CSA gets a new hat CMEC

Sensemaya

If you scroll down to page 104 " A new system of child maintenance" you will see the number of people that responded to Henshaw's proposals.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/childmaintenance/

I am dismayed to find the small number of people that bothered.

We have a chance of responding to the white paper. Please, everyone, contact your MPs for a hard copy of this ( I like scrawling my thoughts on paper ) and submit your responses.

krashovr10ad

++

you will see the number of people that responded to Henshaw's proposals.

I take it they didn't write to everyone currently involved with the CSA be they employee, PWC or NRP..??

We have a chance of responding to the white paper.

I shall be requesting my copy and responding accordingly - just to let my MP know that I haven't gone away and will be writing again...

++

ReportInvestor

Brilliant & perceptive writing :rotfl: if not very optimistic about future progress in this area .

Simon Hoggard on the gap between Pollytics and politics

How big government and the best intentions can easily turn sour .

I've thought about this overnight and if I was in government this is what I'd do.

1) Require a father to appear on a birth certificate (I think the government is going to do this as it has resulted in 1/10 CSA cases foundering).
2) Require all absent fathers to submit tax returns to the Revenue regardless of their income or whether they have a voluntary agreement to pay maintenance to their former spouse.
3) Direct extra resources to check these returns.
4) If voluntary arrangements break down then take payments (by altering the tax code of the fathers) from their income tax even though this will be 1.5 years out of date.
5) Allow the fathers to reclaim some of this if their income drastically reduces.

So why hasn't the government gone for this solution?

I guess it's

a) the cost to the Revenue in terms of £s and reputation
b) the probably overwhelming bill re complaints to the Ombudsman on human rights grounds of such an enforcement regime.

So belatedly I do agree with the LibDems (not my natural place) that the government's attempts to be seen to be more hard hitting in his area are "gimmicky".

But would agree with the government that the LibDems would be squealing on behalf of fathers on human rights grounds if the government ever got tough.

krashovr10ad

++

I'd just like them to get things right this time...

As an NRP who pays I'd like them to get the assessment processes sorted so that everyone is assessed under one system...

None of this pre-2003 you can pay 30% for a single child but after 2003 you only need to pay 15% and after 2010 you only need to pay 10%...

But most importantly - I'd like them to make sure that they collect the money owed and that it actually goes to where it's meant to...

++

kelloggs36

Scarlett1 wrote:

oh yes you would, on the news recently they showed the CSA with really plush offices :rotfl: :rotfl:

Which office was that then? I have worked in the CSA and believe me, the staff do NOT work in plush offices. The customers of the DSS get the plush places to make their claims and kick and scream at the staff, but the staff who work upstairs away from the direct contact, work in very out of date, drafty offices with ill-fitting windows and carpets that are threadbare to say the very least. We are lucky if there is a staff canteen (in the large CSACs there are, but in the local offices there are none). We have to take in our own cups and drinks as they don't supply anything for us at all. Civil service is NOT an easy ride as some may suggest and the pensions for the MOST of us are pretty c**p. It is only top management who get the best deals and despite Gordon's pledge to put money into frontline services, it is the frontline services jobs that are going as the top management all keep their own jobs.

As for the new CSA, it sounds ok, but the Government seriously underestmate the couples who can make agreements between themselves. All private cases are because one or other of the couple cannot agree, hence they have gone to CSA - the choice is already there. Yes it will help those on benefits as they will surely all choose not to go to CSA (or whatever it's called) as they won't have their money deducted. This seems a bit stupid to me - sure, put the limits up, but for those who get high maintenance, will also get their benefits, even if they may not need them due to the high maintenance - or have I understood it wrong? Maybe they have to declare the income to Income Support and have a high disregard, say 100 quid a week or something, but if they get high maintenance plus their benefits, where is the incentive to stay together? I am sure it will tempt some people to make false claims (and they do happen!! Obviously not everybody, but unscrupulous people will try it). If I got 150 quid a week in maintenance from my ex, plus my benefits, I would be hell a lot better off than if we stayed together and claimed child tax credits as we don't qualify for anything else. I am not sure I agree with this idea 100% although the principal makes sense of giving people the choice.

The CSA already have access to the Inland Revenue records this won't change anything. The problem with the Self Employed lies with the lack of investigation from the Inland Revenue as it is so easy to get away with lying to them with regards true income. My ex for example is a builder and claims to earn less than 150 quid a week which has been accepted by the Inland Revenue. The CSA Tribunal threw out his claim that this was his income due to contradictory evidence which he has not showed to the Inland Revenue. Only 3% of Self Assessment cases ever get checked - the rest are accepted without question which gives for a high probability that you won't get caught. If they could get this sort of problem sorted out, it would be a step in the right direction for those PWCs who have NRPs who couldn't tell the truth if it bit them on the backside!

The reason why the enforcement failed in the past is because the CSA's policy decision makers did not want bad publicity for the CSA for coming down too hard on NRPs who failed to pay, so it was always the softly softly approach. Despite evidence to show that this failed, they ignored it. Baroness Hollis made an agreement with the Chief Executive of the CSA NOT to take certain action which was legislated for, thus preventing the CSA from taking all action that they legally could. This has had catastrophic results and I believe is the main reason for the mess they are in today. The message got out early that the CSA were soft on non-payers. They should have acted sooner on all non-paying cases and taken ALL action they could in order to enforce payment. Had they sent more non-payers to prison, or taken away driving licenses then the message would have been of a tough nature and would have prevented some NRPs from taking a chance.

People have complained that taking driving licenses away will prevent them from working. So what? That's the whole point. If they don't pay their maintenance, then they can't earn a living. They can choose to be unemployed if they like but may find themselves sanctioned for deliberately making themselves unemployed. I have no sympathy because the answer is pretty clear - pay up or don't work. If you need to work to pay your bills you will pay your maintenance or lose your job. Most people wouldn't dream of not paying their mortgage, but feel they can choose not to maintain their own children.

iluvfreebies

lynzpower wrote:

Does anyone know where the CSA is based? I wouldnt mind a job there to be honest.

i can assure u u wouldnt like a job there
All due respect - The staff in the child support agency always do their best with the legislationg and computer system they have to work with. However people are very unkind to us. We do not make the law!!!

kelloggs36

I loved working at CSA, but I was not stuck in the office, I was out and about as a Face to Face officer, so my day was varied and not hampered by useless computer systems! However, the main complaint was about the legislation and iluvfreebies is right, it aint our fault!!!! We can only do our best to implement a bad plan that senior management have no ideas how to fix!

Sensemaya

Kelloggs - Excellent post, which I have thanked you for.

Report Investor - I'm going to have a CSA weekend and study the white paper. I would like to keep this thread alive and kicking.

I see the Lords have already renamed the new system as ...wait for it....C - MESS.:T :T :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Fantastic!!!!!!!!

aMeLia'S~MuMMY

Scarlett1 wrote:

oh yes you would, on the news recently they showed the CSA with really plush offices :rotfl: :rotfl:

You may see the offices as plush but it certainly aint where I work!! and your are not guaranteed a desk when you get into work.:A

Scarlett1

aMeLia'S~MuMMY wrote:

You may see the offices as plush but it certainly aint where I work!! and your are not guaranteed a desk when you get into work.:A

If I give you my details can you push for the arrears to be paid to me :whistle: