CSA unfit for purpose

Marisco

If everyone conducted their business with as much inefficiency as the CSA does, then this country would have gone down the pan a long time ago!!!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

That as far as I am concerned does not go far enough. The main problem for parents with care and qualifying children is the collection issue. In one way what you have stated is a part of what I initially proposed. But not far enough and the taxpayer is still footing the bill for what is a needless organisation.

As long as PWCs and NRPs can't come to private agreements then there is a need for the organisation.

clearingout

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The CSA currently use tax return information, which by default is all of an NRP's companies.

The only problem with using HMRC figures for self-employed NRPs is that they don't have to declare their earnings for quite a while after starting trading, so what would the CSA use in the meantime?

the other major issue is that there are self employed NRPs out there who don't declare their earnings at all. Doesn't seem to matter how many times they're reported for tax evasion, nothing seems to happen. The current system doesn't work for those PWC in this situation (myself included) but a system worked through the HMRC tax codes certainly wouldn't work either.

Marisco

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

As long as PWCs and NRPs can't come to private agreements then there is a need for the organisation.

Yes, but not necessarily in it's present form. I think DwA's idea of taking at source seems, on the surface, a good one. So even "job hoppers" will be caught, without the need for the CSA to go chasing them, which as I know from my daughter, can take months. It's worked for HMRC for donkeys years, I know they get the odd hiccup, but nowt like the monumental c*ck ups of the CSA!!

Plus the very name gets peoples' backs up, I think, from experience it's a very adversarial system as well. They always seem to go for the "soft" targets, those who are compliant and play ball, get hammered, and the dead beats get away with it! Too much hassle to chase them!!! At least with a "tax like" collection system, everyone pays, if you work, you pay! Yes with SE, it might not be what you want, but at least you'll all be getting something, as opposed to the run around that seems to happen now!

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

Yes, but not necessarily in it's present form. I think DwA's idea of taking at source seems, on the surface, a good one. So even "job hoppers" will be caught, without the need for the CSA to go chasing them, which as I know from my daughter, can take months. It's worked for HMRC for donkeys years, I know they get the odd hiccup, but nowt like the monumental c*ck ups of the CSA!!

Plus the very name gets peoples' backs up, I think, from experience it's a very adversarial system as well. They always seem to go for the "soft" targets, those who are compliant and play ball, get hammered, and the dead beats get away with it! Too much hassle to chase them!!! At least with a "tax like" collection system, everyone pays, if you work, you pay! Yes with SE, it might not be what you want, but at least you'll all be getting something, as opposed to the run around that seems to happen now!

I don't think it's the case that the CSA can't be bothered to chase those who won't pay. I think that the system relies on the majority of people being law-abiding and fearing 'authority' and will therefore comply by paying up. IF they don't, the DEO overcomes this. Job done for the majority. I can safely say (even if it pains me to do so!) that the CSA is plugging away in the background at my ex but he's clever and doesn't engage with them, even going as far as to answer the door to them and tell them that the person they want to speak with is 'away' (yes, honestly!). The options open to the CSA in this kind of situation is to go to court - which is slow...very, very slow. And still you are given chance after chance after chance to comply by the courts.

Disillusioned_with_Agency

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

As long as PWCs and NRPs can't come to private agreements then there is a need for the organisation.

Of course there is, so why not go through HMRC that is the issue? The CSA simply does not work in it's present form on a lot of fronts. HMRC would erradicate all these faults, whilst at the same time saving us the taxpayers millions upon millions of pounds. You have to also understand the tracing of non-complient NRP's and compelation of their wages currently come from HMRC to the CSA. This to my mind certainly begs the question of why should this information by sent to the CSA when it could be processed directly by HMRC. The DEO that the CSA uses could take up to three months depending on the date of the month the calculation is assessed and the NRP payroll cut-off date with the employer to actually come into force. There is a further month for the PWC and QC to wait after that because payments taken in one month are sent by the employer to the CSA by the 19th of the following month. The payment then has to be processed!!!!!!!!!

