'The Child Support Management of Payments and Arrears' - consultation period

PreludeForTimeFeelers

CMEC are asking for responses to their amendments regarding payments of arrears, and also part payments.

The document is available here.

The consultation is basically relating to giving CMEC the power to write off arrears in certain situations. They can currently only suspend arrears, even if the PWC says she doesn't want to collect the payments, which leads to false arrears figures. As with the other consultation I linked to, I'd advise all clients to read the paper, and to offer them their opinions if they want to feel involved.

I'd also like to encourage people to discuss the issues rationally here. I know that last time some people just posted their responses without actually reading the paper, but I'd certainly advise reading the paper first to get the background rather than just posting their answers.

Power to accept part payment in full and final satisfaction
Question 1
In what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the Commission to negotiate with a non-resident parent for a part payment to be made as full and final satisfaction of their whole child maintenance arrears?
Question 2
Do you think it is appropriate that a part payment may only be accepted when it is paid as a lump sum?
Question 3
What factors do you think the Commission should take into consideration when deciding whether or not a part payment offer is reasonable?
Question 4
Do you think it is right for the Commission not to contact a parent with care if the part payment offered by the non-resident parent is clearly unreasonable given the non-resident parent's current circumstances?
Question 5
Do you think it is right for the Commission to manage part-payments in multiple cases in this way? If not, can you suggest an alternative approach?
Power to write off arrears
Question 6
How long do you think the Commission should wait after writing to the deceased parent with care’s last known address before writing off the arrears owed to them?
Question 7
Are there any other circumstances where it would be unfair or otherwise inappropriate for the Commission to enforce payment of child maintenance arrears?
Question 8
Do you think that 14 days is reasonable period to allow both parents to make representation to the Commission as to whether the arrears should be written off?

Blob

Arrears that are not down to the NRP due to the failure of the people that work in the CSA should be either negotiated to a vastly reduced level say 10% and the outstanding balance charged to the person in the CSA that is responsible for this, or written off.

On the death of the person with arrears the debt dies with them, and should be instantaneous, the next of kin has enough to sort out especially as it may be one of the children that the debt is owed for, why add to their grief by going after them for their inheritance to pay for them. Death is final it is then over!

The law states under SI1992/1815 section 28 that there is no time set for the repayment of arrears as it is felt that this will impede negotiations with the NRP. The changes in this will I am told lead to criminal charges being brought against people in the CSA now. This means the law is working, there is no time limit and there should not be one now, as most of the arrears are run up in the first instance by the failings of the CSA staff. This is a proven fact, to try to change this now is just to try to make this unacceptable practice and the people that carry this out safe and legal. It would be a massif step back wards.

In the event that a NRP has to make large payments for arrears then this should be put to the Courts to decide what the repayments should be given that the NRP has to live as well, this will mean that the repayments will be staged and set at a level that can be afforded and not some figure that has been taken from outer space and has no chance of the normal person being able to afford. To take the attitude that the NRP has to pay off some figure that is enough to run a small country as is the case in many CSA fiction based assessments, in one go is to invite civil unrest and further problems between the parents of the children, this will not help the children. Unless it is the objective of the CSA to drive further apart parents of children, thus causing more problems for the children by causing the two most important people in the children's lives to be at each others throats?

It would be very helpful if the CSA tried to set up a body that actually talked to both parents to try to get an agreement, these people should be trained, dear I say it to look at the problems of both sides and make decisions on the lines of the Courts, so that both sides can more forward. To set up anything less will only lead to more draconian decisions that will solve nothing and end up costing all concerned. If the only option is to write off the debt then so be it, then they should have both the power and the will to do it, anything else is a wast of time and money!

The most urgent thing is to make the people in the CSA that make the mistake or fail to do the job accountable for the debt in the first place, this would solve most, not all of the problems with arrears.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Well, the questions are more about whether you think the CSA should be able to negotiate and accept a part-payment of debt, but never mind.

What do you think about arrears that accrue because NRPs have had payrises and then not budgeted for the change of circs? If theyve not sent in wage slips, and their employers have delayed matters, it may take the CSA 6-8 weeks to sort out, why should the NRP 'get away' with not paying those arrears, and instead some random CSA caseworker should be liable?

clearingout

I have skim read this document and offer the following in response. Noted I am a PWC with a self employed ex, an assessment based on a salary of £25k a year which has been unpaid for 3 years. Salary is about a third of what I believe my ex to be earning but I would be happy with the payments if they were made.

1. I would suggest it is appropriate to neogiate a part payment as full and final settlement if the amount accumulated is above....maybe £10k? (in other words, is significant), if the PWC is in agreement that something is better than nothing, and if the NRP has additional biological children who would likely experience hardship as a result of collecting the full amount. I would suggest that a full and frank discolsure of income and assets needs to be achieved, along with details of outgoings (such as would be provided if in debt and you were looking to enter an IVA or come to an agreement with your creditors). Evidence of inability to raise any credit should be looked at (I do not agree with paying maintenance on credit cards but I do agree that if payments have been wilfully ignored, raising extra against a house or simply taking out a loan should be considered).

