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

Blob

So how can the NRP then budget for a situation that they have no knowledge of and have no obligation to inform the CSA of, when they don't inform the NRP of what they are doing. It is question of trust and the CSA have destroyed any chance of people giving them any of that.

Ask my ex she now hates them more than I do for the lies they have told her. I had to put bank statements in front of her to show that the money has been paid, that they have not sent to her and that they have told her has not been paid. I know some on here will say that I am unreasonable to think that the CSA should actually pay the money that they take from me to my ex for my kids, but that it their problem they are useless.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Blob wrote: »

So how can the NRP then budget for a situation that they have no knowledge of and have no obligation to inform the CSA of, when they don't inform the NRP of what they are doing. It is question of trust and the CSA have destroyed any chance of people giving them any of that.

The Csa ask the employer when the NRP hasn't responded to their letters asking for payslips. Also, as an NRP you will know what wages your most recent calculation has been worked out on - if you then get a payrise and don't tell the Csa then you can't be surprised if there is a back-dated reassessment.

Blob

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

The Csa ask the employer when the NRP hasn't responded to their letters asking for payslips. Also, as an NRP you will know what wages your most recent calculation has been worked out on - if you then get a payrise and don't tell the Csa then you can't be surprised if there is a back-dated reassessment.

Your comment is fundamentally flawed, as the CSA don't ask for payslips, they just go to your employer. The dopey idiots refused to accept my payslips that were sent to them over a period of time. During this time they took me below benefit levels and were taking up to 67% of my income.

I tried to get thought to them, but they knew best, so went to ICE and the Ombudsman, they got slammed big time. The case officer got away with it though,or so my MP told me, justice they don't understand the word!

They then offered 'Suspended Debt' of half of the arrears, and 'Deferred Debt' of half if I preferred, but this was as long as I paid off the arrears that were left, after both ICE and the Ombudsman had found that they were responsible for the arrears running up in the first place. So by your thinking, it would seem that it is fine and dandy fort he CSA to make a mess be found responsible for it then to clobber the NRP who they have left with nothing to pay out again, wonderful! They then wounder just why I will fight them tot eh crack of doom. They don't understand the law and your idea of how it is followed is possibly how it should work, but is so far from the real world as to be a joke.

If I had accepted either of the offers then they would have had no option but to reinstate all of the arrears when they made the next mess and took 8 months to inform me of a new assessment that they had got wrong and took the Appeals Service District Judge to go off on one to explain the Law to the Presenting officer who thought that she knew the law better than the Judge opus!!!:rotfl:

Rustic100

PreludeForTimeFeelers - thanks for posting, this is something I have been interested in, but seemed to miss the consultation.

I think Q4 is difficult. I do think it is right for the Commission not to contact the PWC in some circumstances, not because the offer is unreasonable (The PWC may take any offer if thier circumstances are needy) but that the Commision will end up in a long winded shuttle process negotiating between PWC & NRP and children likely to be negitivley influenced.

Generally, my comments were along the lines that if the Arrears are down to the Commissions mistakes they should be able to be written off.

NB I tried to cut and paste my question by question response but it did not seem to work.

Rustic100

PFTF just noticed a probably unintentional sterotype "even if the PWC says she doesn't want to collect the payments" Im a former NRP and now a PWC??

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Rustic100 wrote: »

PreludeForTimeFeelers - thanks for posting, this is something I have been interested in, but seemed to miss the consultation.

No problem, I think that the more people who have been involved as either NRP or PWC that read and take part in these consultations the better.

Too many people sit back and moan, but make no effort to engage and either give opinion or suggestion.

Rustic100 wrote: »

PFTF just noticed a probably unintentional sterotype "even if the PWC says she doesn't want to collect the payments" Im a former NRP and now a PWC??

Yeah, slip of the tongue based on the fact that about 90% of NRPs are male, I sometimes forget to put they or their.

Blob

At the last consultation they put out. I sent in a 8 page document, I went to Parliament to meet with people from the top of the tree.

They don't take any notice of what is said as they by the time it goes out have already done the 'White' paper and the decisions have been made. Basically it s a PR exercise that is gone through so that it can be pointed at to say that we did it.

May be a cynical view but I was given undertakings at Ministerial ,eve, that things would happen and nothing did, in the event that it happens again I will take a journalist with me so that it will be in the press the next day.

clearingout

Rustic100 wrote: »

Generally, my comments were along the lines that if the Arrears are down to the Commissions mistakes they should be able to be written off.

NB I tried to cut and paste my question by question response but it did not seem to work.

even if the arrears are genuine? I struggle to see why they should be written off if it can be agreed that £x is payable, against whatever 'rules' are in place at the time. Unless of course the PWC is happy to have them written off.

I'm a PWC so don't see the NRP paperwork. Just how clear is it, for example, that changes in financial circumstances need to be reported immediately? Is it clear, where a DEO is in place, whether it's the employee or employer's responsibility to notify the CSA of a change (say, annual pay rise)?

Aside from slowness on the part of the CSA (took them 8 months to do a reassessment this year for me, so I've experienced it first hand and appreciate from my ex's point of view that's 8 months back payment he has to find - if he were paying!), what circumstances lead to arrears?

Rustic100

Hi Clearingout,


How about this scenario.

In 2004 a NRP gets a better job, and informs CSA of various changes of Circumstances including the new job straight away. payments change and NRP pays according to CSA calculations for 6 years.

Over those 6 years the NRP spends most of disposable income left after CSA on the child CSA have done calculations and two other children who are not assessed through CSA. (making own arrangement as is now fashionable)

If the CSA said in 2011, oops we have now made a mistake we didn't assess your new salary in 2004, is it fair to land the NRP with £15k arrears?

Could your family budget pay £15k due to someone elses mistake?
Is it fair on the NRP who spent a lot of income voluntarily on all other children, which is then not counted by CSA?

By the way, I am now the PWC and dont get a penny!

clearingout

Rustic100 wrote: »

Hi Clearingout,


How about this scenario.

In 2004 a NRP gets a better job, and informs CSA of various changes of Circumstances including the new job straight away. payments change and NRP pays according to CSA calculations for 6 years.

Over those 6 years the NRP spends most of disposable income left after CSA on the child CSA have done calculations and two other children who are not assessed through CSA. (making own arrangement as is now fashionable)

If the CSA said in 2011, oops we have now made a mistake we didn't assess your new salary in 2004, is it fair to land the NRP with £15k arrears?

Could your family budget pay £15k due to someone elses mistake?
Is it fair on the NRP who spent a lot of income voluntarily on all other children, which is then not counted by CSA?

By the way, I am now the PWC and dont get a penny!

thanks Rustic, that helps put it in a better perspective for me. If (as you are saying) you a) informed of the payrise straight away and b) there was a corresponding change in your assessment then any error on the part of the CSA, however many years later, I agree shouldn't be your problem.

However, based on that scenario, where does the issue of personal responsibility start/stop? For example, did you check the new assessment and agree it was (roundabout) what you thought you should be paying (ie the 15/20/25% of your income)? Given that the PWC would also receive the figures, why didn't she notice the error - I personally go through the assessment with a fine tooth comb and whilst I struggle with where the figures come from, they add up to the 25% I'm expecting so I'm not arguing! If I do the figures on your figures ((!!!!), I make your assessment out by £48 a week - that's £200 a month. How could you not notice that? How could a PWC not notice that?!! Are we saying that as the middleman, the CSA has ultimate responsibility and we have none?

And a question for Prelude - do you not run these figures through some kind of computer programme or are they done by hand with a calculator?