Order of Sale enforcement

kelloggs36

Actually yes, because it's not as though the tough action is the first thing that happens. In life we all have to face the consequences of our actions - the NRP who has refused to pay anything is not suddenly being faced with homelessness - it is an extremely long, drawn out process. There are plenty of opportunities throughout the years - yes it takes years to get that far - to start making payments and thus preventing such action. They have a choice and choose not to pay, and therefore must then realise that their choice will lead to such action. I felt no guilt at all when my ex faced this possibility - he afterall had decided for himself that he would not pay anything. He was given so many chances I believed that nothing would ever happen - clearly so did he! Had they forced the sale, he would have in effect, put himself and his family in that position through his own choices. He could have easily avoided it. In the end, he made a different choice, and paid via remortgaging (he had racked up a huge debt which was totally correct but he had just not wanted to pay). He thus avoided losing his home.

Blob

So if the arrears are the fault of the CSA and this is accepted by the CSA, and the money that has been asked for has been paid, then is then also OK for the CSA to make the NRP homeless because they failed to do the job they were set up to do and have accepted this as well. Also what about the NRPPs that have got togeather with the NRP after the relationship has ended and they have built a home, possibly with the money to start the new home comeing from the NRPP in the first place, is it still OK for the CSA to make them homeless and take the money effectivly from the NRPP?

Blob

I would also be interested in your take ont he CSA reducing people to tears that have nothing to do with the children and threating them with makeing them homeless and demanding information that they have no legal right to?

kelloggs36

Blob wrote: »

So if the arrears are the fault of the CSA and this is accepted by the CSA, and the money that has been asked for has been paid, then is then also OK for the CSA to make the NRP homeless because they failed to do the job they were set up to do and have accepted this as well. Also what about the NRPPs that have got togeather with the NRP after the relationship has ended and they have built a home, possibly with the money to start the new home comeing from the NRPP in the first place, is it still OK for the CSA to make them homeless and take the money effectivly from the NRPP?

As I said, if the NRP has chosen not to pay, if you read, it says chosen not to pay not anything else, then yes, I believe that the CSA should take whatever action they need to to recover the money. If the NRPP is inconvenienced by this, then they need to look to the NRP for an explanation to their situation.

If arrears are due to the CSA then there is usually an agreement to repay it in place and payments made, usually by DEO - in which case the case would never be considered for an order for sale. It is only in the event of non-compliance that this is the case. Arrears built up through CSA error is not non-compliance and therefore is not a suitable case for this sort of action. You are talking about 2 completely different situations here.

Steve40_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

As I said, if the NRP has chosen not to pay, if you read, it says chosen not to pay not anything else, then yes, I believe that the CSA should take whatever action they need to to recover the money. If the NRPP is inconvenienced by this, then they need to look to the NRP for an explanation to their situation.

If arrears are due to the CSA then there is usually an agreement to repay it in place and payments made, usually by DEO - in which case the case would never be considered for an order for sale. It is only in the event of non-compliance that this is the case. Arrears built up through CSA error is not non-compliance and therefore is not a suitable case for this sort of action. You are talking about 2 completely different situations here.

I have a friend that has always paid via DEO he has just been slapped with a £9000 arrears bill his hearing for a liability order was on 23/9/09 i beleive you have been misinformed on the point about deo's

Blob

Kellogs, I have to tell you the situation I talk of is mine, the CEO in person has appoligised for the mess this case is in to Parliment. There was an agreement, then the case was moved to a different CSAC and the agreement was forgotten about, the money that was written off as a result of the investigations by ICE, the Ombudsman and the Minister, not to mention the CEO, were then reinstated. The DEO has by and large been met, with the exception of when I was in hospital and not working, if you dont earn it you cant pay it, most people understand this consept, but not the CSA muppets that now run my case!

Yes this case has been put to a Court and the Court has asked for undertakings that the CSA rep could not give as he was a Barrister and not a CSA muppet, and I accept this. In the event that it goes to an application for sale then they will come up against the findings of a Curcut Judge oups! They will also come up against a little problem called the Law in the form of the MWPA, where by my partner will want and be backed by the law her money from the house pluss 50% of any equity [Ho Ho] that has been acrued since we brought the house.

Result the CSA will end up with about -10p.

At least you have come out and said that if the NRP is made homeless you have basicly no issues with this, it must therefor follow that you have no issues with makeing children homeless. Do hope that you can sleep well at night!

Blob

Sorry, MWPA it the Married Womans Protection Act. But it works both ways, for men as well as women.

kelloggs36

Steve40 wrote: »

I have a friend that has always paid via DEO he has just been slapped with a £9000 arrears bill his hearing for a liability order was on 23/9/09 i beleive you have been misinformed on the point about deo's

They won't enforce the Liability Order though that's the key point - also, with those small arrears, there would be no order for sale. The point is that they won't take enforcement action - the liability order just secures the debt in the event that the NRP then fails to pay by perhaps leaving their job - there are plenty that have done that!

kelloggs36

Blob wrote: »

Kellogs, I have to tell you the situation I talk of is mine, the CEO in person has appoligised for the mess this case is in to Parliment. There was an agreement, then the case was moved to a different CSAC and the agreement was forgotten about, the money that was written off as a result of the investigations by ICE, the Ombudsman and the Minister, not to mention the CEO, were then reinstated. The DEO has by and large been met, with the exception of when I was in hospital and not working, if you dont earn it you cant pay it, most people understand this consept, but not the CSA muppets that now run my case!

Yes this case has been put to a Court and the Court has asked for undertakings that the CSA rep could not give as he was a Barrister and not a CSA muppet, and I accept this. In the event that it goes to an application for sale then they will come up against the findings of a Curcut Judge oups! They will also come up against a little problem called the Law in the form of the MWPA, where by my partner will want and be backed by the law her money from the house pluss 50% of any equity [Ho Ho] that has been acrued since we brought the house.

Result the CSA will end up with about -10p.

At least you have come out and said that if the NRP is made homeless you have basicly no issues with this, it must therefor follow that you have no issues with makeing children homeless. Do hope that you can sleep well at night!

As I also said, your case will not end up with an order for sale because the CSA debt won't be paid off, so it will fail.

Yes of course I can sleep at night when the NRP has decided to make their children homeless themselves, through their own choices - you clearly don't see that it takes years to get to that stage, time in which to make an agreement to pay off what is owed. If the NRP fails to do this then they have to accept that they must pay for the choice they make. It works the same for any parent who commits any crime - their children suffer through their actions. I can't see why people cannot accept responsbility for their own choices!

Blob

I will bet you a dollars to doughnuts it wont stop them from trying as they have set the ball in motion, the paper work arrived yesterday. The reason is they have failed to do their homework on this case and yet again are charging in because they believe they are correct!

I on the other hand will have the Judgment from the earlier hearing as well as the letter from the Sec of State and most importantly of all the relevent sections of the 'White Book' that they fail to understand the relevence of, but the Court wont suffer from that problem!

Lastly it is not the NRP that is makeing children homeless, as for criminal action, the CSA should look into some of their actions as they are very deffinatly unlawful, and to claim that it is because the Law is uncompatable is twaddle.