Csa liability order

speedster

Sidekick wrote: »

Yes, I have LO based on mistakes of which i am fighting:rolleyes:

surely not? a mistake by the CSA??

according to some on here, that would be an isolated incident. :rolleyes:

Homemade_2

Skint_nrp wrote: »

I did pay but not the stupid amounts they wanted like 195 per week when i was only earning 330. And the fact that they would not take my second son into consideration untill he was three.

I think men like you get a raw deal sometimes with the silly amounts they expect men to pay. £195 a week is ridiculous by any strtch of the imagination.

kelloggs36

That amount must have included arrears as the most under CS1 was 30% of net income, so if you earned £330 your assessment would have been no more than £110 per week.

CSA_Debt_Bod

I think first of all you need a definite answer to how much you owe. I suggest you speak to a caseworker and ask for an account breakdown to be posted to you - this shouldn't take long as one will have been done when your case was prepared for enforcement (liability order) action.

I haven't been present during a liability order hearing, but I undersand that the NRP doesn't have a chance to speak or put his/her case. I believe there is not much discussion re the ins and out of the case and the hearing is more a technicality really; the judge usually just rules that the debt is outstanding and this gives the CSA power to pursue the debt via bailiffs and further action. There will however be a CSA representative (court presenting officer) present at the court that day who you can discuss a repayment plan with.

If you do not make an agreement with the court presenting officer which is acceptable to the CSA (ideally at 40% of your net earnings or clearing the debt within two years), the next step will be that the CSA instruct bailiffs to pursue the debt with you.

CSA_Help

CSA_Debt_Bod wrote: »

I haven't been present during a liability order hearing, but I undersand that the NRP doesn't have a chance to speak or put his/her case. I believe there is not much discussion re the ins and out of the case and the hearing is more a technicality really; the judge usually just rules that the debt is outstanding and this gives the CSA power to pursue the debt via bailiffs and further action. There will however be a CSA representative (court presenting officer) present at the court that day who you can discuss a repayment plan with.

I had plenty to say at my hearing in court if you look at my other posts in this thread

CSA_Help

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Maybe he wouldn't be that 'victim' had he paid the correct amount of child support in the first place. Sorry - that is a fact, not fiction. On top of that, my tax paying pounds wouldn't need to go to enforcing NRP's to support their children, if they did so in the first place BEFORE it getting to these stages!

I'd be interested in hearing why the OP failed to support their child in the first place, before it got to the stage where the CSA where taking more than the required 15% of his net earnings.

Sorry, can't extend my sympathy or anything else for that matter to any NRP who doesn't pay what they should, when they should.

I think in this circumstance, the 'victom' was the kid, not to mention the PWC who's had to struggle without the financial support from the OP.

OP was on CSA1 to start of with which was a differents kettle of fish with family premiums housing costs etc

CSA2 is a straight 15% of net earnings

CSA has changed the goalposts not the OP as he was paying what was required of him :rolleyes:

bdt1

Playinghardall - this is all assuming that any assessment is correct??????????

I agree with you on the principle of the wrongs of non-paying NRP'S, ut so many mistakes made by the CSA mean that they are demandin monies that NRP SIMPLY DO NOT EARN

PlayingHardball

CSA_Help wrote: »

OP was on CSA1 to start of with which was a differents kettle of fish with family premiums housing costs etc

CSA2 is a straight 15% of net earnings

CSA has changed the goalposts not the OP as he was paying what was required of him :rolleyes:

My comment was based on the fact that the OP themselves told us that they didn't pay the amounts that the CSA told them to, for whatever reason (see OP post number 3). I'm not sure what you mean about CSA changing the goalposts?

PlayingHardball

bdt1 wrote: »

Playinghardall - this is all assuming that any assessment is correct??????????

I agree with you on the principle of the wrongs of non-paying NRP'S, ut so many mistakes made by the CSA mean that they are demandin monies that NRP SIMPLY DO NOT EARN

Hiya BDT, I agree, CSA do make mistakes, but luckily we can fight incorrect decisions through complaints and appeals and are lucky enough to be able to access our data protection records to support our appeals processes, etc. There is loads you can do to fight CSA error, both NRP and PWC.

I hope the OP has already requested their data protection files?

CSA_Help

PlayingHardball wrote: »

My comment was based on the fact that the OP themselves told us that they didn't pay the amounts that the CSA told them to, for whatever reason (see OP post number 3). I'm not sure what you mean about CSA changing the goalposts?

In my case they changed the goalposts

Paid the required amounts then they decided they had made a mistake and backdated it to stupid amounts also .

Its ok for you being on the receiving end of the money but not for us that is having to pay it (even wrongly which is in my case as it has now came out to bite them in the bum in my recent complaint)

That is what i mean