CSA Applying Liabilty Order?

Kimitatsu

INAPPROPRIATE POSTS


Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: Sorry, your post had to be deleted as we had a couple of emails about it and site policy is to err on the side of caution (please see this rule).If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="%20abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]

I have deleted the posts which refer to CSA employees. I have to echo they are only doing their job and there are several employees of the CSA on these boards who DO help out a considerable amount, but would not dare to identify themselves because of the backlash.

I have no problem with you complaining about the CSA as an organisation and their wonderful (or not) computer system but the comments made about employees were unacceptable.

CSA arrears never become statute barred and are collectible until the death of the NRP, or the PWC asking for the arrears not to be collected. If the arrears are owed to the secretary of state then they will never be written off.

Blue149

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The statute of limitations does not apply to the CSA - whilst they cannot take an NRP to court for a debt older than July 2000, there is nothing to stop them from collecting the debt via other means; ie DEO. This will never be uncollectable unless the NRP is self-employed. They cannot write off debt.

Does this only apply to debts owed to the Secretary Of State, the PWC or both. The ICE says that pre 2000 debts ARE covered by SOLA but is it all CSA debts?

kelloggs36

All arrears remain collectable - not via the courts, but will always remains so via methods such as a DEO - it has always been the same.

BlueAngel

What happens in the case of the absent parent not knowing that there was a debt on the account. If the absent parent has been told by the CSA that there is nothing to pay and then after they have sent a letter saying that the case is closed and nothing is owing. They send another letter saying that there is a large amount owing from 1993-1997, despite a DEO being in place for part of that time, surely the CSA have to prove that the debt is outstsanding before applying for a DEO?

speedster

BlueAngel wrote: »

What happens in the case of the absent parent not knowing that there was a debt on the account. If the absent parent has been told by the CSA that there is nothing to pay and then after they have sent a letter saying that the case is closed and nothing is owing. They send another letter saying that there is a large amount owing from 1993-1997, despite a DEO being in place for part of that time, surely the CSA have to prove that the debt is outstsanding before applying for a DEO?

afraid not.

if, in their infinite wisdom, they decide you owe money then they'll issue a DEO before you can blink.

i would advise appliying for your DP and FOI files to clarify what debt is actually owed.

your MP may well be a great help at the mo, seeing as though they're all after keeping their jobs next may! :rolleyes:

blimey40

kelloggs 36, you wrote

This will never be uncollectable unless the NRP is self-employed.

Why is that??

Kimitatsu

Because if the NRP is self employed they can pay themselves minimum wage for a 40 hour week or less in some cases :rolleyes: and you cannot impose a DEO on the SE. Unfortunately it is a massive loophole that those NRP's who do not wish to pay for their children can exploit, they put the company in someone elses name and then pay themselves the minimum. Dividends can be taken into account only if they are awarded to the NRP - if they are awarded to the NRPP then CSA cannot access them unless you can show deprivation of assets or lifestyle inconsistent with income.

In the defence of some NRP's though there are some on here who are self employed and support their children fully, if you read the threads on here you will find some real horror stories about those who try to flout the system.

kelloggs36

Absolutely - if they have a debt prior to 2000 and there is no LO granted, then there will be nothing the CSA can do to collect it - although it remains collectable.

snappylincs

Time for an update..

The current outstanding arrears are to date, £2500.00

The CSA obtained a Liability Order at the end of March, for £750 (that they told us they were applying for in Dec 09)


In their well known exceptionally efficient manner, that was only passed out for action at the beginning of June.

It's now with Bailiffs, they've been informed that it will be ineffective.. Ex owns nothing of any value whatsoever, lives with parents, and is allegedly self employed.

Despite this, the Bailiffs will have the matter for some 3 months and will only transfer back at the beginning of September!!

They've been informed that as well as being "self-employed" the ex also has employment - but they have taken the ex's words as gospel, and have also gained that information from HMRC apparently...


The ex has also mentioned (that we have found out about) that there is a holiday booked in October to Dubai! And when mentioned to the CSA they said there was nothing they could do about that, and the woman on phone also denied that they have the power to remove passports and even if they did, they have to go through the process.

She clearly didn't like being questioned, and at one point she stated that the "service" was free, and that if we weren't happy and it sounded like we werent then we were more than welcome to close the case and sort it out ourselves! :mad:


I'd like some simple confirmations on where the power comes from, or reasons why they aren't allowed to use their powers.

Do they have the power for Administrative LO's? If not, why not.

Do they have the power to remove Passports?

I understood the above was all legislated for, and has been passed - so why aren't they using it?

This is taking the proverbial - It's now over a year and a half since the ex paid a penny, and the CSA have done next to nothing to enforce it.


If the power in legislation DOES indeed exist to remove passports, whats to stop me laying a complaint in person before the magistrates myself.

millwall34

I think the CSA has been very foolish. All they have achieved is force working parents off-grid and work in the hidden economy. A causalty of this is he has become impervious to enforcement and trace action.

I would say the CSA should reconsider its approach and maybe be more realistic. A good starting point is to roll out tax credits to all working parents irrespective whether they live apart. That would encorage working parents back into work.