when do csa get tough on employers?

designpollyana

thanks for all your replies. His employer does know how much to deduct etc this case has been going on for 5 years and he just pays for a bit then stops.
Today I received a variation form from csa so I phoned and asked why they had sent it. When they aswered the phone the man was clearly laughing and didn't speak for a min then didn't even apologise very proffessional!
They told me because I said he had a lifestyle that doesn't match his income so I said the fact he doesn't pay maintenance he has holidays, boozy wknds away and out every wknd, not bad for someone who cant afford £20 per wk for his kids. I tried to explain this and he said I needed to provide proof or they will not reassess the case. Its funny how I have been asking for this for 3 years and they have been waiting for proof of income from his employers and have now decided I need to provide proof. All they have to do is look at his wages.
People say about the way they speak to the absent parents but in my experience the resident parent is treat equally bad.

Miss_Sunshine****

Hi

I am in similar situation and have responded to your other post about collecting names for you MP. How are we ever supposed to prove that our ex s are having lavish lifestyles similarly my es is spending over 10k on holidays and over 2000 pounds per month on school fees for his new children. The CSA may ask for wage slips and may one day have the powers to investigate 'actual' earnings of self employed people but how will they ever crack down on lifestyle expenditure. Please ask you MP to to make CSA incorporate a new policy to investigate expenditure of ex partners to prove lifestyle is inconsistent with income. How can CSA ask me to investigate this how can I get hold of my ex's bank statements???!!! It's about time that policies are changed. It's our children who are suffering in all this and one day they will question their NRP to why their stepsiblings or half siblings got more than they did.

GL

gratefulforhelp_2

Blob wrote: »

What will it cost all concerned if employers close the doors and even more people end up out of work. The cost to the Gov and to the children will be big, this will affect the children of the compliant far more than the ones that aren't, do you want to take it out on theses children to get at the few? If you do then you need to think about what you are trying to achieve! Far more children will suffer if this action is taken even if they are in a home that has both of their parents there, is that what you want?

I'm not sure it is helpful to try to guilt trip a parent trying to get maintenance for their child.

Blob

You have to remember one thing, and that is the CSA was not set up, and was never conceived as a vehicle to provide money for the kids. This has been admitted in Parliament, its sole function is to save the Gov money, end of. That was the concept that Mrs Thacher came up with when it was founded, as the cost in benefits was getting out of control, my opinion it never achieved this, as the money that was taken from one was not necessarily paid to the kids of the relationship, but to a Gov pot to pay out to other peoples kids!

When they set up the CSA they sent round to all the Gov department that were about at the time to find people that would be moved into the new department, a friend of mine that worked in HMRC showed me the paperwork! The result is that a deal of house clearing was done by managers, in that they got rid of the people that they could not get rid of otherwise! Result, you have a department that has almost unlimited power, but if fact is a company and not a Gov Department and is staffed by the worst of the Civil Service. A recipe for disaster as history shows all to well.

The system run by the Courts worked and was run by Judges, they had to asses the whole situation and take into account all aspects of the situation. The one size fits all it not an option and never will be!

To the original post, under section 32 of Enforcement and Collection and if you ask for a booklet on this they 'should' send it out to you, any employer that fails to co-operate with the CSA in this matter can be fined up to £1,000. As to just why they have not used this part of the Law is anyone guess!

DUTR

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

I'm not sure it is helpful to try to guilt trip a parent trying to get maintenance for their child.

I think carrots always work better than sticks, encourage NRPs to contribute, not force thm to pay, I'm sure one method will be recieved much easier than the other.

DUTR

Miss_Sunshine**** wrote: »

Hi

I am in similar situation and have responded to your other post about collecting names for you MP. How are we ever supposed to prove that our ex s are having lavish lifestyles similarly my es is spending over 10k on holidays and over 2000 pounds per month on school fees for his new children. The CSA may ask for wage slips and may one day have the powers to investigate 'actual' earnings of self employed people but how will they ever crack down on lifestyle expenditure. Please ask you MP to to make CSA incorporate a new policy to investigate expenditure of ex partners to prove lifestyle is inconsistent with income. How can CSA ask me to investigate this how can I get hold of my ex's bank statements???!!! It's about time that policies are changed. It's our children who are suffering in all this and one day they will question their NRP to why their stepsiblings or half siblings got more than they did.

GL

This has been discussed in your own thread, if you are making the accusations, then it is for you to prove what you believe to be true, the CSA cannot keep harrasing an NRP on the hearsay of PWCs
As long as contribution is recieved then nobody is suffering.
The question is an easy one to answer, present is often more 'important' than the past, some people call it moving on

gratefulforhelp_2

DUTR wrote: »

I think carrots always work better than sticks, encourage NRPs to contribute, not force thm to pay, I'm sure one method will be recieved much easier than the other.

It doesn't work when govt want people to keep to the speed limit, or pay their taxes...

I'm sure you would prefer it that way.

Loretta

DUTR wrote: »

This has been discussed in your own thread, if you are making the accusations, then it is for you to prove what you believe to be true, the CSA cannot keep harrasing an NRP on the hearsay of PWCs
As long as contribution is recieved then nobody is suffering.
The question is an easy one to answer, present is often more 'important' than the past, some people call it moving on

I thought this PWC wasn't get any contributions, that was the whole point of her post!

DUTR

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

It doesn't work when govt want people to keep to the speed limit, or pay their taxes...

I'm sure you would prefer it that way.

What I meant is that often we see the term "my ex is not paying me" for our child, indeed it should be voluntary.

DUTR

Loretta wrote: »

I thought this PWC wasn't get any contributions, that was the whole point of her post!

Do you mean the OP or the poster I was replying to?
The OP got some but in the post also refers to her Hubby not contributing for his own case, strikes me as double standards there