Csa imposes arrears payment liability

Fluffer

My husband's ex-wife stopped him from seeing the children earlier this year and we had to go to court to get contact resumed. In the meantime a couple of months went by when he didnt have overnight contact.

His ex then went to the CSA and told them he hadnt been having overnight contact and so they have told him he owes arrears for that non contact period because they have recalculated his "contact discount". They are claiming it is the law.

Is anyone aware of which act of Parliament and the relevant articles therein which legislate for the resident parent to withhold contact in order to manipulate the system and secure more money for doing so?

So whilst the court made it clear to her that withholding contact was unacceptable and it was to resume, the CSA have effectively rewarded her for the time she prevented them seeing their dad. Their decision seems to indicate they approve of the resident parent abusing the system for financial gain. Can that really be the law?

Has anyone else had this problem and been able to successfully challenge.

kelloggs36

The law does not state that, but it does state that there is a discount for overnight stays - so if overnight stays stop, so does the discount.

Kimitatsu

Ok lovely people I know that this is a hotly debated topic at the moment soooooo I am going to let this one run as it has been posed as a question rather than a debate topic (speedy is this you in drag???? :rotfl:)

I would like to make it quite clear that contact blocking to recieve more maintenance is in no way endorsed by this forum, but I too would be interested to see if there is any basis in law for appealing arrears if contact has been blocked for no apparent reason.

Now all be civil to each other please

kelloggs36

no there isn't. They only look at facts - has there been overnight contact? Yes or no? If not, then arrears will be owed.

speedster

Fluffer wrote: »

My husband's ex-wife stopped him from seeing the children earlier this year and we had to go to court to get contact resumed. In the meantime a couple of months went by when he didnt have overnight contact.

His ex then went to the CSA and told them he hadnt been having overnight contact and so they have told him he owes arrears for that non contact period because they have recalculated his "contact discount". They are claiming it is the law.

Is anyone aware of which act of Parliament and the relevant articles therein which legislate for the resident parent to withhold contact in order to manipulate the system and secure more money for doing so?

So whilst the court made it clear to her that withholding contact was unacceptable and it was to resume, the CSA have effectively rewarded her for the time she prevented them seeing their dad. Their decision seems to indicate they approve of the resident parent abusing the system for financial gain. Can that really be the law?

Has anyone else had this problem and been able to successfully challenge.

yep. been there, got the t shirt!

afraid you're stuck with the arrears. on the plus side, the court has fired a warning shot across her bows, so cahances are, you've nipped it in the bud and wont have this problem again.

also, as you now have contact order stating the overnights you have, your assessment will be based on the order rather than her "say so"

they normally believe their prescious pwc client, but when faced with a court order, believe me, it's a whole different kettle of fish.

Donedoingdebt

How strict are the CSA on the nights per week as opposed to the nights per year?

For example, the OP has had his contact blocked for 2 months, so let's assume that's 8 overnight stays that have been denied. What now happens if the child perhaps stays with the NRP for a holiday or 2 & a couple of overnight weekends?

If this brings contact back up over the required 52 nights per year, then surely the NRP is fulfilling his obligation in order to receive the one seventh allowance?

Shouldn't the PWC now be required to pay back the money to the NRP?

In a perfect world, maybe, but then we're talking about the CSA!!

Loopy_Girl

Speaking from experience of my best friend (and not me obviously), she has been told that contact has had to have been not made for 6 weeks for an assessment to be able to be done.

And before anyone (yes, you speedster) thinks she is a contact blocker, it's quite the opposite. Her ex only take their son for 2 nights so he can pay less CSA.
He dumps the lad at his Mum's and then !!!!!!s off to his g/f for the w/e but at the mo, child thinks the sun shines out of Dad's @rse so my chum just bites her lip and is waiting for the day when the wee one realises that Dad is not cracked up he is all to be.

Sidekick_2

Hi there

His ex then went to the CSA and told them he hadnt been having overnight contact and so they have told him he owes arrears for that non contact period because they have recalculated his "contact discount". They are claiming it is the law.

Try to find out when the ex reported it to the CSA, as this would be a COC which should not be back dated.Did you have contact at that time?

speedster

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Speaking from experience of my best friend (and not me obviously), she has been told that contact has had to have been not made for 6 weeks for an assessment to be able to be done.

And before anyone (yes, you speedster) thinks she is a contact blocker, it's quite the opposite. Her ex only take their son for 2 nights so he can pay less CSA.
He dumps the lad at his Mum's and then !!!!!!s off to his g/f for the w/e but at the mo, child thinks the sun shines out of Dad's @rse so my chum just bites her lip and is waiting for the day when the wee one realises that Dad is not cracked up he is all to be.

thing is. what he does in his contact time is kinda down to him. i had the same row with my ex years back when she tried telling me what and what i couldn't do when i had daughter.

if the kids enjoy being at granny's then what's the real issue?? it's still contact blocking and it's still wrong.

this is why the aussie system is far superior to ours as contact blockers don't get a penny. :T

LizzieS_2

speedster wrote: »

if the kids enjoy being at granny's then what's the real issue??

I thought you of all people would see deeper into the potential effects of that one. If child admits to spending a weekend at granny's then the court will happily let child spend alternate weekends with other granny. Result being fathers idea of contact is then reduced, his csa goes up & he blames everyone but himself. Parents either want to spend time with their children or not, full stop:mad:

speedster

LizzieS wrote: »

I thought you of all people would see deeper into the potential effects of that one. If child admits to spending a weekend at granny's then the court will happily let child spend alternate weekends with other granny. Result being fathers idea of contact is then reduced, his csa goes up & he blames everyone but himself. Parents either want to spend time with their children or not, full stop:mad:

eh??

for starters, other granny would have to apply for leave to even apply for a contact order. secondly, as the pwc's parents, they probably get to see loads of the kids anyway.

nrp's parents often have miniscule amounts of contact.

not much of a case really. make a note. must try harder! :rotfl::T