CSA wants me to pay maintenance twice

Soubrette

HowdensGuy wrote: »

The payments werer maintenance but the bank records do show some large payments e.g. new boiler and a car etc and commented as such on the BACS records. None of this shows on paper statements.

Shell, funnily enough the CAB (saw by appt today) said contact MP and I agree with your last comment. I gave into the CSA all these years and there is only so-much I can take. I dispise dishonest and being cheated when I have acted in good faith

I cannot understand why the CSA expect ex-partners to know anything about each other - it is not your responsibility to know that your ex is on benefits or if she is choosing not to declare your payments to her :mad:

It is apparently more effective to make an appointment to see your MP and in your position I would definitely be taking all those banks statements showing the payments made to date.

Others may not agree with me but I would seriously consider reporting your ex for benefit fraud - as DUTR has said, it is unlikely she will go to prison due to being a PWC but she should not be expecting you to take the fall for her fraudulent behaviour.

Sou

Blonde_Bint

I agree with Soubrette, you paid her the child maintenance that was due. Why should you suffer for something she did not you.

See your MP and see what you can do about it. Its not right. Sadly though this could cost the OP more to fight than to just pay twice:mad:

what a load a b*ù^**ks:mad: and we wonder why some blokes just leggit because they who p*ss off get away with it cos the CSA are lazy :mad::mad:

kelloggs36

How are the CSA lazy if neither the NRP or the PWC tell them that they are paying/being paid? We don't know exactly what happened - did the CSA notify the NRP in writing of an assessment? If they had agreed direct pay then there should be a record of it.

shell_542

The OP has already said they CSA rang him up, he told them over the phone he was paying direct and they never contacted him again. They are the organisation who deals with this and know the information and system, not the OP. They should have told him on that call that he couldn't pay her direct as she was on benefits but they didn't bother.

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If they had agreed direct pay then there should be a record of it.

Because they are excellent at keeping records of everything aren't they?

kelloggs36

He should ask for his data protection prints - that will show what records they hold. Maybe they did tell him, we don't know and he may not remember the conversation. They won't have known at that state if the PWC was on benefits either if they hadn't processed the claim. It is impossible to tell from the information posted here. There is always an element of responsibility to be had by the NRP and the PWC, it isn't always down to the CSA when things go wrong.

Blonde_Bint

Lazy because they simply do what is the easiest. Its easier to just keep hitting the fathers who are paying because they can. and it is easier to say to the fathers who paid but cannot prove it, your going to pay again, rather than try to prove fraud by a pwc because that would be difficult. thats what I meant.

However, I accept that this is something hard to prove either way so its an argument i cant win :rotfl: or lose for that matter :rotfl: so my post above was probably point-less now I come to think about it. valid but useless:D much like the csa themselves :rotfl: best leave it at that or who knows where i'll end up:beer: and no I havent been indulging but you will be forgiven for thinking I probably have been:rotfl:

LizzieS_2

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

Lazy because they simply do what is the easiest. Its easier to just keep hitting the fathers who are paying because they can. and it is easier to say to the fathers who paid but cannot prove it, your going to pay again, rather than try to prove fraud by a pwc because that would be difficult. thats what I meant.

However, I accept that this is something hard to prove either way so its an argument i cant win :rotfl: or lose for that matter :rotfl: so my post above was probably point-less now I come to think about it. valid but useless:D much like the csa themselves :rotfl: best leave it at that or who knows where i'll end up:beer: and no I havent been indulging but you will be forgiven for thinking I probably have been:rotfl:

The csa do what is in their remit. You are confusing 2 Government departments here, csa & dwp. Only the dwp can look into fraudulent claims for income support, the csa have to leave them to do their job.

I have no idea whether the csa passes on the conflicting evidence to the dwp, but even if they do, the dwp are only likely to investigate if the nrp also reports to them.

Blue_Horizon

HowdensGuy wrote: »

The payments werer maintenance but the bank records do show some large payments e.g. new boiler and a car etc and commented as such on the BACS records. None of this shows on paper statements.

Shell, funnily enough the CAB (saw by appt today) said contact MP and I agree with your last comment. I gave into the CSA all these years and there is only so-much I can take. I dispise dishonest and being cheated when I have acted in good faith

For me this is all about evidence.

I'd make sure of two things:

(1) When was the case with the CSA opened. The CSA can only collect money from the start date. You mentioned that they contacted you some time ago - did they open a case at that point or was it more recently?

(2) Try and get as much detail about the transactions from your bank account as possible, even if this costs you some money. Copies of cheques and details of any direct payments, your bank should be able to confirm the sort code and account numbers you used at the time. Even if you withdrew cash - find the transactions and highlight them.

This is a start and you can start to build a case that you ex is lying. If your case was opened 2 or 3 years ago, why has it taken your ex this time to inform the CSA that she wasn't getting paid? If you have bank details - will you ex confirm that the account is hers? Try to build the arguements that might put her side in doubt.

When you got enough - give it to the CSA. If they reject it - appeal.

Good luck

kelloggs36

Right Lizzie, the CSA don't investigate income support cases. If the PWC tells them that any money received was for something other than child support then they have to believe them UNLESS there is evidence such as signed receipts to say otherwise.

DUTR

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Right Lizzie, the CSA don't investigate income support cases. If the PWC tells them that any money received was for something other than child support then they have to believe them UNLESS there is evidence such as signed receipts to say otherwise.

I don't know the ins and outs of the DWP process's however in this case the PWC should have to declare the income, I know my daughter's Mum 'fiddles' the system but I wouldn't stoop so low as to shop her , if that is the only way she can survive then so it be.