the next step???

bdt1

My hubs children with PWC are now 19 and 16, she has never been quiet, as she has always challenged, appealled and then hounded the CSA (their words not mine) every time there has been a change of circs or re-assessment.

She tried to totally freak us out when on the birth of our daughter (now aged 3) my hubs rang CSA to inform them that we had a change of circs, in so much as we had had a baby, the CSA Rep told him that they had already been informed, he was puzzled and asked who by as neither myself or my husband had contacted them about the birth, the lady told us that as per Data Protection she couldn't tell us who contacted the CSA and informed them that we had had a baby, when hubs probed a bit further by saying that the PWC had been hounding us, Police involved, watching our home, photoing our son in his school uniform etc etc at school gates, so he asked was it the PWC - the lady told him I cannot confirm this, but you are on the right track!!!!! How creepy is that as we have no contact ata all with PWC, her choice not ours - she must have been watching us, as she could have estimated my due date, as I attended a CSA TRibunal when 7 months pregnant where she was present, all she had to do I suppose was park in our street and watch for a baby seat being lifted out of the car, or cards on the window sill, intimating the birth had occured - just blo**y weird is all I can say, but this is what we are up against, no-one would or could believe what we have/are going through - she obviously has too much time on her hands


WEIRDO or what

Blonde_Bint

Not weird at all to me bdt, nothing else going on in her life to occupy her mind, she's been doing it that long its probably normal life for her now thats how I started to see it from our pwc. Though I dont think the system will aid and abet this behaviour for much longer because the csa and judges are having their eyes opened to it now. Not much consolation for the last 16 yrs for you of course but change is happening.

Did you contact the police about her taking pictures of your child she should get into serious trouble for that remember you yourself probably are not allowed to take pictures of your own child near school these days so the pwc doing it should be punishable in some way.

really feel for you I do at those ages your time with pwc should be ended. as at 16 they can make their own arrangements with you.

just a thought have you stopped paying for the 19yr old cos I should imagine that upset the apple cart big time when that happened.

bdt1

We have written to CSA about 19 year old and also requested proof 16 year old is still in full-time education, surprise surprise no response as yet, we wrote to them back in July, will get onto them, but just need to muster up the effort again, its just so wearing dealing with this constantly, also we have tribunal end of this month, so all efforts going into that at moment, our lives have just been horrendous for past 2 years, but hopefully Tribunal will resolve most of issues, we'll have to wait and see.

Police were involved with regard to her taking pics, she was given a warning by them, but she stated that she was merely gaining evidence in her case for the Tribunal she took us to a few years ago on the basis of 'lifestyle inconsistent with declared income'. Our son went to private school, so she wanted to prove he did, and she even looked up how much his school fees were and sent that to CSA - problem for her was, we proved my parents paid his fees, they had DD from their account, no way we could have afforded it, and only reason we took him out of our local school was he was victim to terrible bullying, so yet again, she got nowhere for all of her efforts, Tribunal dismissed her.

plimsoll

kelloggs36 wrote: »

You will find that there are very few who actually go to prison because they usually pay up in the end - there are a few die hards, but most are chancers who have relied upon lack of action and then are actually shocked into paying, realising the impact to their lives of actually going to prison. More NRPs have paid up than have gone to prison - and that is the main point of the threat of prison.

sorry, can you just clarify - would going to prison "wipe out" CSA CM debt? because if so (& he actually was forced by JC+ into getting a job somehow & kept it long enough for a significant amount of arrears to build up that CSA might actually do something about...) my ex would most certainly take the prison option, in fact he'd be demanding that CSA got on with it the moment a threat of prison was made (prison being "a holiday" in his view):rolleyes:

LizzieS_2

plimsoll wrote: »

sorry, can you just clarify - would going to prison "wipe out" CSA CM debt? because if so (& he actually was forced by JC+ into getting a job somehow & kept it long enough for a significant amount of arrears to build up that CSA might actually do something about...) my ex would most certainly take the prison option, in fact he'd be demanding that CSA got on with it the moment a threat of prison was made (prison being "a holiday" in his view):rolleyes:

Prison doesn't change the arrears due.

786

Liability does not disappear (so bank accounts and house equity are still vulnerable) but under the rule of double jeopardy, it does mean you cannot be imprisoned again under that LO.

kelloggs36

plimsoll wrote: »

sorry, can you just clarify - would going to prison "wipe out" CSA CM debt? because if so (& he actually was forced by JC+ into getting a job somehow & kept it long enough for a significant amount of arrears to build up that CSA might actually do something about...) my ex would most certainly take the prison option, in fact he'd be demanding that CSA got on with it the moment a threat of prison was made (prison being "a holiday" in his view):rolleyes:

No it doesn't - when NRP comes out of prison, the debt remains payable!

kelloggs36

786 wrote: »

Liability does not disappear (so bank accounts and house equity are still vulnerable) but under the rule of double jeopardy, it does mean you cannot be imprisoned again under that LO.

correct, which is why they like to get multiple LOs, so they can take imprisonment action against each LO rather than lump it all together. With any luck (which is the theory) the NRP will either serve one sentence and then think twice next time, or do the sensible thing and pay up before they get there the first time!!

My ex had 3 LOs against him - he paid up the majority of the debt (at the time it was £25k) but was still racking up arrears as he still failed to pay regular maintenance. He was threatened after many hearings, that the next time was definately jail as he had strung them along enough. Miraculously by the next hearing he had paid off the LO figure less about £1k. He now owed about £2k which he has not paid. In fact he made an agreement with the Court Presenting Officer to pay £5 per week which was accepted. Trouble was, he failed to make a single payment! Case went back to bailiffs, who made agreement with him 15 months ago, to pay £150 per month - which he did for 3 months and then failed to pay again. Nothing since September last year. Case has gone back to court again for Committal as there is no other action open to them - charging order is too small, so they won't do it (has to be over £5k). He failed to attend and so a warrant was issued for his arrest, and case adjourned until November. Heard nothing since other than their request for a photo of him in case he denied who he was!!

My point is that this is actually the second time they have applied for committal - had he gone down first time, he would still be facing it a second time because of the separate LO.

sarahx1

kelloggs, was advised last week by my legal enforcement officer that the £5k minimum order for sale charging orders has now been reduced down to £3k.

kelloggs36

Thanks for that - Won't help my case lol.