CSA arrears from 2001

janemau

The CSA have just contacted me to say I owe £6500 which they suspended in feb 2001.(when i lost my job and was on benefits)
I started to pay again in July 2003 which was backdated to the date I started working again (Jul 2001)
I continued to pay until 2008 when the CSA confirmed a nil balance

As there has been no mention of this old debit since Feb 2001

what should I do now? can I appeal? will I have to pay all this amount?

withabix

You haven't read that right have you?

As for the 'moral' issue, the CSA in this case are trying to recover money for the government coffers. None of it will go to the PWC.

The CSA have c0cked up somewhere. As usual.

The OP says he was out of work from Feb 2001 until July 2001.

He started paying again in July 2003 and they backdated his owed arrears amount.

They advised him that he had paid off the arrears in 2008, but now they are saying he owes £6500 from before that date.

OP: Write to them explaining the error of their ways.

Also copy to the head of the CSA and your local MP - do that at the same time and don't waste your time corresponding with the monkeys at the CSA first. Go straight for the jugular.

kelloggs36

The NRP has not said whether the PWC was on benefits so you cannot assume that she was and won't receive the arrears, if she was a private claimant, then she would get every single penny of it.

They can't write the debt off and have obviously unsuspended collection - they only suspended it because you weren't in a position to pay them, now you are, they quite rightly want the money.

withabix

Oh look, the person who posted a load of twaddle before my post deleted his post......

Chicken!!!!! boq boq boq boq!!!!!

withabix

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The NRP has not said whether the PWC was on benefits so you cannot assume that she was and won't receive the arrears, if she was a private claimant, then she would get every single penny of it.

They can't write the debt off and have obviously unsuspended collection - they only suspended it because you weren't in a position to pay them, now you are, they quite rightly want the money.

You've clearly misread his post as well....

PlayingHardball

withabix wrote: »

You've clearly misread his post as well....

I suspect you've misread the OP's post. Nowhere does he say that his ex was in receipt of benefits.

withabix

PlayingHardball wrote: »

I suspect you've misread the OP's post. Nowhere does he say that his ex was in receipt of benefits.

...and you've both misinterpreted mine.

This type of historic trawl back through old files that the CSA is doing is soleley to pay for the operation of the department and nothing to do with supporting children.

Unfortunately, it is a published fact that they actually spend as much money doing this as they actually recover, if not more.

Another Loony Labour reason why there are far too many people in the civil service operating the sausage machine just to operate the sausage machine....

786

"6.2.12 CHILD SUPPORT
The Child Support Agency has been thoroughly unsuccessful, exorbitantly and
disproportionately expensive for the state and has failed many of the most
needy parents. We believe that where neither party is in receipt of welfare
benefits and when the family court is making any other
orders for income or capital, child support should come
back within the court system. The court should then have
power tomake childmaintenance orders.Moreover where
there is no involvement of welfare benefits, a couple
should be able to reach an agreement, recorded in writing
and after legal advice, on child support which can be
lodged at the agency and take effect as an assessment. This
is the position in some other jurisdictions for example
Australia."

Centre for Social Justice

kelloggs36

And it doesn't say that he notified them that he was out of work either so you can't assume that the debt is not owed. Many NRPs expect the CSA to know that they claim benefits even without telling them, as they falsely believe that Income Support or JSA or whatever notify the CSA - they don't.