Liability Orders and Payments towards them

sarahx1

Am so confused after yet again receiving conflicting info from Falkirk and Plymouth legal enforcement depts.

I was told by Falkirk that the only way to reduce LO was through the courts ie money taken from bank accounts, order of sale, commital to prison.
Now Plymouth tell me diffierently that they can set up an arrangement with nrp to pay off the LO.

Does anyone know which is correct?

Am asking as an arrangement had been made to pay off the LO whilst awaiting a commital to prison hearing date. The money he paid was going against my LO, then another pwc came into the equation. The money was being split and she was getting current maintanence yet mine was paying of the LO. I argued that this was not fair, after they consulted their guidelines and policy makers they said I was correct and all payments must first go to pay current maintanence and then the oldest debt.
They returned the LO to the original amount and started paying me current maintanence too.

He's were it gets confusing, at the commital hearing in Aug 09 before they actually went into court, my ex paid csa cout officer £1000 by card and they agreed he must pay £100 off the remainder of the LO(£1329)for the next 3 months.
THIS DID NOT GO INFRONT OF JUDGE.

My enforcement officer told me he lied to the relevant depts and told them £1000 was court ordered so I would get it all. (Why I don't know other PWC only been on board a few months.)
So the £1000 came off the LO but the £100 he's paying won't reduce the LO? Inorder to pay me £100 he has to pay £200 as the money is split.

I cannot under this and when I questioned them as to why they didn't go into court to get it rubber stamped, they said they didn't have too. So now I have a LO for £329 which will have to go to court for commital again before the other 3 LO's can be actioned. Where is the logic in this and why did the £1000 come off it and not the £100's hes paying?

Any help would be appreciated.