2. I would be happy personally, to take part-payment in monthly installments over a reasonable time period (I accept that for large amounts, 2 years is perhaps too little, but again, if I have had to manage without the money, I don't see why the NRP should be treated any differently). This would be on the proviso that on-going payments were being made and had been made for, say, at least 6 months prior to making this agreement. If the case is closed because the children are no longer eligible to receive payment, then a lump sum is more appropriate.

3. Factors in deciding whether part-payment is acceptable: whether the debt has occurred willfully or whether it has occured as a result of CSA inability to get their act together; whether there are additional biological children involved who may experience hardship as a result of collecting the full amount; whether the PWC is in agreement or not with part-payment; the PWC's financial circumstances at the time of accepting part-payment (ie. if he/she is on benefits, it would be unreasonable, I think, to write-off part of the debt but entirely reasonable if he/she had a £50k a year job and had walked away from the marriage with a mortgage-free house); whether there is evidence of commitment to making on-going payments (or are we going to find ourselves in this situation again in a year's time? I would suggest it is acceptable to make a part-time only once); the NRP's circumstances at the time of writing off the debt (if they have become disabled or are terminally ill, for example, it is unreasonable to try and collect thousands, regardless of why the debt may have accummulated);

Question 4: Depends on how 'unreasonable part payment' is defined. I think if the PWC is financially stable in their own right, and is willing to accept, say, £2.5k against a debt of £25k as a way of moving on with the issue, then that's up to them. Of course, there are issues here of PWC vulnerability and whether or not some form of coercion might take place to get them to accept a lower offer. Proven DV cases, for example, could be a real issue. On balance, I think it's up to the PWC how little they're prepared to accept. I would say again that only one part-payment will be accepted so if arrears are built up again, tough!

Question 5: Complicated. I am not sure I am qualified to give an opinion on this. It seems unfair that an NRP can pay one PWC but not the other although the default suggestion, that the amount collected should be split fairly between PWC is reasonable. However, one PWC may be in a position to accept part payment whilst another isn't/doesn't want to. Very difficult.

Question 6: I would suggest at least a couple of years. Grief is difficult to deal with and it can take some time for families to get their acts together and understand what they may/may not be able to claim on behalf of the deceased person.

Question 7. Possibly where the NRP has made reasonable provision for the on-going financial support of their children in their will? For example, my ex was supposed to take out an insurance policy in my name to cover the loss of child maintenance payments to the tune of £100k up to our youngest's 21 first birthday. Such a policy would have cost him approx £10 a month. I think it reasonable to write-off his arrears in these circumstances. However, it would be very much open to interpretation and of course, there is the issue of how you deal with a will which has left £10k to one child and £100k to another....

Question 8. No, I think 28 days would be more reasonable. These are difficult decisions to make, possibly with the help of legal advice, and people need time to get their head around the decision. 14 days is very little time - it can take 4 days for the letter to land on your doorstep for a start!

Blob

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Well, the questions are more about whether you think the CSA should be able to negotiate and accept a part-payment of debt, but never mind.

What do you think about arrears that accrue because NRPs have had payrises and then not budgeted for the change of circs? If theyve not sent in wage slips, and their employers have delayed matters, it may take the CSA 6-8 weeks to sort out, why should the NRP 'get away' with not paying those arrears, and instead some random CSA caseworker should be liable?

So what you are now saying is that the NRPs should be policing the CSA. It is not stated in Law to the best of my knowledge that the NRP has to inform the CSA if they have a pay rise, as it is not the responsibility of the PWC to inform them if they have had a pay rise. The CSA has taken months to change an assessment that they did on me without my knowledge. This led to the arrears being increased experientially, and to the Appeals service. The result is the Appeals service took the CSA to bits and most of the arrears were wiped out, as they failed to foll the Law that they are supposed to.

So my comment stands if the CSA make a mess of the case that results in arrears then the case officer is responsible and should be held accountable for the arrears. This in turn should reduce the level of unforced errors and the amount of arrears that exist. As they will be written off the account. This in turn would reduce the amount of compensation that the CSA has to pay out at this time, so is a win/win situation.

The legislation is in place for the CSA to negotiate the arrears repayment, this has been changed by policy and as such has no standing in Law as was explained to the CSA by the Judge at our last hearing. Use the Law that is there to negotiate the payment of arrears, and wipe out the ones that are totally uncolectable, such as where the NRP is dead, had an accident or unable to work for medical reasons.

