CSA 'overpayment' of £20,000!

speedster

what everyone seems to forget is that the draconian enforcement powers levvied out by the nazis at csa hq are only applicable to the NRP.

so, OP. you are quite safe, the only way they can get anything off you is through benefits at about a fiver a week and even then, it's unlikely they'll bother.

Sensemaya

speedster wrote: »

what everyone seems to forget is that the draconian enforcement powers levvied out by the nazis at csa hq are only applicable to the NRP.Not true...

so, OP. you are quite safe, the only way they can get anything off you is through benefits at about a fiver a week and even then, it's unlikely they'll bother. Again not true.

I beg to differ. Currently in yet another 'ding dong' with those on Mt Parnussus. I prefer not to call them Nazis.

As they stopped us mere mortals, sorry, 'customers' going straight to the Parliamentary Ombudsman -PO - things have been very trying with ICE to put it mildly. Despite my MP writing to the PO twice to bypass ICE, for various reasons you can guess, they won't budge.

I have had a lot more 'participation' with their so called investigation ( suspect it's bias on the part of ICE but I will give ICE the benefit of the doubt at the moment ), like providing numerous account breakdowns the CSA have failed to provide ICE with.Naturally it's a menage de trois. ME -MP - ICE. How about a foursome...hahahaha.

Also I've found there are time constraints. For instance you must be very careful when agreeing to the ICE 'contract'. If any more complaints arise when ICE are investigating you must go back to the beginning of the complaints procedure with the CSA. ICE will not entertain ongoing complaints. But I have got round that one.

Generally speaking things have changed -for the worse. The bug*ers have tightened up considerably over the past few years, probably because of info provided on MSE, for example, which is not members only. Yes, the govt had something to do with that too.

Take advance payments for PWC. ( Apologies to our NRPs here, especially DUTR, as I can only comment being a PWC ) I know the Criterion.

Arrears owed due to maladminstration must be over £100. However NRP must show compliance for six months ( yep, but sometimes it only took three months in the past) but then if it takes less than six months to pay the remaining arrears off the PWC is scre*wed.

Do they start the time period with the original arrears figure or do they calculate it from when the six month compliance period is over?

Or what happens when ICE find anomalies in past account breakdowns provided by the CSA and the very helpful PWC via their MP when the CSA have not provided other account breakdowns the PWC have in their possession?

Now this is just one example.

How many other individual examples must the complaints procedure deal with?

Apologies to the OP. I have gone totally off topic.

I leave you with 'The Nightmare. I'm on the keyboard ( I wish ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JnzyGH0m8o&list=FL69rifJ7HKcUP5PjV9eLobw&index=137

Would the govt care to comment as I know the govt reads this forum.

Off to read Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' now.

speedster

as far as i was aware, you could never go straight to PO. chain of command and all that.

thing is, if the NRP in this case hasn't put in claim for the money to be paid back, then the "agency" is only trying it's luck to see if the OP will pay.

and unless things have dramatically changed, then their enforcement powers only apply to the collection of maintainence and NRP arrears.

i have heard of many cases where that have asked for PWC to repay monies and got absofuginglutely nowhere, as they cant secure a LO on it.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

speedster wrote: »

thing is, if the NRP in this case hasn't put in claim for the money to be paid back, then the "agency" is only trying it's luck to see if the OP will pay.

Not true, whether the NRP has asked for the money back or not is irrelevant, the CSA have back-dated a closure, and this has generated an overpayment to the PWC. This is two-fold, they will refund the NRP, and expect the PWC to pay the money that she has incorrectly received. There's no dependency on whether the NRP wants the money back or not. The NRP will get their money back, and the PWC will be expected to repay the Government.

Sensemaya

speedster wrote: »

as far as i was aware, you could never go straight to PO. chain of command and all that.Yes you could go straight to the Ombudsman. I did it twice. Once in 2001 and perhaps 2005. Can't remember the exact dates. Then they sneaked it in that 'clients' had to go via ICE. I think I have posted this in the sticky.

thing is, if the NRP in this case hasn't put in claim for the money to be paid back, then the "agency" is only trying it's luck to see if the OP will pay.As you know the CSA is so incompetent it will only act if someone alerts it to a fact. And then it will mess up. Typical.

and unless things have dramatically changed, then their enforcement powers only apply to the collection of maintainence and NRP arrears.

i have heard of many cases where that have asked for PWC to repay monies and got absofuginglutely nowhere, as they cant secure a LO on it.If the case is still ongoing they will automatically deduct a sum from the PWC payment. The PWC has no say in the matter at all.I speak from experience.

All you are concerned about is the NRP and sod everything else.

Sensemaya

Prelude

What happens if the case is closed and there is no longer a maintenance assessment in place because the child benefit has ceased?

How can the CSA recoup the overpayment from the PWC?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Sensemaya wrote: »

Prelude

What happens if the case is closed and there is no longer a maintenance assessment in place because the child benefit has ceased?

How can the CSA recoup the overpayment from the PWC?

If there's no ongoing maintenance, and no other monies owed via arrears, then the CSA will ask the PWC to set up payments to them. It's not a situation I've ever came across to be honest, rightly or wrongly the CSA never used to chase PWC overpayments as much as they would chase NRP arrears, as the welfare of the child would be a relevant factor, but the debt wouldn't go away, as the CSA don't have the powers to wipe out arrears.

Sensemaya

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

If there's no ongoing maintenance, and no other monies owed via arrears, then the CSA will ask the PWC to set up payments to them. It's not a situation I've ever came across to be honest, rightly or wrongly the CSA never used to chase PWC overpayments as much as they would chase NRP arrears, as the welfare of the child would be a relevant factor, but the debt wouldn't go away, as the CSA don't have the powers to wipe out arrears.

"CSA don't have the powers to wipe out arrears"

That's providing the arrears figure is correct.

blimey40

Maybe this forum is not as unbaised as it portrays.

Now you don't care about why you have Pm'd?

Would you haev done the same if the case had been a NRP?

Please don't lock the thread or delete it.

An answer would be good

Sensemaya

blimey40 wrote: »

Maybe this forum is not as unbaised as it portrays.

Now you don't care about why you have Pm'd?

Would you haev done the same if the case had been a NRP?

Please don't lock the thread or delete it.

An answer would be good

I PM'd the OP because I wanted too. I also PM NRPs when I want to and, just to be thorough, other people relating to non-CSA matters because I want to. You lot don't know always know when I PM people because sometimes I don't post 'Just PM'd you' or whatever.

I can't lock or delete this thread. That is one for the mods.

Hope I've provided a 'good answer' but I think it all boils down to the fact you are a nosey lot and want to know the content of the PM.

This PMing issue is very tedious and boring.

And just to add to my previous reply.

In my experience the PWC does not get to negotiate the amount of money taken off to recover the overpayment by the CSA. Indeed they do not bother to inform the PWC. The PWC discovers this once the money is in their bank account. On the other hand the NRP gets this privilege as the CSA contact the NRP to agree a suitable sum that suits the NRP's financial circumstances.

As for the CSA refunding the whole amount to the NRP in one lump sum I cannot comment other than to state I believe this to be a contentious issue. This has not happened in my case.Naturally the amount agreed is less than what they were taking out of my child support.