CSA are planning to charge us for there services

PreludeForTimeFeelers

What sort of questions have people got based on this Green Paper so far?

clearingout

I think for me, the questions come more around what isn't said than what is. I get the point of trying to force parents to work together and either it'll work or it won't. I can see that in some cases it might eliminate 'pay per view'. What I want to know is how they're going to deal with those who are non-compliant. The areas that stand out for me are as follows:

- the paper states that tax information will be made available to couples to work things out. It suggests then, that the HMRC and CSA (and, I guess mediators, solicitors at some level) will have good working links. How will this work with those who are non-compliant? So, for example, my ex hadn't filed a tax return - either personal or company - since 05/06. We split at the end of 08. I had no idea he hadn't done the tax returns - he had told me that he had. CSA caseworker can see, so she tells me, that he hasn't filed his accounts (I presume she's on the Companies House website). So, how come two years later, my ex is walking free having not paid personal tax or Corporation Tax (he is sole director of the company so no one else is accountable), not having filed accounts (supposedly a criminal offence), not having notified the CSA of his change of address twice (also supposedly a criminal offence), not having paid CSA either personally or through his company when a DEO was set up (supposedly a criminal offence for the company) etc. etc. etc.? How are the CSA, HMRC and Companies House going to work together to sort this out so that 3 small children' don't go without? Will the Law, as it stands, allow these government organisations to work together to prosecute? As I see it, they all know my ex is evading them as single organisations, they probably know he's evading the other organisations, but how are they going to work TOGETHER to solve this issue? Will the computer systems work together to flag this up?

- the paper states that they will move swiftly to deal with non-payers. How swift is swiftly?! Again, my ex declared an income from his own company and provided payslips. A DEO was set up. It wasn't paid. Why am I still waiting for payment almost 18 months later? The CSA's systems and procedures seem to give chance after chance after chance. Why? Why is it not one strike and you're out? Is there manpower available to deal with this swiftly? Can the court system cope with things being dealt with swiftly? For family issues, it can take 3 months to get a court appointment....

- will NRPs who evade the payment of maintenance be required to pay the legal costs of chasing them up as well as pay the CSA admin charges for on-going maintenance?

- why should PWC who do their best to get an ex into mediation, who try to negoiate through solicitors etc. etc. and who are ignored and/or messed about (ex not turning up to appointments made etc.etc.) pay for the priviledge of opening a CSA case?

- why should a PWC who doesn't block contact but who's ex wants to evade maintenance, have to pay for the privildedge of opening a CSA case? My children have a legal right to maintenance, why should their payments, when received, be reduced because their NRP doesn't want to be an adult and sit down at a table with me to work it out amicably?

- what is going to be done about the self-employed who routinely hide their income, legitmately, using their accountants? Is it going to be easier to have a variation approved? Can the Law be changed around new partners drawing an income whilst the ex receives nothing to legitimately evade child maintenance?

Will re-read and see what else I can come up with. I guess a lot of my queries are based on my experience but that's how life is.

RedSky

Clearingout, a lot of your questions focus on enforcement procedures and powers which is not the subject of these proposals. My understanding is that these proposals are specific to promoting positive relations to increase private arrangements and reduce the current bill to taxpayers for running CMEC.

clearingout wrote: »

- will NRPs who evade the payment of maintenance be required to pay the legal costs of chasing them up as well as pay the CSA admin charges for on-going maintenance?

Chap2, para 34 states "Additionally, we will charge the non-resident parent when enforcement measures (for example, an order of sale for property) are used."

clearingout wrote: »

- why should PWC who do their best to get an ex into mediation, who try to negoiate through solicitors etc. etc. and who are ignored and/or messed about (ex not turning up to appointments made etc.etc.) pay for the priviledge of opening a CSA case?
- why should a PWC who doesn't block contact but who's ex wants to evade maintenance, have to pay for the privildedge of opening a CSA case? My children have a legal right to maintenance, why should their payments, when received, be reduced because their NRP doesn't want to be an adult and sit down at a table with me to work it out amicably?

Alternatively, why should the taxpayers pay £460 million a years for the privilege of sorting out financial disputes between PWCs and NRPs.

clearingout wrote: »

- what is going to be done about the self-employed who routinely hide their income, legitmately, using their accountants?

The rules on declaring income is HMRC's specialist subject not CMEC (even though CM is calculated on HMRC accepted figures). If HMRC accept it then CMEC have to use it.


