We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Just a vent about the CSA...

I have a son who i claimed for 7 years ago when he was born. I never had any payments despite getting random letters saying i'd be getting £5 a week. Wasn't too bothered so left it and asked them to close the case.

My baby was born last December, i applied for maintenance shortly after.

While on the phone to give more details etc they mentioned my son's case so i said well i thought that was closed long ago... so they said they'd close it this time...
I find out later that they sent a letter to Ex1 saying i've closed the claim for my baby daughter!!! !!!!!!.... this could have caused so much trouble.

So i ring up and they say they've closed the case for my baby! I said no i wanted to close my son's case (!!!!!!). I then get a letter saying "we are writing to confirm we have closed your claim for *daughter*" :eek::eek: (So this is twice they've "closed" her case.)

Unbelievable.

Anyway, Ex2 finally gets a letter referring to our daughter and her name is and always has been *first name* *my surname*. The letter refers to *first name* *his surname*. Obviously this resurfaced arguments we had in the first place about whose name she should have!!

I've just rang to ask !!!!!!, and he said her name is *his surname* and it is correct as our info comes from child benefit dept etc. I said No that's NEVER been her name, and he demands to see birth certificates to prove it...... Thing is the previous letters from the CSA all refer to her as *my surname*.

Unbloodybelievable!!

..And i still haven't had any money :mad:

Comments

  • romanempire
    romanempire Posts: 194 Forumite
    All the more reason why you should do it all in writing. ;)
  • borders_dude
    borders_dude Posts: 1,974 Forumite
    BeenieCat wrote: »
    I have a son who i claimed for 7 years ago when he was born. I never had any payments despite getting random letters saying i'd be getting £5 a week. Wasn't too bothered so left it and asked them to close the case.

    My baby was born last December, i applied for maintenance shortly after.

    While on the phone to give more details etc they mentioned my son's case so i said well i thought that was closed long ago... so they said they'd close it this time...
    I find out later that they sent a letter to Ex1 saying i've closed the claim for my baby daughter!!! !!!!!!.... this could have caused so much trouble.

    So i ring up and they say they've closed the case for my baby! I said no i wanted to close my son's case (!!!!!!). I then get a letter saying "we are writing to confirm we have closed your claim for *daughter*" :eek::eek: (So this is twice they've "closed" her case.)

    Unbelievable.

    Anyway, Ex2 finally gets a letter referring to our daughter and her name is and always has been *first name* *my surname*. The letter refers to *first name* *his surname*. Obviously this resurfaced arguments we had in the first place about whose name she should have!!

    I've just rang to ask !!!!!!, and he said her name is *his surname* and it is correct as our info comes from child benefit dept etc. I said No that's NEVER been her name, and he demands to see birth certificates to prove it...... Thing is the previous letters from the CSA all refer to her as *my surname*.

    Unbloodybelievable!!

    ..And i still haven't had any money :mad:

    Presumably you have lodged a full and comprehensive complaint with the CSA regarding their maladministration?
    When dealing with the CSA its important to note that it is commonly accepted as unfit for purpose, and by default this also means the staff are unfit for purpose.
  • BeenieCat
    BeenieCat Posts: 6,567 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Lol not yet no, was just getting itoff my chest, i know full well how useless they are from 7 years ago :p
  • DX2
    DX2 Posts: 8,275 Forumite
    BeenieCat wrote: »
    Lol not yet no, was just getting itoff my chest, i know full well how useless they are from 7 years ago :p
    So what makes you think they have changed in seven years ;)
    *SIGH*
    :D
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.1K Life & Family
  • 260.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.