IMPORTANT - Are you entitled to a refund?? (merged)

shell_542

The link to the CSA site explains it.

It is about the legislation.

Child benefit changed in 2006 to invlude certain training schemes and the CSA, using child benefit as a guideline, continued to claim child support off of NRPs as the PWC was still reciving their CB ... but the CSA didn't change their legislation correctly and without changing it, they shouldn't have claimed child support off some NRPs. NOW they've changed their legislation, they can.

bestpud

shell_542 wrote: »

The link to the CSA site explains it.

It is about the legislation.

Child benefit changed in 2006 to invlude certain training schemes and the CSA, using child benefit as a guideline, continued to claim child support off of NRPs as the PWC was still reciving their CB ... but the CSA didn't change their legislation correctly and without changing it, they shouldn't have claimed child support off some NRPs. NOW they've changed their legislation, they can.

It didn't explain it for me!

But I did wonder if it was a technicality and it seems it is.

Thanks

kelloggs36

shell_542 wrote: »

The link to the CSA site explains it.

It is about the legislation.

Child benefit changed in 2006 to invlude certain training schemes and the CSA, using child benefit as a guideline, continued to claim child support off of NRPs as the PWC was still reciving their CB ... but the CSA didn't change their legislation correctly and without changing it, they shouldn't have claimed child support off some NRPs. NOW they've changed their legislation, they can.

I think I get it! I think that child support was claimed in line with child benefit but it shouldn't have been and can't be applied retrospectively so whilst it is payable now, it wasn't then. Basically a technicality!!

Chloexxx

What it means is in 2005 CHiB changed its legislation to become payable in certain circumstances regarding college/full time education etc... The CSA mistakenly thought it had followed suit, however it had NOT. So there was in effect NO legislation in place to say a NRP had to pay CS for these children and therefore did not LEGALLY have to pay the CSA.. This was corrected in 2009, however it can not be backdated as other legislation is in place to stop it. NRP who have paid for certain children on certain courses should not have paid, and are therefore due a refund for those three years..

This effects children in further education from 2006/2009... The PWC will NOT be asked to repay any money already paid, however any arrears incurrred during those dates which has NOT yet been collected, will NOT be collected therefore the PWC will not receive it. as it is no longer due

minnamura

After 18 years paying the Csa my case ended this September,i was due to pay another year as my ex lied about my child being on a 3 year college course when infact it was only 2.The csa checked the Child Benefit records which stated that Child Benefit ended in September this year.
I was saying goodbye to the Csa website when i noticed under "other stories" about child benefit rules changing in 2006 and the Csa did not follow suit only in November 2009 did they, so if your child was on a government approved training scheme between April 2006 and November 2009 you may be entitled to your money back!
After contacting the Csa i asked them to put it simpler and told them my child was at college and i did not know what course it was,the Csa replied "if your child was in reciept of Child Benefit after the age of 16 then they must have been on a Government Approved Training Scheme"
Can anyone clarify this please?

CSA_Help

http://csa.gov.uk/en/about/news/2009/11-09.asp

Im sure this has been discussed here on here before .I take it you have read the link above .

Kimitatsu

Merged with the previous thread for a fuller explanation