CSA 'GOOD CAUSE' rejected - do I appeal?

Astaroth

ritac1 wrote:

Astaroth, I take great exception to your comments.

As I said.... to play devils advocate.

Is there that greater difference between this and a 47 year old who has never previously claimed benefits and upon losing their job decides to "gift" their savings to someone else to enable them to claim benefits rather than having to use up their savings first and then get their benefits to supliment these?

astonsmummy

I dont see how you can compare the two
The op isnt trying deceive csa or benefits, she is generally worried for her and her kids.
Its not as if she's telling csa she doesnt know where he is but is getting money off him. geese!

ritac1

The difference is that mine is a legitimate claim against someone gifting their savings away then claiming benefits which would be classed as 'disposing of capital' in order to claim benefits, which is entirely different, and wrong.

Rebekka_2

Right have found this - If the decision maker decides that you have not shown good cause for opting out of your application for child maintenance, your benefit may be reduced by 40% of the IS/JSA(IB) adult persoanl allowance
It seems that they decide who gets what reduced up to 40%, i got the full 40% taken off me:rolleyes:

Astaroth

The op isnt trying deceive csa or benefits, she is generally worried for her and her kids

But there is the intentional depriving yourself of money.... obviously she feels she has a very good reason for not wanting him to pay for his responsibilities but at the same time in the hypothetically situation a parent may think it is very important to give their kid a gift of £10k as they have just split from a partner/ business is going under/ is getting married etc.

Any how.... it would appear that the OP takes offence at the idea of a devils advocate/ theoretical discussion and so I will drop the subject

magyar

I can perfectly see Astaroth's point here (and again, I accept he's being hypothetical).

The CSA, or whatever you replace it with, has to have rules by which it operates. These rules currently state you have to allow it to try and recover money from people who, by rights, should be paying it.

If the person in question then is violent or in any other way breaks the law, then you have the police to protect you.

If course I'm being idealistic here; I know that the police don't come running round and I know that the CSA is a disorganised waste of space, but this is about policy and it would appear to me that the policy, as it stands, is correct.

astonsmummy

Astaroth wrote:

But there is the intentional depriving yourself of money.... obviously she feels she has a very good reason for not wanting him to pay for his responsibilities but at the same time in the hypothetically situation a parent may think it is very important to give their kid a gift of £10k as they have just split from a partner/ business is going under/ is getting married etc.

Any how.... it would appear that the OP takes offence at the idea of a devils advocate/ theoretical discussion and so I will drop the subject

Think about it, have you ever lived on benefits?
You would have to have a good reason (which the op has) or be completely mad to want to deprive yourself and children of any money received from benefits.
The op has asked a question, i fail to see how any of your comments have helped?
At the end of the day, if he didnt already know where she lived then i would be saying there is no need to opt out.
But he knows where she lives and she understandably doesnt want to rock the boat.

magyar

astonsmummy wrote:

Think about it, have you ever lived on benefits?
You would have to have a good reason (which the op has) or be completely mad to want to deprive yourself and children of any money received from benefits.
The op has asked a question, i fail to see how any of your comments have helped?
At the end of the day, if he didnt already know where she lived then i would be saying there is no need to opt out.
But he knows where she lives and she understandably doesnt want to rock the boat.

At the risk of complicating further, Astaroth's point is that for example, someone could collude with the father and make out he shouldn't be contacted, agree to share the difference in the money owed to the CSA and who would know? (It would of course be benefit fraud).

I believe the point was a theoretical point meant to balance up the idea that the CSA are a load of thoughtless, incompetent buffoons.

In this case, I would strongly argue that this is a "just cause". Is there a court order or anything on him? Any material information you have showing his behaviour, e.g. dates on which you contacted the police, correspondence from him would also be useful. If you appeal then any of this may help them come to the correct conclusion.

You might ask Citizen's Advice Bureau for advice; also do you have house insurance which might have legal advice?

astonsmummy

i understand asroths point, the point i'm trying to make is, why post it when the op has asked for help.
its not a dicussion on benefit fraud, there are plent in DT.

magyar

astonsmummy wrote:

i understand asroths point, the point i'm trying to make is, why post it when the op has asked for help.
its not a dicussion on benefit fraud, there are plent in DT.

At the risk of going completely OT, you didn't actually seem to understand the point, which is why you asked "why would someone deprive themselves".

Agree that the OP did specifically ask for help, so perhaps Astaroth's comments could have been better placed elsewhere, although I did think they were a useful background into WHY the CSA might come to that conclusion. (When on the face of it, it's an open and shut case)