Child Support Act 1991 possible legal loophole?

MIKEtheBIKE_2

This is part of section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 - the law that the CSA is base on.
In the early days of the CSA - roughly pre 2000 - single mums on benefits would not receive any of the money that was taken from the absent dads (or very little of it) because their benefits were reduced accordingly. Therefore this money went to the government to pay back the money that was being dished out in benefits to single mums.

This actually encouraged single mums and absent dads to get there heads together and sort out a private arrangement.

Single mum would then tell the CSA that if the CSA got involved ex-hubby would beat her up. The CSA were then obliged to stay out of it because of section 6 (see below).

Section 6 has now been revoked by the way, and everyone is encouraged to make private arrangements - as of 2008.

However the CSA are now coming down heavily on those absent dads that made a private arrangement back then with massive arrears bills.

This needs to stop, because a)the law would be on their side if they did it today, and b) the children are now grown up the maintenance payments were made privately and everyone is happy.

So when I carefully read through section 6 last night, if occurred to me that the wording applies to people who have stopped using the CSA because the CSA are causing undue distress. It doesn't specify who would be causing undue distress. The assumption being the absent brutal father.

Have I found a massive loophole of huge public interest?

Please give me all your pros and cons on this










6 Applications by those receiving benefit

(1) Where income support, family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is claimed by or in respect of, or paid to or in respect of, the parent of a qualifying child she shall, if—
(a) she is a person with care of the child; and
(b) she is required to do so by the Secretary of State,
authorise the Secretary of State to take action under this Act to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not require a person (“the parent”) to give him the authorisation mentioned in subsection (1) if he considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) if the parent were to be required to give that authorisation; or
(b) if she were to give it,
there would be a risk of her, or of any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress as a result.

enemes

Why is it assumed in law that the reciprient is a 'she'?

As a bloke, I now see why I can get nothing from my ex (the nrp) 'cos of a legal lophole, ie I'm a 'he'!

speedster

well noticed, but has already been explored.

unfortunately it cant be applied retrospectively.

MIKEtheBIKE_2

Can you point me to the evidence of this exploration please?

I opted not to use the CSA in 1999 when I started my private arrangement with my ex-wife due to undue distress caused by the CSA.

Where would I stand legally?

LizzieS_2

MIKEtheBIKE wrote: »

(b) if she were to give it,
there would be a risk of her, or of any child living with her, suffering harm or undue distress as a result.

Major flaw in your idea is that authorisation has already been given via Income Support claim so (b) above would not apply.

iluvfreebies

you can apply to the csa regardless of what sex you are - i imagine that the law states somewhere that the use of the word she for parent with case is for illustrative purposes only or something to that effect - the law has been amended since section 6 was withdrawn so it may not apply anymore.

MIKEtheBIKE_2

The law was changed some years ago to amend the words 'he' and 'she'

Lizzie - in what form was authorization given by income support claimants, please? Just trying to piece together the scenario.

LizzieS_2

MIKEtheBIKE wrote: »

The law was changed some years ago to amend the words 'he' and 'she'

Lizzie - in what form was authorization given by income support claimants, please? Just trying to piece together the scenario.

It is given on the initial claim for income support, ie there is a question asking if pwc has any objections to csa becoming involved. Only when an objection is made do they investigate further to identify if the objection is for a valid reason (eg violence) or, if the reason is invalid whereby pwc has the option to either agree to csa involvement or take a reduction to income support benefits.

Prior to 2008 there was never an option for pwc/nrp to have private arrangements if pwc was on income related benefits.

kelloggs36

Correct - if they had a private agreement then the PWC on benefits will have been committing benefit fraud if they did not declare this income to income support.

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Correct - if they had a private agreement then the PWC on benefits will have been committing benefit fraud if they did not declare this income to income support.

pffffffffff, that matters not to the csa. they are not interested at all. even when supplied with concrete proof.

all they say is "that's another department" then when you send the proof to the benefit fraud people, they ignore it too.

strange that eh? i bet if it was a male PWC committing fraud, they'd throw the bloody book at him.

kelloggs36

you talk rubbish!! It is true that it is NOT the responsibility of the CSA to prove benefit fraud, and it is up to income support to decide whether to investigate; however if caught, then the PWC regardless of gender is in big trouble.