Legal Enforcement Officer Visit

Wasteland_Drifter

I speak from first hand experience. If a judge in a mags court is satisfied the assessment is wrong, then he can dismiss an application for committal.

Committal to prison is for those who REFUSE fo pay.

manglesey25

Fission wrote: »

That is a fantasy.

The Following User Says Thank You to Fission For This Useful Post: Show me >>
PreludeForTimeFeelers (Yesterday)

The Following User Says Thank You to Fission For This Useful Post: Show me >>
kelloggs36 (Yesterday)

wishful thinking eh?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

manglesey25 wrote: »

wishful thinking eh?

Wishful thinking..?

Light_Speed_Cruiser

Fission wrote: »

Total nonsense. The court has no such power and is specifically forbidden from questioning the assessment because they have no power in relation to it.

The man at the centre of the discussion needs better advice then you are giving.

F

Its you that is talking nonsence.

I was sent for committal by the CSA and I got it thrown out of court.

It can be done, and judges do have the means to dismiss the application.

You need to brush up on the legislation, Section 33/4 of CSA '91 only applies to LO applications , not committal proceedings.

bdt1

Ok been through similar and got many CSA t-shirts as regulars on here will know!!!!

Sounds as if CSA arepursuing and enforcing the debt irrespective of whether it is correct or not - this is common practice!!

By them asking for a meeting with a Legal Enforcement Officer, it may be that this is a Criminal Compliance Officer, who commonly visit 'clients' in their own homes, or more rarely it may a CSA Enforcement Officer who is now performing home visits?

If it is Criminal Compliance you are dealing with they do exactly as says on tin, where there has been any hint of 'diversion of income/property, or likes of not declaring earnings fully' then Criminal Compliance tend to deal with this type of stuff, perform an investigation, interview usually 'under caution' and file a report of their findings for CSA then to reassess or act upon.

If it is Legal Enforcement, again b this is what it says on tin, they are there to enforce the debt, whether it is correct or not!! In our case, we were appealing the debt, but CSA enforced it anyway, despite our fight against such action, so be prepared!!

In our experience CSA said we owed £34,000, we disputed this, as CSA had made many errors in calculations, but despite us putting in an appeal, CSA then got a Laibility Order (the Judge wept as she could see the stress we were under, and the fear for our home), the Judge said she had never felt so powerless in her own Court!! Once the LO was granted CSA sent bailiffs to our home on several occasions, they then got a CCJ for the alleged debt, and finally went for a charge on our home!!

Upshot of it is, CSA Appeal system takes so long - ours nearly 3 years!! CSA will bully enforcement in the meantime, even if you may lose your home for a de3bt you never owed in 1st place!! In our case after the LO, CCJ, bailiff action, and interim charge on our home was granted, the Appeal Tribunal went in our favour, and CSA 'corrected' the arrears figure - it now stands at £2,700, yet we going to another appeal as we can prove this is still not right and we owe ZILCH!!!!!

So, the tax-payer (myself included in this category) has paid for 3 Independent Tribunal hearings (soon to be 4!!), a Magistrate Court hearing, and to date 4 County Court hearings with a 5th in November this year, for a debt we have never owed!!! Quality service by the CSA and no wonder the country is in such a state - irresponsible action by white collar jobsworth nobodies - they should be hung for the devastation they cause to both NRP and PWC, not to say how the current system fails the children involved - rant over, but you will have a fight on your hands, good luck and we are here for advcie if you need us!!

bdt1

Fission wrote: »

That is a fantasy.

Following a reference of the issue to court (Section 39), the only power given to the court under Section 40 and its later extensions in the form of Sections 40A and 40B is to issue, or not to issue, a warrant for imprisonment or a disqualification from driving. There is no power under those sections (40, 40A, 40B) for the court to assess child maintenance.

I hope no-one relies too heavily on your advice.

If there is any debt outsatnding that is evidenced by the CSA then it is usual for the LO to be granted, it is difficult for a Magistrate to question it!! The Magistrate is not there to challenge the figures, and will 99% grant LO on strength that CSA are owed a debt by the defendant!

It can at times be adjourned pending an appeal, but in our case this was not so, it was granted then we had to unpick the 'alleged' arrears

CSA_Help

bdt1 wrote: »

Ok been through similar and got many CSA t-shirts as regulars on here will know!!!!


Ive not got a CSA tshirt yet. How many times does it take for them to screw up before you get one.:D

Light_Speed_Cruiser

I dont have a t-shirt either, but I do have a CSA sick bag. From CSA Czech Airlines on a stag weekend in Prague.

I made a written complaint on the side of it after my prison committal application was slung out of court. The CSA of the DWP fraternity didnt share my SOH.

blimey40

I still have a county court liability order for £29,000 in my name (from alleged debt after June 2000) and even though CSA now admit they are wrong, they have sone nothing to quash it or let the courts know its wrong.

Just the kind of organisation NRP's have to deal with. Of course the UK is full of absent fathers, but CSA either tarnish all NRP's with the same brush or simply play ignorant to the facts.

You have to remember the CSA makes money for the government, if it did not make money for them, it wouldn't exist. They will tell you its all about the welfare of the children. Reality is, they recoup debt at every opportunity in order that the CSA remains profitable.

kevin137

manglesey25 wrote: »

If you can, video the meeting without telling them, make sure you have the officers face and the recording can hear him clearly.

Be very careful with this, as none of it is admissible, and can lead you to a lot of trouble...

However, that said, if there is a notice that clearly states that the premises is secured by CCTV (notice inside the door) then cctv is acceptable as a form of video recording, you can get some really good cameras now that connect to your pc/mac and record motion and sound and that could be left clearly on show and there is nothing he can do about it as he has been notified.

I had 4 cameras in my flat and it recorded everything everywhere including on the doorstep...!!!