We don't need to return to the 'Suspended Debt' system that was offered to me as it is not binding on the CSA, they offered to wipe out 50% of the arrears so long as I played their game. The result would have been that they would have been reinstated when the CSA made further mistakes so it would not have helped me in any way at all, never mind the children, and let us not forget that this is all about the children, and not some point scoring exercise by a useless Gov department, that PM after PM has stated to Parliament is useless and unfit for purpose!

pd001

Blob wrote: »

So what you are now saying is that the NRPs should be policing the CSA. It is not stated in Law to the best of my knowledge that the NRP has to inform the CSA if they have a pay rise, as it is not the responsibility of the PWC to inform them if they have had a pay rise.
Is that right? Surely not if an nrp is on a deo?

The CSA has taken months to change an assessment that they did on me without my knowledge. This led to the arrears being increased experientially, and to the Appeals service. The result is the Appeals service took the CSA to bits and most of the arrears were wiped out, as they failed to foll the Law that they are supposed to.
you see the appeals system does work

So my comment stands if the CSA make a mess of the case that results in arrears then the case officer is responsible and should be held accountable for the arrears.
I have to agree with you here

This in turn should reduce the level of unforced errors and the amount of arrears that exist. As they will be written off the account. This in turn would reduce the amount of compensation that the CSA has to pay out at this time, so is a win/win situation.
One hopes!

The legislation is in place for the CSA to negotiate the arrears repayment, this has been changed by policy and as such has no standing in Law as was explained to the CSA by the Judge at our last hearing. Use the Law that is there to negotiate the payment of arrears, and wipe out the ones that are totally uncolectable, such as where the NRP is dead, had an accident or unable to work for medical reasons.
not bad ideas, common sense really

We don't need to return to the 'Suspended Debt' system that was offered to me as it is not binding on the CSA, they offered to wipe out 50% of the arrears so long as I played their game. The result would have been that they would have been reinstated when the CSA made further mistakes so it would not have helped me in any way at all, never mind the children, and let us not forget that this is all about the children, and not some point scoring exercise by a useless Gov department, that PM after PM has stated to Parliament is useless and unfit for purpose!
True.

Blob

The CSA write to the NRPs employer and send a form through that states on it that you are not to inform the employee that this form has arrived, The employer has then to send it back, again it is covered by Section 32 of the Collection and Enforcement part that the Employer can be find up to £1,000 if they fail to comply with this. So why you ask is this part of the legislation not enforced, answer; the CBI would go off on one and the DTI would have more problems than you can shake a stick at, so it is not applied, and thus more problems for the NRP as the CSA then put the case to the 'Too Difficult' file. So the kids miss out again! The CSA has stated that this is the way that the employers want the system to be run, try to get them to tell you just which employers have said this, if you get an answer please let me know, as I have taken it to the top and they would not tell me, personally I don't believe them on this point as is the case on many others that they have tried to sell me!

What is actually needed is a comprehensive training program for the dopey people that work in the CSA and to get away from the culture of we will only go for the easy targets as that will get us our 'bonus payments' and keep the figures up. It would also lead to less people having a caution placed on their file to warn the CSA case officers that ' Caution, he has access to volumes of the law' as is on mine. The result is that the CSA now only has Barristers that will talk to me as case officers cant keep up, and the Presenting Officers in Court are put under pressure to the extent that the Judge has to come to their rescue when they are in tears, this also included Senor Regional Managers both male and female that have had to tell the Court that they don't have the knowledge of the Law to answer the questions put to them, so how can the people that are supposed to run the case on a day to day level and are supposed to negotiate the payments. You quote the law to them and you are obstructive and abusive, you then bring the Law to meetings with therm and in front of MPs they state that Law is incompatible and they don't have to follow it, so until the grass route problems of the training are dealt with, not a thing will change, we will lurch from one disaster to another.

Answer to the DEO part from above, there is no obligation on either side to disclose information to the other. My ex wont as she has gone up in her profession and now has money taken off the assessment as she earns a little more than me. Fortunately, for me the new pay review that is happening where I work will come into effect after September this year ]my son is now 18 and he will be in the Royal Marines by then,] and my pay will out strip hers again! This will make the payment of arrears a little easier for us!

romanempire

Blob wrote: »

The CSA write to the NRPs employer and send a form through that states on it that you are not to inform the employee that this form has arrived,

I assume you are referring to the DEO demand to the employer. In which case you are incorrect. I've just the checked the one my company received and there was no such prohibition.

R.

pd001

romanempire wrote: »

I assume you are referring to the DEO demand to the employer. In which case you are incorrect. I've just the checked the one my company received and there was no such prohibition.

R.

The correspondance which accompanies the deo states that the employer must not tell the employee that they have received a deo demand......
at least mine did about three years ago!!

romanempire

The one my company received less then 2 months ago didn't.

Can't see any justification for such a prohibition as the NRP gets notified anyway. But we are talking about the CSA here

R.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

The CSF318 sent to an employer states "Don't discuss this with the NRP", but that's the form that is sent to ask the employer/payroll dept to tell the CSA what the NRP has earned over the past few months. The DEO paperwork doesn't say that, it would be pointless - "Take these amounts from the NRP but don't tell him"!