CSA- Going self employed

clearingout

richard12345 wrote: »

If the employer doesn't comply he is fined £1000 each time.

well, that's what they say. I could tell you different - my ex has had a DEO in place since July 2009. His company hasn't been fined and neither has he as sole director. This has a lot to do with how evasive he is, I know, but it is also an indicator of just how inefficient the CSA are. Smoke and mirrors. Lots of words but no flippin' action!

POPPYOSCAR

clearingout wrote: »

well, that's what they say. I could tell you different - my ex has had a DEO in place since July 2009. His company hasn't been fined and neither has he as sole director. This has a lot to do with how evasive he is, I know, but it is also an indicator of just how inefficient the CSA are. Smoke and mirrors. Lots of words but no flippin' action!

It just goes to show how unfair the whole system is.

Have you had it in writing from them just as to why they have not fined him?

clearingout

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

It just goes to show how unfair the whole system is.

Have you had it in writing from them just as to why they have not fined him?

No. The case has just moved to legal enforcement now after they got a Liablity Order so it's a question I shall be asking. Again. One of the issues is he's just not compliant in any area of his business - not with the HMRC, CSA or Companies House so he's very difficult to get hold of. I have given addresses etc. but they (the CSA) do have procedures to follow so that when things to eventually end up in court, they're not thrown out. Essentially, they have to give 'chances' to comply. Ridiculous, but there you go. At some point I guess it'll shift from civil to criminal and then things might get more interesting!

I have asked the question about prosecution - was told by the debt enforcement team that 'it's not an option that is open to us any longer. I'm sorry, I can't tell you why'. They are willing to tell me that he hasn't been in contact with them since November 2009 so it's not something he's told them. Given that his company is showing 'compulsory strike-off' on the Companies House website, and someone (ahem) might have contacted the HMRC about his lack of compliance with PAYE and NI (which affected me and my ability to claim maternity benefits, as the last job I had was with his company and I disovered he hadn't paid the NI), I can only assume that the system is (very slowly) catching up with him. So he's disappeared! I live in hope!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Is he classed as self-employed?

clearingout

yes and no. salaried director of a ltd. company.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

clearingout wrote: »

yes and no. salaried director of a ltd. company.

They should still have been able to ensure the DEO was imposed, I don't understand why this has never been referred to their criminal compliance officers.

speedster

a director is an employee, so subject to tax, NI etc. so is not SE.

the "company" is an identity in it's own right. it has it's own liabilities, facilities to acquire credit etc, etc.

the csa will send the DEO demands to the "company", not the ex, and they are liable to £1000 if they fail to comply. TBH, it looks like the company is about to be disolved, which would explain why the gestapo aren't chasing it.

they're up against ridiculous targets, so a hard ltd case isn't worth the aggro. far easier to pick up the next case and hammer the next PAYE sucker with a 40% deo. easy pickings.

clearingout

I think you're probably right Speedster. The issue there, though, is that children are going without and the CSA are not chasing the people that ultimately, they should be chasing above others who are being chased for far less reason. This is what is so frustrating. My ex would make a lovely case for someone to really get their teeth into!!!!

I am pretty sure that the case has been referred to the criminal compliance team (or at least, it has been with 'inspectors' and continues to be with them) but given that they can't get hold of the man, what are they going to do? you can't move something forward if you can't physically get a hold of the person with the answers. This is where the legal system as a whole fails people in my situation - it's too slow and whilst the powers that the CSA hold are clearly wide, they're not wide enough in a situation like this. So head down, move around, keep off PAYE and no one is any the wiser.

speedster

it is mainly down to the targets they have to hit.

and PAYE nrp's have always been the easy target. which is why the compliant are always the ones hit hardest.

combine that with a bunch of crayon munching chimps who are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, then it's hardly surprising they cant keep up with SE or LTD.

and with your case, they'll just keep fobbing you off. they have no intention of pursuing it as they'll have seen that he hasn't filed accounts with HMRC and companies house, so they know it's a waste of resources chasing it, cos once the company is disolved then they'll have to start all over again when he starts a new company.

Countryboy

Hi Cinders 30

Re you query on the above.

I went self employed (due to redundancy) in March 2010. For around 10 weeks I came to an agreement with the CSA to pay £100 per month until I could produce some accounts. The reason I could do this is that my wife is working but if you both have no income you can negotiate with the CSA on this figure. After I had produced my accounts, I was assessed and my liability was nowhere near the £100 per month. I received a refund from the CSA within a few weeks which was back dated to March. Hope this helps.

PS: For those on here who gripe about NRPs going self employed - are you not up to speed with the real world and the fact that no job is safe at the moment? Surely far better to get off your backside and make something of yourself rather than the prospect of sitting around claiming benefits.