Is CSA still payable?

nicky3

despite winning my appeal, the CSA have declined to admit to any error on their part...completely unbelievable. In order to force an apology, I am forced to take matters up with the ICE, and possibly beyond, which is exactly why the CSA continue to get away with their nonsense. Pursuing a complaint is not for the faint hearted. ALL of my dealings should have been over with the CSA in June 2010, meaning that they have remained a part of my life for 2 years (so far) that, if they could only concede to error, could be ended. But no, such are the mighty CSA that even in the face of the law, they feel themselves to be above reproach. Not even the hint of an apology has been forthcoming.

As far as I am aware the ICE don't get involved with legislative matters.....they just make service recommendations to the CSA so it will be a case of 'say you're sorry' and give her a few quid for her trouble! Most likely they will leave the CSA to continue to abuse the legislation.....I don't know, time will tell I guess, but I will be sticking at it. I have come too far to walk away now.

ankspon

nicky3 wrote: »

I bet they used child benefit as their excuse for this....when it is not the be all and end all at all, as my successful appeal proves. As it stands I stopped paying child support ten weeks before the child benefit ceased to be paid. My appeal states that they altered the date 'in accordance with the law' which, surely proves that a child benefit award is NOT the magic weapon that the CSA continue to insist it is?

Yes they did and they wouldn't investigate the fact the claim was still live when the child moved out,any advice would be greatly appreciated and well done.

nicky3

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Well my son was in further education but not higher and it continued until he was 19, I think you are mixed up between further and higher, further it continues, higher level 4 or above it does not.

Ok, getting this straight (I hope)...after school it is called further education...but if it is 'non advanced' the child is still eligible for Child benefit.

Non advanced are courses up to A level (equivalent of our higher level in Scotland) and National Certificate (NC) courses which are fairly basic and not advanced ie they are not above A level standard.

......basically, a young un can leave school at 16 and go to college and study O grades and A levels (or NC courses) and still be quantified as a 'child' for CB purposed (and CS - it seems)

The minute a child starts an advanced course - HNC or higher, they fall right off the CSA radar

nicky3

ankspon wrote: »

We did this before when the child got thrown out but they did not do anything,we was supporting the child outside the home and could not afford to pay CSA as well so we told them the child had been thrown out and our payments were stopping,they then told us later on we had over a thousand pounds of arrears even though the child was not at home.

Did you pay? When was this and where was the child living?

ankspon

nicky3 wrote: »

Did you pay? When was this and where was the child living?

The child moved into her boyfriends home,we told the CSA this and they said CB was still being claimed,we said fraudulently but they never did anything.We supported the child outside of the home and told the CSA we could not afford to do both so we stopped paying CSA.We found out they put it down as arrears and we tried to fight it.At the tribunal they said we don't deal with arrears and that was that,they would not even listen to the facts of how the so called arrears were calculated.

kevin137

Search for "ICE" and follow up with a further complaint....!

Do everything in writing, and don't give up...

nicky3

My appeal proves that child benefit does not automatically mean child support via the CSA. So do you have any way of proving that she lived away from home for more than 56 days? This is key as if you do, we will be getting you your grand back :beer:

ankspon

The child is so petrified of the PWC that they dare not say anything that may go against them,and when i say petrified i mean petrified.

skibadee

nicky3 wrote: »

My appeal proves that child benefit does not automatically mean child support via the CSA. So do you have any way of proving that she lived away from home for more than 56 days? This is key as if you do, we will be getting you your grand back :beer:

How did you prove this? I would be very interested to know as our QC left college on 22 feb., so legally CB should of stopped on last day of Feb., but as PWC did not contact CB until the CSA had a 'word' with her in May, hence we are still paying, aptly CB is supposed to cease today.....but we'll see:mad:

nicky3

well in my case the child was resident with me (and has remained so) but child benefit was paid to the other parent for a 10 weeks after the child left their care. The CSA repeatedly insisted that I must pay child support for those 10 weeks citing legislation as the reason. This legislation appears not to exist as my appeal reversed their decision 'in accordance with the law' which demonstrates that where there is child benefit, the law does not allow for automatic child support.

I suspect that there will be a bit of an issue if you cannot demonstrate that (In anspons case) the child was living with her boyfriend and in your case skibidee, that the child had left college. If either of you have any evidence then you will be in a much better position. Ultimately, I knew that the child and a vast number of others could provide an affidavit to vouch for the true residency of my son if I had been pushed to that extreme.

What I categorically believed throughout, was that no legislator, in their right mind, could write legislation that could force me to do what the CSA tried to force me to do. They forced me to claim a benefit and attempted to force me to pay child support when the law did not facilitate either.