CSA Applying Liabilty Order?

millwall34

This is my understanding of it.


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

Yes & dont know.

Do they have the power to remove Passports?

Yes, but cant see how this will trump up any money. It stops them working (and earning) if their job takes them overseas. The CSA could fall on its own sword.

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

The CSA is slow on the uptake, its a government agency that lacks the will given its bad publicity.

Im sure others will have already said this, can you ask the working parent, your ex? to come to an arrangement? Be blunt and ask him. Please dont deprive the kids of him because I think that will only presuade him to work off-grid and place him out of reach of the CSA.

Where a household has enough money to go round, money for the kids ios rarely an issue. Families that chosse the CSA, money is everything and that is where the cookie crumbles.

Negotiation is always the best way.

LizzieS_2

CSA can apply to magistrates for removal of passport - they do have to show they have exhausted all other avenues and your ex is refusing to pay anything.

Unfortunately that means you have to wait for the bailiffs to return the case and the csa to then decide on the next course of action. He appears to be unemployed now? This on its own could stop further enforcement. Have you had a further assessment showing he is now liable for nil or £5?

I do not think you can apply yourself - you "employed" the services of the csa for the period in question.

Dubai could be work related. He hasn't necessarily paid to go himself - you would have to prove he has funds available.

millwall34

DX2 wrote: »

your plan isn't as simple as you think.

Whys that?

DX2

millwall34 wrote: »

Whys that?

Try re reading post 24 again, then you tell me if a "parent" and I certainly wouldn't use that word for my NRP should be entitled to the relevant child benefits as myself when he has had nothing to do with the child in 15 years. I would go as far as saying the NRP denies the child exists, so please don't tell me that a scum bag like that is entitled to anything. In 15 years not one birthday card, not one christmas card yet you wish to dish out the child benefits to him.

millwall34

It seems like you have had a very bad experience and I can understand how you must feel.

Until very recently, I have never had any experience with dealing first-hand with civil servants handling tax credits and CSA, both on behalf of others. I am just an ordinarty family man with a confortable home with children who have the world as their oyster.

As an executor, the CSA intentionally withheld information from me unaware the telephone conversations with the deceased were still on his mobile which enabled me to ID the actual civil servant who made the call. This resulted in an (aborted) investigation under Section 3 of the 2006 Fraud Act but ultimately resulted in the CSA losing thousands just by breaking its own rules on calculating maintenance and penny-pinching a few quid here & there from the working parents income knowing he didnt know the law (Section 4).

I also recently handled a tax credit claim under a Power of Attorney, and a tax credits official telephoned the claimant which I handled the call. The official literally contradicted herself in the same conversation. When I pointed this out, she took it offensively and I made no apologies for her hurt feelings. I filed a complaint addressed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman with a recommendation the officer undergoes some re-training. This was not inefficiency or a mistake, I ruled that out before I ended the conversation. The motive was to intentionally deprive a claimant of a lawful benefit.

Corruption is where governments do not comply with its own rules. If my experience of HMRC and the CSA is what low-income families have to put up with just to claim what is rightfully theirs, then I can see why corruption is wide-spread in these communities.

Your experience with the CSA indicates my experience was not an isolated one. This is why I originally suggested offering tax credits to all working parents whether or not they live with their children, something you quickly rubbished. A streamlined easy-to-follow and cheap to run system, it removes the possibility or error and potential for corruption in the economy and saves the taxpayer the huge expense of running an expensive CSA and tax credits department, rediculous enforcement, sending people to prison and tracking down the assets of those who work underground and/or sign on.

If my little plan were to be brought into force, woudnt your "NRP" (your ex?) be more motivated to get back out to work knowing you can claim his tax credits for his children? That is what would happen if you were still together.

DX2

millwall34 wrote: »

If my little plan were to be brought into force, woudnt your "NRP" (your ex?) be more motivated to get back out to work knowing you can claim his tax credits for his children? That is what would happen if you were still together.

Who said my NRP wasn't working? Last time I checked the armed forces were employment.

"his children" :rotfl:He plays every trick in the book to avoid paying child support his CSA assesment is laughable, even moreso because he still manages not to pay it. The Queen's finest

AnxiousMum

millwall34 wrote: »

Where a household has enough money to go round, money for the kids ios rarely an issue. Families that chosse the CSA, money is everything and that is where the cookie crumbles.

QUOTE]

Excuse me? I don't think so! To me, my children are everything, and THEY have a right to live a lifestyle deemed similar to what they would have had, had their parents remained together. A parent does not get to shirk their responsibility - be that financially, or emotionally because two adults made a decision that would impact those very things to a child. No, money isn't everything, but my children are

millwall34

DX2 wrote: »

Who said my NRP wasn't working? Last time I checked the armed forces were employment.

"his children" :rotfl:He plays every trick in the book to avoid paying child support his CSA assesment is laughable, even moreso because he still manages not to pay it. The Queen's finest

I understood the CSA can contact HM Paymaster.

millwall34

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Excuse me? I don't think so! To me, my children are everything, and THEY have a right to live a lifestyle deemed similar to what they would have had, had their parents remained together. A parent does not get to shirk their responsibility - be that financially, or emotionally because two adults made a decision that would impact those very things to a child. No, money isn't everything, but my children are

Nobody is saying otherwise. If the working parent is on a low-income and both parents now have the costs of running separate households concurrently, then I feel your ambition for the children to enjoy the same qualify of life as if the parents remained together could be an unrealistic goal.

I am getting this feeling the CSA is almost exclusively used by low-income families and households that rely on prescribed benefits or tax credits. In situations where money is tight and agreement cannot be amicably reached, the CSA is called in.

I am quickly getting the picture the CSA fails one or other parent and is burdened with tracking down the countrys low-income working parents either working as cash-in-hand tradesmen in Shoreditch or living in exile in Somalia.

AnxiousMum

Other countries see it that way - just not the UK! Other countries give no regard to the fact that a NRP has gone on to have ten more kids elsewhere, and so can no longer afford to support the first ones that they had, as chances are, if you remained with the first partner, you would've had a limit as to how many children you could financially support.

I feel that the whole Child support program here is wrong. There are simpler ways of doing it, more enforceability, and more accountability from the pwc as well. I know my ex could quit his job, but it wouldn't make one ounce of difference to his obligations to our children - as the courts there see if as he wouldn't have been quitting his job if we were still together, as we have children to support. When he did do that, they imputed an income on him based on his last three years earning, and made his child support payable on that amount. Funnily, he got right back to work!