word to go on against another - one is clearly lying and you can't prove which one.

shell_542

I didn't say it wasn't.

Obviously I wasn't saying it is disgusting that some NRP's who lie are made to pay it again, but in this case, the CSA are trying their bullying tactics when the NRP has proof! That is disgusting. So are PWC's who lie when they know full well that their ex has paid child support cash in hand ... so are NRP's who try to shirk their responsibilities (I might add that as a disclaimer in my signature)

marksoton

Woah there everyone !

OP when did the CSA first contact your partner ?

Was this demand for the £800 the first contact he had with them ?

If so he only owes money for any period after this.

FWIW I find it amazing that a PWC can commit benefit fraud and the NRP foots the bill. :rolleyes:

kelloggs36

He doesn't have concrete proof otherwise they would have allowed it. The proof he has only says he has paid her something, anybody could produce what he has - it doesn't mean that the money was accepted by the PWC as maintenance and that is the key issue.

shell_542

kelloggs36 wrote: »

He doesn't have concrete proof otherwise they would have allowed it. The proof he has only says he has paid her something, anybody could produce what he has - it doesn't mean that the money was accepted by the PWC as maintenance and that is the key issue.

You don't that for certain. Maybe the OP can confirm whether or not the receipts he has stipulate child support. She hasn't said other wise yet so noone can know for certain.

Plus, if someone has receipts of regular, similar amounts of money (monthly,weekly etc) then what else is it going to be other than child support?

If the NRP was paying the PWC regular payments for a loan etc, maybe it should be down to the PWC to PROVE that the payments were for that. Maybe she should have got the NRP to sign a receipt with the exact words "LOAN REPAYMENT" on it. As apparently it's working like that the other way.

kelloggs36

if they did then the CSA would offset the amount against the arrears - they have no choice as the PWC has signed to say she agrees that the money was for child support.

You can't say that regular money received is for child support - it could be for anything, including a loan owed to the PWC or something similar. I'm afraid that if the money was for child support the PWC has to specifically agree that this was the case - I don't make the rules!

woody01

I don't make the rules!

Thank god.
The CSA would be a bigger one sided fiasco than it already is if you were.

shell_542

kelloggs36 wrote: »

if they did then the CSA would offset the amount against the arrears - they have no choice as the PWC has signed to say she agrees that the money was for child support.

You can't say that regular money received is for child support - it could be for anything, including a loan owed to the PWC or something similar. I'm afraid that if the money was for child support the PWC has to specifically agree that this was the case - I don't make the rules!

Regular monthly amounts paid right up until the time the CSA are involved and then the regular payments continue through the CSA ... no those initial payments were definitely not child support, aye?

You can debate it all you want, it is obvious in a lot of cases that child support was being paid but the CSA give the PWC the chance to get out of being held accountable for the fact they were committing benefit fraud and as usual, the responsibile NRP's get penalised.

LizzieS_2

mumof4flowers wrote: »

Hi - this is my first post here - hope that somebody can help me.

My partner has three children with his ex and has never disputed paying maintenance and has paid monthly for the past 2 1/2 years. He has been paying in cash and getting his ex to sign a receipt for the money. He has just received a letter from the CSA saying that he owes arrears of £800. The period cited for these arrears is the same as when he was paying his ex direct. On contacting the CSA they explained to him that as his ex was on benefits she should have informed the benefits office that she was receiving child maintenance directly from him and they would have reduced the benefits payments she was due. They stated that HE now owes this money to the state and not her and if he doesn't pay they will just take the money direct from his earnings.

Can they do this? It seems very unfair that as a nrp my partner was paying what he should have been but now has to pay again!!!

£800 over 2 1/2 years amounts to approx £6pw (£2 per child). There is another possibility here - the £800 could be the difference between what he should have paid and what he did pay.

kelloggs36

woody01 wrote: »

Thank god.
The CSA would be a bigger one sided fiasco than it already is if you were.

It would mean that non-compliant NRPs were dealt with more efficiently if I were in charge I could assure you of that. But you clearly don't understand what I stand for, otherwise you would not make such nasty one-sided comments! I have helped many NRPs as well as PWCs to ensure that they get the right assessment.