Old employer didnt pay csa but took money

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

Are you serious? You expect the NRP to pay this again, because he had the misfortune to be employed by a thieving employer? If I lost my purse then it would be my own fault! How is this the NRP's fault? This is purely down to the employers, that is who the CSA should be chasing!

Why didn't the CSA write to the employee and the employer straight after the first payment was not forthcoming? If what the op says is true, then the fault lies with the employer and to a lesser extent the CSA, but it's certainly not the fault of the employee, so why should he pay again?

Of course I'm serious! And please understand the point, of course I don't expect the NRP to pay again, I never said that, the debt belongs to the NRP though, of course there are mitigating circumstances, but the debt remains responsible for until resolved . Remember some scraggy kid is not getting clothed and fed whilst CS contrbutions are not received

PreludeForTimeFeelers

CSA_Help wrote: »

Yes agreed , however the OP has the proof that he was under the impression the debt was getting paid by his ex employer.

Agreed, however it's the OP that the employer has ripped off, and therefore the OP who is responsible for trying to claim that money back from the employer.

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Agreed, however it's the OP that the employer has ripped off, and therefore the OP who is responsible for trying to claim that money back from the employer.

Using a order imposed on him using legislation that is unfair, uncalled for and downright unlawful in many cases...

eskimo26

If you lost your purse on the way to the supermarket would you expect the store to give you the groceries? Or would you simply have to find the monies again.

That's not even a relevant analogy...

If i paid the cashier at the supermarket and they pocketed my money, I wouldn't expect the supermarket to contact me x amount of months down the line to tell me 'technically' i hadn't paid for my shopping and i owe them money!
:rotfl:

DUTR

eskimo26 wrote: »

That's not even a relevant analogy...

If i paid the cashier at the supermarket and they pocketed my money, I wouldn't expect the supermarket to contact me x amount of months down the line to tell me 'technically' i hadn't paid for my shopping and i owe them money!
:rotfl:

I agree not the greatest analogy, suppose then you paid a travel agent for a holiday, and come time to travel the check in desk tell you they cannot carry you as they have no booking monies for you, they can carry you if you pay there and then.

Marisco

I understand what you're saying DUTR, but would that (as well as the employer in the op's case) not then be subjected to a criminal investigation for theft? From what the op says, it seems they cannot talk to the employer, and as the "contract" i.e DEO, was between the employer and CSA, then would it not be up to the CSA to pursue the employer?

The op has fulfilled his part of the "bargain" i.e had money deducted by DEO, it's the employer who has broken the terms of the contract by not sending the money to the CSA, therefore it seems (to me!) logical that the CSA should pursue the employer, as he is the one who has reneged on "the deal".

kevin137

Marisco wrote: »

I understand what you're saying DUTR, but would that (as well as the employer in the op's case) not then be subjected to a criminal investigation for theft? From what the op says, it seems they cannot talk to the employer, and as the "contract" i.e DEO, was between the employer and CSA, then would it not be up to the CSA to pursue the employer?

The op has fulfilled his part of the "bargain" i.e had money deducted by DEO, it's the employer who has broken the terms of the contract by not sending the money to the CSA, therefore it seems (to me!) logical that the CSA should pursue the employer, as he is the one who has reneged on "the deal".

My point exactly...!!!

Many people have no choice about the CSA imposing a DEO on them, meaning that the choice is not there's, the money was deducted, without choice, kept by his employer and now the CSA expect him to pay it again after being given no choice...!

I would be reporting it as a theft myself, but i would also be looking at challenging the legality of the imposed DEO as well. If it is in legislation to be used as a collection method then there needs to be a scenario available should an unscrupulous employer do this when it is no fault of the person it is imposed on...!!!

If the CSA imposed one on the OP at a future employer, i would challenge it through the courts as an unlawful, unworkable, piece of legislation with no recourse for the person it is imposed on...

RuthnJasper

This thread seems to be becoming a bit of a debating ground, which might not necessarily be helpful to the OP...

As I see it, the matter needs to be pursued between the CSA and the OP's former employer. If the OP has got payslips (regardless of whether they're handwritten or computer-generated) which indicates that wages have been deducted for the CSA payment and these payments have never reached the CSA then, surely, the best thing (as others have suggested) is to send (via recorded mail) copies of those slips to the CSA?

To all intents and purposes, if the matter is as clear-cut as this, the OP HAS paid the CSA - it's just that the go-between has pocketed the actual money (allegedly). If they have got the paperwork to prove this then submitting copies of it to the CSA (copying-in their MP if needs be) ought to put them in the clear and the former employers in the doo-doo...

HardUpandFedUp - good luck to you, hope it gets sorted. x

Marisco

Agreed Ruth, but according to some, the debt, according to the CSA is still the op's! It would be very interesting to see what the outcome of this is. One thing I do know, if it was me, there is no way I would pay this again, no matter what the CSA try to claim!! I would fight it "tooth and nail", and make sure it got maximum publicity!!

DUTR

Marisco wrote: »

I understand what you're saying DUTR, but would that (as well as the employer in the op's case) not then be subjected to a criminal investigation for theft? From what the op says, it seems they cannot talk to the employer, and as the "contract" i.e DEO, was between the employer and CSA, then would it not be up to the CSA to pursue the employer?

The op has fulfilled his part of the "bargain" i.e had money deducted by DEO, it's the employer who has broken the terms of the contract by not sending the money to the CSA, therefore it seems (to me!) logical that the CSA should pursue the employer, as he is the one who has reneged on "the deal".

Yes I fully agree, I'm just looking at it from a 'law point' (I'm no lawyer).
Indeed the Op's partner would have mitigating circumstances, the main worry here is that the wage slips were handwritten and as we know anybody can write anything on a bit of paper, especially as the employer was a 'friend'
They may have a battle on their hands from employer and CSA