CSA and confirmation from a manager

iluvfreebies

Hi I havn't time to look through all the posts at the min so sorry if this has been said already - Just wanted to advise - everyone who completes assessment in the child support agency has access to tax credit information and this is accessed using the non resident parents national insurance details so if they are held on a joint claim this information will always be available to them.

All members of staff also have access to credit refrence information allowing them to get details of current addresses / credit accounts including any available credit amounts on credit cards etc.

As well as all this there is also a central government system which is updated by various government agency's / depts with current address / contact numbers.

So unfortunately failing to supply these details when asked to do so is probably not going to stop the agency from finding it out anyway and is a criminal offence as well.


Hope this helps

plimsoll

chriszzz wrote: »

I agree really-really that if a pwc denies the nrp access then she should not be allowed to have the money, vice versa.

I would bet my life that pwc who behaves that way would soon stop their little controlling games.

I also agree that the nrp 1st children child support should just be based on the nrps earnings.

why the assumption it's always games?? sometimes PWC have genuine reasons to refuse NRP contact.

Dancing_Shoes

plimsoll wrote: »

why the assumption it's always games?? sometimes PWC have genuine reasons to refuse NRP contact.

I think this is not a general quote about all pwc's there are a few of us on here that have the "pwc's from hell" (do you like that bdt and blondie;)) and they have played games with no geniune reason to withold contact. Contact should only be witheld if there is a fear for the childrens safety

Sorry Chriszzz I forgot about your *one*

plimsoll

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

I think this is not a general quote about all pwc's there are a few of us on here that have the "pwc's from hell" (do you like that bdt and blondie;)) and they have played games with no geniune reason to withold contact. Contact should only be witheld if there is a fear for the childrens safety

Sorry Chriszzz I forgot about your *one*

yes, that I agree with. then the problem becomes who determines whether a PWC's fears for childrens safety are genuine (where NRP decides against pursuing it via court and leaving it up to their psychologists/CAFCASS etc...).

(BTW I'm PWC, NRP currently has no contact. I stopped unsupervised contact following concerns re:safety and then offered supervised contact (with a friend to supervise there being also concerns re:my safety), NRP has failed to take up that offer despite having harassed me until it was formally received)

bdt1

Ok - just been reading through this very long thread.

Reallyreally, earlier on you state that the CSA can only access NRP personal information and not under any circumstances the NRPP . I pose the question is this also the case if Criminal Compliance are involved and believe that NRPP may be covering income/capital for NRP??????

Only asking as we had massive problems with our PWC who believes my hubs the NRP is Richard Branson, in fact we struggle the same as every one else, after a failed Tribunal that she lodged on the basis of 'income inconsistent with declared earnings', we know she won't just leave it at that - but could they in any circumstances look at the NRPP accounts etc??

Soubrette

blimey40 wrote: »

This post typifies the CSA.

We have cases where obviously PWC's have gone through stressful times, by the same token NRP's have also had grave difficulties seeing children and dealing with bitter ex's.

The CSA is slanted in one direction only and firmly in favour of the PWC , whatever the situation. It may lead to to frustrations, but the system cannot judge each case, and therein lies the problem.

If the CSA is slanted in one direct only, whatever the situation - does that mean that you feel that anyone that has gone to the CSA and not obtained any child maintenance are somehow mistaken (for example if NRP is self employed and not declaring all income)?

Or for the few NRPs who have gone through the CSA and are actually paying less than the PWC has demanded - despite people declaring this has happened on this board - that actually this situation would never happen?

I do agree with you on your last sentence

but the system cannot judge each case, and therein lies the problem.

My own view is that some median decisions have to be made and sometimes PWCs will be the losers and sometimes NRPs will be the losers.

Sou

kelloggs36

Quite!!!! Although in my case I can genuinly say that the favour was definately slanted in favour of the NRP - he was allowed to lie, to refuse to give info etc. I fought long and hard for them to do what they were set up to do and that's the problem! They don't want to make the effort incase it upsets the non-compliant NRP!!!!!! I had to fight for 7 years for them to merely do what the legislation has always allowed them to do, but the managers have refused to do for fear of negative publicity!!!