Ultimately the Gov do not regard the taxpayer spending 40p for every £1 collected in CM represents value for money.

clearingout

Hi Redsky,
Yes, you're right. I take the thing too personally, I guess! and I agree, as a tax payer, 40p in the £1 collected isn't good.

From my perspective, there is no financial dispute between my ex and I - there has been no opportunity to dispute anything, he just sticks his head in the sand! The issue for me, then, is around our children now going without (in a big way) whilst he takes holidays and lives it up. If the CSA weren't there, I couldn't afford to keep chasing him through the courts. So that would be it. A man allowed to father three children and never support them. What worries me is that cases like mine are not the norm (even if they appear to be on here) and we'll be left with nothing as the cost of chasing entirely non-compliant exs is too great to the tax payer? The absence of enforcement, perhaps, in this paper is therefore what's worrying me?

vasseur

clearingout wrote: »

Hi Redsky,

If the CSA weren't there, I couldn't afford to keep chasing him through the courts. So that would be it. A man allowed to father three children and never support them. What worries me is that cases like mine are not the norm (even if they appear to be on here) and we'll be left with nothing as the cost of chasing entirely non-compliant exs is too great to the tax payer? The absence of enforcement, perhaps, in this paper is therefore what's worrying me?

This is what's worrying me too.

mrsspendalot

Me too!

I think that when you've been left with no choice but to go to the CSA, and then even that has failed you, it leaves a very bitter taste. I have been on the phone to my ex again today pleading with him to stop making life so difficult, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears again.

At least I know that at the moment the CSA will eventually catch up and secure payment .... it is the thought of not having that to back me up that worries me. I too would be unable to afford constant fees to pursue him.

I agree that the current system is not representing value for money for the tax payer, and am not against charging entirely. However, I think that if charges are brought in they need to be applied fairly. The way the proposals are laid out make me feel that I would be financially punished for having a non-compliant ex. This is not fair on me and my children, we're already suffering!

Perhaps if they truly want parents to work together then the charge for applying needs to be applied 50/50, and maybe payable only when maintenance has been secured.

I feel quite strongly that although the paper talks a lot of vulnerable groups, they are going to make more women vulnerable under the proposals. A lot of noise is made about women using the CSA as a threat, a bargaining tool against their exes which leads to much animosity between parents. I understand this view - it certainly has been used in my husband's case with his ex wife. However, there are also going to be men who will relish the thought of being able to dangle over the woman's head the fact that if they want to chase them for maintenance they will have to find £100 to apply, with no guarantee of success. I think this leaves a lot of women vulnerable - it is an abuse of power. (I realise I am generalising here that PWC are female and NRPs are male - but in the majority of cases they are.)

I also wonder what the plans are for closing cases where there are substantial arrears from years of non-compliance or just backdating from reassessments etc.?

I think most of us would agree that it is important to have a system that is fit for purpose and works, and the current one certainly doesn't. However, they really need to get this new approach right - we've been messed about too much already!

RedSky

Lets hope that by reducing the workload of routine cases they can spend more time on dealing with the difficult cases.

Sensemaya

mrsspendalot wrote: »

my guess is they will ignore the lot, do what they want anyway and then it will all still go wrong

Got it in one.The govt has already decided what they are going to do. Collecting maintenance will still be a mess and (although one thinks it can't)it will become an even bigger mess.

As for charging it is outrageous.

The govt is desperate for cash. It's occuring across the board.

One example is abolishing EMA. We already knew that was happening, but today they are supposed to be discussing it!!!!

When the charging process kicks in and things are pear-shaped, just like they are now, I doubt the system, which is so slow and painful, will be speeded up for recourse.

I contributed to the Henshaw Report. He got paid 65K for that report which solved b*gger all. Did they listen to Joe Public and the specialists, like Stephen Lawson?

No! And they won't listen now.

It all comes down to the fact the govt is broke and it's clawing (painfully) money back from the public.

They could do with a paycut themselves considering they always look after No 1. Themselves!

I wonder whether Vertex's contract is being renewed. Probably.After all they and the govt get interest on the money they hold back and don't pay out in a timely manner.

Sensemaya

RedSky wrote: »

Lets hope that by reducing the workload of routine cases they can spend more time on dealing with the difficult cases.

Hope is rose tinted specs.They can't even get routine cases right.

RedSky

Sensemaya wrote: »

The govt is desperate for cash. It's occuring across the board.

It all comes down to the fact the govt is broke and it's clawing (pianfully) money back from the public.

The UK has a £43 billion interest bill this year due to our national debt. That is £1,800 per household.

So you would prefer taxes were raised opposed to potential savings made in areas such as CMEC?