Reporting the Ex After 10 years, Advice Wanted.

Roy_G_Biv

If the OP is genuine, then this is route I would go. This method worked very well for me.

He says he has had the children for the last 10 years but his ex has been claiming the benefits. He then needs to write a sworn statement of fact (an affidavit) to that effect.

If a CSA official chooses to disregard that statement without having any evidence to the contrary with intent to obtain a money transfer, then the official commits perjury and fraud under sections 2/4 of the 2006 Fraud Act.

The OP then contacts the childs school and asks for headed document confirming the OP is the contact parent and attended parent/teacher interviews etc, and he can also give receipts for purchases relating to the child and his council tax occupancy records.

While this puts CSA official under investigation by the Economic Crimes Unit and potentially writes off a civil servants career in the process, its very effective for the OP in removing the liability claimed by the CSA with the least amount of work on the OPs part.

Remember, the OP must submit the SWORN STATEMENT FIRST, and THEN the CSA must pervert it BEFORE the OP gives the supporting evidence.

I found that if a CSA official intends to make a false representation about a parents circumstances (under their own free will), be sure sure the CSA carries all the risk.

speedster

Roy_G_Biv wrote: »

A Sworn statement is legal evidence in its own right.

If a CSA official disregards such a statement without having any evidence to the contrary, then the official commits Perjury.

all good in theory, but none of your posts are factually correct. as in, they would be correct in any other situation rather than dealing with these chimps. they are the only people able to get a LO without proving the debt is correct !!!!!!.

what you have to remember is that the csa are pretty much exempt from a lot of laws (including the HRA) and make up the rules as they go along.

so, although you mean well, following your advice will get the OP nowhere i'm afraid.

Roy_G_Biv

speedster wrote: »

following your advice will get the OP nowhere i'm afraid.

Unfortunately I speak from experience, however you are right, the Police have a propensity to dismiss crimes committed by a government official to be a civil matter or other, but this in itself is an offence because it is concealment of a crime and commits Perverting the Course of Justice at common law.

There is no leglslation that provides immunity from criminal prosecution if a person in public office or a civil servant commits an offence.

Once a complaint addressed to the Chief Constable was made, a detective was quickly assigned to the case without further ado. While its unlikely to result in a case being passed to a Crown Prosecutor, it is very effective in getting the CSA to cooperate and comply with child maintenance rules.

The alternative was a corruption scandal being exposed.

Roy_G_Biv

speedster wrote: »

the csa are pretty much exempt from a lot of laws (including the HRA).

I appreciate you are dismissive in telling me "none of your posts are factually correct", can you show me where you got the above fact from?

kelloggs36

Roy_G_Biv wrote: »

If the OP is genuine, then this is route I would go. This method worked very well for me.

He says he has had the children for the last 10 years but his ex has been claiming the benefits. He then needs to write a sworn statement of fact (an affidavit) to that effect.

If a CSA official chooses to disregard that statement without having any evidence to the contrary with intent to obtain a money transfer, then the official commits perjury and fraud under sections 2/4 of the 2006 Fraud Act.

The OP then contacts the childs school and asks for headed document confirming the OP is the contact parent and attended parent/teacher interviews etc, and he can also give receipts for purchases relating to the child and his council tax occupancy records. This does not prove residence.

While this puts CSA official under investigation by the Economic Crimes Unit and potentially writes off a civil servants career in the process, its very effective for the OP in removing the liability claimed by the CSA with the least amount of work on the OPs part.

Remember, the OP must submit the SWORN STATEMENT FIRST, and THEN the CSA must pervert it BEFORE the OP gives the supporting evidence. As there is no evidence other than the NRP's word the CSA cannot close the case and write off the arrears. There has to be proven fraud committed by the PWC and that means an Income Support investigation. If that is proven, THEN the CSA can close case backdated.

I found that if a CSA official intends to make a false representation about a parents circumstances (under their own free will), be sure sure the CSA carries all the risk.

....................................................................

KarmaAmelia_2

Evidence isn't just the benefits - in a court you can prove residence with other factors. Like who takes him to the dentist or who took him to the doctors. Plus the school will have records of the signed authorisations from school trips etc and legally have to keep these for 6 years. Plus they will be able to advise which parent went to parents evenings etc.

There are lots of methods of proof of residence that can be taken into account - not just who's claiming the benefits.

Roy_G_Biv

kelloggs36 wrote: »

This does not prove residence

When what does prove residcency?

the PWCs word for it?

Roy_G_Biv

KarmaAmelia wrote: »

Evidence isn't just the benefits - in a court you can prove residence with other factors. Like who takes him to the dentist or who took him to the doctors. Plus the school will have records of the signed authorisations from school trips etc .

My thoughts likewise, I think its enough to cook a goose.

Roy_G_Biv

kelloggs36 wrote: »

There has to be proven fraud committed by the PWC

The sworn statement route is nothing to do with proving fraud by a PWC, its all about proving fraud by the CSA.

Bloomin_Freezing2

well all i can say is good luck, the csa are all a bunch of @*&^%$