out of the blue arrears demand

DX2

Sidekick wrote: »

I don’t see what the problem is in many cases they share the same building as the csa and other government agencies.

They may share the same building, but you will be surprised how a is unable to talk to b

kelloggs36

speedster wrote: »

er. head of criminal compliance is a pretty senior position and those underneath him will be acting on his orders. not senior enough to make decisions about what to tell the staff - he himself will be under orders from the policy decision makers as to what the team should be saying.

and given his rantings about how they will be forcing nrp's to take out loans etc, exactly what do you think he's going to be implimenting?????

oh, laws and rules are made by the government. it's just that the csa pick and choose which ones they will abide by.

I'm sure that in every single job there are people who do that - the CSA aren't exempt from dodgy employees! But just because some don't follow what they are supposed to, doesn't mean that the whole company/organisation is corrupt.

kelloggs36

DX2 wrote: »

They may share the same building, but you will be surprised how a is unable to talk to b

True - they can't access all the building!

kelloggs36

Sidekick wrote: »

When you seek the financial advise the financial adviser should run through the options available to you. You would not be told but advised of your options, that is very little difference between what the csa state in the phone calls.



The csa are forcing people to do things they don’t want to all the time. you mean pay the debt that they owe? They bend or break the laws to get results, and they don’t care if they are right or not. if any staff is caught doing that there is disciplinary action and the possibility of being sacked.
The two year steer to collect debts is the problem. Many of these debts have taken up to 10 years to accumulate making it impossible to pay back in 2 years. I agree in part, but only if the CSA have taken 10 years to create the debt and this is rare compared to the number of NRPs who have refused to pay over that period! If they have refused to pay then there is NOBODY to blame but themselves! Other organisations including the Tax Office would not allow a debt to accumulate for that length of time, nor could they go back that far. They are better at compliance but there are also fewer people who would dodge tax compared to NRPs who fail to pay child support because tax is seen as much more powerful than the CSA - totally the senior management's fault as they allowed the CSA to get and keep the reputation that it was okay to fail to pay; hence many NRPs dodged it. Had they been more like the tax office in the first place and hit them hard at the beginning they would not be in this mess in the first place.
Agreed, everyone is responsible for choices in life. So when this agency miscalculates, breaks its rules and makes mistakes why doesn’t it not take responsibility and put it right.

They do actually - they have to put assessments right; it is getting them to recognise it is wrong that's the problem! There has been a history of non-ownership of cases so nobody keeps their own cases so mistakes are made as things are missed and quality control was very poor. Can't say if it is improving, but having a carp computer system which makes many cases clerical doesn't help!

PlayingHardball

Spot on Kelloggs, maybe if the CSA 'force' my ex to pay his arrears by taking out a loan, then I'll be able to pay off the loan that my ex made (in effect forced) me take out when he decided he no longer wanted to pay child support for our child!

Sidekick_2

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Spot on Kelloggs, maybe if the CSA 'force' my ex to pay his arrears by taking out a loan, then I'll be able to pay off the loan that my ex made (in effect forced) me take out when he decided he no longer wanted to pay child support for our child!

You are confusing a person who is unable to pay, with a person who is unwilling to pay.
No one forced you to take out a loan.

PlayingHardball

Sidekick wrote: »

You are confusing a person who is unable to pay, with a person who is unwilling to pay.

No, I wasn't confused.

I am sure that there are many nrp who cannot pay, and under those circumstances there would be a nil assessment based on their income and circumstances. Unfortunately, that wasn't so in my case.

speedster

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Spot on Kelloggs, maybe if the CSA 'force' my ex to pay his arrears by taking out a loan, then I'll be able to pay off the loan that my ex made (in effect forced) me take out when he decided he no longer wanted to pay child support for our child!

i hope they do force him to. if he can get the threat in writing, he's onto a winner.

cos then they are definitely breaking the law. :T

speedster

PlayingHardball wrote: »

No, I wasn't confused.

I am sure that there are many nrp who cannot pay, and under those circumstances there would be a nil assessment based on their income and circumstances. Unfortunately, that wasn't so in my case.

the only nil assessments on csa2 are students or if the nrp is earning nothing. circumstances are not considered either. one size fits all. (apparently)

there's flat rate of £5 for the first £100 (including dole) then 15/20/25% thereafter.

Sidekick_2

PlayingHardball wrote: »

No, I wasn't confused.

I am sure that there are many nrp who cannot pay, and under those circumstances there would be a nil assessment based on their income and circumstances. Unfortunately, that wasn't so in my case.

What about all the assessments that have been miscalculated by the csa the nrp is forced to pay arrears. The agency has a responsibility to assess correctly as does the parent of responsibility to pay maintenance.