Disillusioned_with_Agency

clearingout wrote: »

the other major issue is that there are self employed NRPs out there who don't declare their earnings at all. Doesn't seem to matter how many times they're reported for tax evasion, nothing seems to happen. The current system doesn't work for those PWC in this situation (myself included) but a system worked through the HMRC tax codes certainly wouldn't work either.

I believe that the above is valid in one way under the preswent system. However, the chances of the NRP's being investigated I believe would certainly increase if the collection issue was via HMRC. There would be a public outcry if a PWC reported that they couldn't get maintenance from a NRP because he/she was not declaring their income to HMRC. The repocussions of this would be colossal.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

I believe that the above is valid in one way under the preswent system. However, the chances of the NRP's being investigated I believe would certainly increase if the collection issue was via HMRC. There would be a public outcry if a PWC reported that they couldn't get maintenance from a NRP because he/she was not declaring their income to HMRC. The repocussions of this would be colossal.

This is no different from the situation that PWCs with SEMP NRPs are currently in though - lots of PWCs don't get any money because their exes are clever and/or don't declare their income to the HMRC. This means that the CSA's hands are tied when it comes to working out income.

clearingout

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

I believe that the above is valid in one way under the preswent system. However, the chances of the NRP's being investigated I believe would certainly increase if the collection issue was via HMRC. There would be a public outcry if a PWC reported that they couldn't get maintenance from a NRP because he/she was not declaring their income to HMRC. The repocussions of this would be colossal.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?! However, serial non payers of maintenance do seem to have achieved an almost hero-like status and represent something to be aspired to by some (not all!) of those NRPs who can't avoid the CSA mess 'cos they're PAYE employed. I agree that perhaps a better job could be done on publicising the effects of none payment of taxes (what it costs us), child maintenance etc. but I'm not sure joe-public really gets it at an individual level. Joe-public would of course be concerned that Mr X works cash in hand and doesn't declare it but in the big scheme of things, Joe Publictrusts 'the Government' and 'the system' to sort it out for him. If he didn't, Joe Public would be seen voting at the Polls more regularly, I think.

My personal soap box is the failure of so many Government agencies to work together. I've said this before but perhaps worth repeating in this context. My ex is a self employed director of a limited company. He hasn't filed accounts for said company since 2006. His Companies House 'account' on line shows that there have been several attempts at 'strike off' but as the company owes money (to me included), his creditors are managing to put a stay on that. I have told Companies House, the CSA, HMRC and the local authority I happen to know his business owes at least £15k in business rates to, of his whereabouts. I have also made it clear he is still in business - doing the same stuff as the company he seems to have abandonned along the way to avoid his tax, rates, CSA, debt....liabilities.

He keeps changing address and I keep telling them - I'm not being clever, I just find the information with a quick google of his mobile phone number every now and again and it throws up new business websites every time! He should have informed Companies House, CSA, DVLA, HMRC etc. etc. of his having moved house and offices (each several times in the last 3 years) and should be being fined and/or be receiving some kind of criminal investigation as a result each time. If these agencies could work together and the courts could get a quick appointment, they could have him pretty quickly without too much trouble. Some kind of cross-agency 'agency' would work very well and I think would represent serious value for money in dealing with people like my ex.

Of course, for all I know, my ex is facing all sorts of charges from these agencies and with the exception of the CSA, I would never really know.

We are a politically apathetic nation, that's for sure. Non maintenance paying, absent parents should be a scandal. The fact they're not says an awful lot about us.

Disillusioned_with_Agency

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

This is no different from the situation that PWCs with SEMP NRPs are currently in though - lots of PWCs don't get any money because their exes are clever and/or don't declare their income to the HMRC. This means that the CSA's hands are tied when it comes to working out income.

This I can't agree with, because the CSA's hands are not tied as stated. They utilise the ASHE survey as explained previously. This also would be open to HMRC. If there are CSA clients who have been told what is quoted above I would suggest they contact the CSA and insist on them making a calculation using this survey.