'Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012' - consultation period

PreludeForTimeFeelers

kevin137 wrote: »

I understand that they may not be directly responsible for every case...! But they have a part to play in it, which is why you used to give the reply that i must notify the police if you are saying you will kill yourself...

Given that you actually used to do that, have you not admitted that you have a duty of care...??? I wonder how a court would see that, i'm sure there are many recorded conversations around where that has been stated, admitting that you DO have a duty...!

Is this directed at me or at the CSA? I've never told someone that they should notify the police if they're saying that they'll kill themself...

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Is this directed at me or at the CSA? I've never told someone that they should notify the police if they're saying that they'll kill themself...

No not directed at you...

But i do know a few people that have said to the CSA that they maybe should just top themselves as life has no more purpose, and they where told, "if that is a serious comment, then we are obliged to notify the police" ermmm right, so i am going to do that, i am calling from a mobile, and you think that will make any difference...

My point is, if they do NOT have a duty of care, then the response should be, "don't forget that if there is a change in circumstances, that you MUST notify us"...!!!

Can you not see the irony in them saying they have no duty of care...

Blob

Lets face it there are people that are pro the CSA and those that are anti it, and with good reason on both sides.

It is broadly accepted that there has to be some check on these things that work for the CSA, and if any of them read this please contact me and I will gladly supply the address to serve paperers on. They don't understand the Law that they are supposed to work to, this has been admitted by the CEO's office to me, they also have said that eh number of unforced errors that they are allowed to make is unlimited, unfortunately they did not put any of this in writing!!!

It is also accepted in Parliament that the CSA is has been responsible for a number of people taking their own lives and MPs don't want to see a return to this, reported in Hansard and on TV, question has it ever stopped? The fact t hat there may be other contributing factors is not the issue, the issue is that the CSA has been singled out as the final straw. Are these people allowed to drive people to this with no check, my opinion is it should be no, way to make them all accountable is to enforce a Duty of Care.

If a Duty of Care is enforced on them it will benefit both the NRP and the PWC, as it will ensure that the people that wont pay will be held to account, the PWC's that play the game of Pay to Play will get hammered, and the PWC that play the game and need the money will get it with the minimum of delay and hassle, so everyone that is responsible will benefit and the ones on the edge on both sides will get what they deserve, trouble!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Just to clarify, Q7 is a proposal to increase the flat rate above the £7 from the 2008 act.

Blob

So you want to take peopel below the income suppoet level, yes?

Blob

Will there be any protection for the NRP's that will mean that they cant be taken below JS level? As if there is no incentive for people to work, then this will be an invitation for people to opt out of the system completely, and expect the tax payer to pick up the bill for both the PWC and the NRP.

Has anyone got a suggestion as to the level that this protection should be set at?

As the CSA at this time are trying to impose their will on SI1815/1992 on the collection of arrears with the 2 year [Law] as they would have you believe, has anyone got a view on this as well. The 2 year steer is rubbish anyway, this was explained to them by the Judge at my hearing! My thoughts are that if it is the fault and proved as such of the CSA that these arrears have arisen then they are responsible for them and not the NRP. If on the other hand it is the responsibility of the NRP due to evasion and not avoidance then the NRP should be held accountable. So there is no conflict here avoidance is legal and the use of the Law and evasion is not providing the information you have to and thus in my view unlawful.

g-sharp_major

Blob wrote: »

Has anyone got a suggestion as to the level that this protection should be set at?

No point setting a level because the CSA does not comply with it.

g-sharp_major

Blob wrote: »

Worse still they have been found to be responsible for the death of at least 63 people by Coroners Courts!

If the CSA were an airline, it would be grounded long ago.

Airlines have a duty of care, why not the CSA? Both are capable of screwing peoples lives up.

clearingout

Blob wrote: »

The 2 year steer is rubbish anyway,

depends what side you're on, though, doesn't it? why on earth an NRP should refuse to pay for months/years on end and then be allowed to pay back the debt at, say, £10 a month, is beyond me (and this happened to a friend of mine who was owed nearly £15k by a self employed ex). If the PWC has had to juggle their finances for years waiting for child maintenance, I struggle to understand why the NRP shouldn't have to do the same....

Some kind of line perhaps needs to be drawn between those who get in debt to the CSA through their own stupidity and those who do their best to keep the CSA updated but have been failed by the 'system', perhaps?

Blob

The law states that there is no time limit on the repayment of arrears, so to then try to impose one is acting against the law and the will of Parliament, it is that simple! As I say if the arrears are there as a result of the proven incompetence of the people that work at the CSA then they are responsible for them and not the the NRP. If this was brought in you can bet they would pick up their game and get it correct first time, or they would be making themselves homeless in the process. This would mean that the CS would be sorted and the kids would not go short, the PWCs would get their money and the NRPs would not be presented with bills that would run a small country let alone support children. So all would win!

If people are going self employed, again this is a matter for the gov to sort as they are now trying to get people to go that way rather than on benefits. As self employed in this current economic situation incomes are not constant. I talk to the sub-contractors that work for the company I work at and they have all seen their income fall recently, you also have to remember that the number of business that are failing at this time is on the rise, and as we look to be on the point as a country of getting thrown out of the EU, this will possibly only get worse as we export about 50% of all our exports to the EU! Some of the larger employers are now taking on Agency workers that are all self employed rather than take on people full time as it is easier for them to get rid of them.