CSA unfit for purpose

clearingout

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

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.

if the HMRC accept accounts, the CSA have to accept them. As such, a decent accountant can disappear much profit. It is not uncommon for a self employed person to declare minimum wage but be living a millionaire's lifestyle. Obviously, this is where variations come in but they are very difficult to 'win'.

Disillusioned_with_Agency

clearingout wrote: »

if the HMRC accept accounts, the CSA have to accept them. As such, a decent accountant can disappear much profit. It is not uncommon for a self employed person to declare minimum wage but be living a millionaire's lifestyle. Obviously, this is where variations come in but they are very difficult to 'win'.

With a variation the onus of providing proof is on the PWC. It is simply, under current legislation not enough to allege that the NRP has a house/villa abroad for example. the CSA will ask for proof the NRP owns it from the PWC or deny the variation. Even if an element of proof is found it would go to "contest" where the NRP would be asked to explain their side. They may well say it is in the name of their new prtner for example. That again could mean that the variation is denied. This is a very difficult situation to provide proof of. As with all other variations.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

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.

The CSA can only use ASHE under exceptional circumstances, due to the NRP having the right to be believed. If an NRP supplies profit/loss accounts showing either a loss or nil profit, or has declared no profit to the HMRC, then the CSA have to use those figures, no matter how improbable they are. The PWC can't just phone up and say 'Use ASHE', it's far from that simple. What if they don't know what job he does?

Disillusioned_with_Agency

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The CSA can only use ASHE under exceptional circumstances, due to the NRP having the right to be believed. If an NRP supplies profit/loss accounts showing either a loss or nil profit, or has declared no profit to the HMRC, then the CSA have to use those figures, no matter how improbable they are. The PWC can't just phone up and say 'Use ASHE', it's far from that simple. What if they don't know what job he does?

The mention of ASHE survey came about in conversations concerning non-compliant self employed NRP's. Under these circumstances the PWC has every right to ask the Agency to consider using the ASHE survey. If the Case Officer was worth her/his weight they should have already used it, under welfare of the child consideration.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Disillusioned_with_Agency wrote: »

The mention of ASHE survey came about in conversations concerning non-compliant self employed NRP's. Under these circumstances the PWC has every right to ask the Agency to consider using the ASHE survey. If the Case Officer was worth her/his weight they should have already used it, under welfare of the child consideration.

If it's got to the 'non-compliant' status then it has missed at least one payment and will be sitting with either Legal Enforcement or Debt Enforcement stage, and therefore already has an assessment in place - the CSA can't replace an assessment that has already been carried out with an ASHE assessment purely at the request of the PWC.

ford_prefect_3

Its interesting looking at this and I do wonder if any of the commentators have actually been self employed or run there own company?

Its hard, often when you post almost no profit its usually because you havent actually made any money.

Take two key costs of doing business for many people, fuel and business rates, both of which have increased massively in the last five years, especially as the government revaluation of business rates was done at the height of the market, one of my interests has made nothing for three years, we manage to pay the staff, the rates, VAT etc, in fact we are phenomenally efficient tax collectors but at the end of it all there was no income to declare as a profit!

The suggestion that self employed people pay no tax is shot down by all the operational taxes paid by our employers (us!), those same costs a PAYE employee doesn't have to consider.

The other issue with the CSA is complexity, and with complexity breeds loopholes, a simple fixed fee per child per week linked to inflation would do the job, then everyone knows where they stand regardless of employment. Two tiers, one for the registered unemployed, one for everyone else whether employed or self employed. That way we have no arguments, no contact blocking on overnights and none of the other stuff the CSA has created in our society.

Disillusioned_with_Agency

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

If it's got to the 'non-compliant' status then it has missed at least one payment and will be sitting with either Legal Enforcement or Debt Enforcement stage, and therefore already has an assessment in place - the CSA can't replace an assessment that has already been carried out with an ASHE assessment purely at the request of the PWC.

I think you may have missed the point here. The CSA regards an NRP as non-compliant if he/she refuses to give any or all the information required for an assessment to be put into place. That being the case the CSA can then use the ASHE survey to put in an assessment for the Qualifying Child based on the average ncome of the NRP in his/her type of work within the locality he/she may live. An NRP can be non-compliant way before an assessment is in place. This is why in many cases the Agency has to revert to HMRC for information (This could be address details, income, employment etc) The start of the thread I posted was simply to say that because the CSA causes many problems through it's current system it would be of benefit to all parties to have a fixed percentage as detailed in my first post, deducted by HMRC via tax codings rather than have the many problems associated for exampple by DEO's which can, as explained previously. take in some cases up to four months for any payment to be received by the PWC. Everyone is aware of the powers the HMRC has to extract money from individuals and for a very long time they have been extremely good at it. They can also pay money out to individuals (An axample of this, and after all it's teething problems is the Tax Credits enjoyed by many people through the country). Again I say that this would save millions upon millions of pounds for the tax-payer. so it is a win win situation all round.

jarhead66

I think that everyone knows that the CSA are unfit for purpose and that the govement keeps throwing good money at it, They have had more problems than the "Jerry Springer show" and the staff are proud of the fact or always tend to blame someone else!! The present govement won't say nothing against the CSA as they started it back in 1993. As some of you will know the "Welfare reform bill" is at the committee stage in the house of lords and should go royal assent by november. This bill covers the CSA changes and the new gross income scheme. I read a story in a computer magazine on the web that one reason that the csa2 the 2003 scheme did not work apart from the computer system, was partly down to the staff at the CSA, not wanting the new system to work as it could reduce the work force, a bit like when i worked on the sites we used to drag it out until another site sarted!! I hope that this mentality does not apply to the new scheme. I have emailed the CSA on a number of times about when the new scheme will start but they refuse to tell me anything!! the worst helpline in history!! When the bill is pasted i am going to get straight onto my MP both labour and conservative to get me moved from the old income support scheme CSA1 to the new gross income schne which should leave me £200 amonth better off and i think everyone who is not happy with the scheme that they are on should do the same, I do totaly agree that the CSA should be closed down as god knows how many families they have destroyed in the past, the govement is now starting to acknowledge this and is going to include mediation in the new gateway, well what about the rest of us?? :T:T

Blob

I have taken this idea further and talked to people at the behest of my MP in Westminster! I suggest the amount of payments that would be required as a CSA payment be put on the Tax code at the birth of the child, then this money is paid to the family/PWC direct from the birth in the form of a 'Tax Credit' as the system is there now, it has to work better than the CSA! This will then remove any delayers and both parties will know what is going to be paid in the event of the relationship ending. It is my belief that this is a way to end a deal of the infighting that is supported by the CSA as well as the legal profession as it generates work loads for both! Also all legal aid should be removed from divorce cases unless there is proved abuse, this again would reduce the cost to the tax payer ex-potentially.

Disillusioned_with_Agency

It seems to me that the majority of people who have had dealings with this Agency are of a similar mind. It would be far better and fairer to all parties to have maintenance deducted at source via HMRC codings. There would be less of a mess on their accounts for starters, There should be no need for threatening individuals via the Agency and payments for the qualifying children would be speedy and regular. Although this is pure logic it is the government who decides and I for one know that the government and it's departments don't take logic on board. It will be interesting to see what happens with the new system. The CSA has had 18+ years to get it right, yet we are about to have a further change in their working practises because to be honest they have never got it right, and from what I have read of the new proposals we should expect a further change again in a year or so.