Unbelievable CSA / DWP Story.

nicky3

Forgive me if i am wrong, but does the court, i.e. judge, not act on behalf of the secretary of state...? Thereby making the decision on his behalf only to over riled by a 2nd rate government system, for deciding financial issues...[/QUOTE]

the judiciary interpret the law in the name of the state, so yes, I agree, there is something wrong in the case you mention.

The problem is that the process of seeking some justice is long and tiresome, as I am sure you know. I have passed the initial stages with both the adjudicator (for my issues with child benefit) and the ICE (for my issues with the CSA) I am now to wait for literally months and months until the next stage (cos they are so busy - lol) but getting to this point was a real struggle, also in my case, both issues are intrinsically linked, yet I have to deal with two very separate independent bodies....talk about making it difficult for the layman?

My kids are older and I dont have a full time job, if I did, I would have opted out of these battles long long ago. I am only fighting because there has been injustice, and frankly, every now and again, somebody has to do it.

I can almost guarantee that this time next year, I will still be fighting my battle. This whole child benefit and child support thing is an issue for so many people and it needs to be sorted, it is costing the country a fortune to have these blurred edges, you only have to look at the number of questions on this forum in this regard, plus the woman at ICE told me they are dealing with it all the time!

nicky3

kevin137 wrote: »

That makes sense upto a point...

However there is a case on here recently where a father was charged CSA on a shared care case, and the mother was awarded CB.

Now this may not sound so strange... Until you read that the court paperwork showed him as the primary carer....!

Forgive me if i am wrong, but does the court, i.e. judge, not act on behalf of the secretary of state...? Thereby making the decision on his behalf only to over riled by a 2nd rate government system, for deciding financial issues...

the judiciary interpret the law in the name of the state, so yes, I agree, there is something wrong in the case you mention.

The problem is that the process of seeking some justice is long and tiresome, as I am sure you know. I have passed the initial stages with both the adjudicator (for my issues with child benefit) and the ICE (for my issues with the CSA) I am now to wait for literally months and months until the next stage (cos they are so busy - lol) but getting to this point was a real struggle, also in my case, both issues are intrinsically linked, yet I have to deal with two very separate independent bodies....talk about making it difficult for the layman?

My kids are older and I dont have a full time job, if I did, I would have opted out of these battles long long ago. I am only fighting because there has been injustice, and frankly, every now and again, somebody has to do it.

I can almost guarantee that this time next year, I will still be fighting my battle. This whole child benefit and child support thing is an issue for so many people and it needs to be sorted, it is costing the country a fortune to have these blurred edges, you only have to look at the number of questions on this forum in this regard, plus the woman at ICE told me they are dealing with it all the time!

HoneyNutLoop

Hi,
Child support law separately defines "child", "qualifying child", "PWC" and "NRP". For an application to succeed/case to continue, all the definitions must be met. I'm not allowed to post links as I'm new, so I've copied and pasted the relevant definitions:

Child:
Section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991
55.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is a child if–
(a) he is under the age of 16;
(b) he is under the age of 19 and receiving full-time education (which is not advanced education)–
(i) by attendance at a recognised educational establishment; or
(ii) elsewhere, if the education is recognised by the Secretary of State;
(c) he does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) but–
(i) he is under the age 18, and
(ii) prescribed conditions are satisfied with respect to him.
(2) A person is not a child for the purposes of this Act if he–
(a) is or has been married or a civil partner;
(b) has celebrated a marriage or been a party to a civil partnership, which is void; or
(c) has celebrated a marriage in respect of which a decree of nullity has been granted or has been a party to a civil partnership in respect of which a nullity order has been made.
(3) In this section—
“advanced education” means education of a prescribed description; and “recognised educational establishment” means an establishment recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section as being, or as comparable to, a university, college or school.
(4) Where a person has reached the age of 16, the Secretary of State may recognise education provided for him otherwise than at a recognised educational establishment only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that education was being so provided for him immediately before he reached the age of 16.
(5) The Secretary of State may provide that in prescribed circumstances education is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as being full-time.
(6) In determining whether a person falls within subsection (1)(b), no account shall be taken of such interruptions in his education as may be prescribed.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person who ceases to fall within subsection (1) shall be treated as continuing to fall within that subsection for a prescribed period.
(8) No person shall be treated as continuing to fall within subsection (1) by virtue of regulations made under subsection (7) after the end of the week in which he reaches the age of 19.

This definition is further expanded in Schedule 1 of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000:

[FONT=&quot]SCHEDULE I [FONT=&quot]
MEANING OF “CHILD” FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Persons of 16 or 17 years of age who are not in full-time non-advanced education [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [FONT=&quot]The conditions which must be satisfied for a person to be a child within section 55(1)(c) of the Act are that the person– [/FONT][/FONT]
(a) is registered for training with a qualifying body; and
(b) is a person in respect of whom child benefit is payable.

[FONT=&quot]Period for which a person is to be treated as continuing to fall within section 55(1) of the Act [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1A. [FONT=&quot]Where a person (“P”) has ceased to fall within section 55(1) of the Act, P is to be treated as continuing to fall within that subsection for any period during which P is a person in respect of whom child benefit is payable.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Meaning of “advanced education” for the purposes of section 55 of the Act [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [FONT=&quot]For the purposes of section 55 of the Act “advanced education” means education for the purposes of– [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) a course in preparation for a degree, a diploma of higher education, a higher national diploma or a teaching qualification; or [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) any other course which is of a standard above ordinary national diploma, a national diploma or a national certificate of Edexcel, a general certificate of education (advanced level) or Scottish national qualifications at higher or advanced higher level.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Circumstances in which education is to be treated as full-time education [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [FONT=&quot]For the purposes of section 55 of the Act education shall be treated as being full-time if it is received by a person attending a course of education at a recognised educational establishment and the time spent receiving instruction or tuition, undertaking supervised study, examination of practical work or taking part in any exercise, experiment or project for which provision is made in the curriculum of the course, exceeds 12 hours per week, so however that in calculating the time spent in pursuit of the course, no account shall be taken of time occupied by meal breaks or spent on unsupervised study, whether undertaken on or off the premises of the educational establishment.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Interruption of full-time education [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[FONT=&quot]—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), in determining whether a person falls within section 55(1)(b) of the Act no account shall be taken of a period (whether beginning before or after the person concerned attains age 16) of up to 6 months of any interruption to the extent to which it is accepted that the interruption is attributable to a cause which is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case; and where the interruption or its continuance is attributable to the illness or disability of mind or body of the person concerned, the period of 6 months may be extended for such further period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) The provisions of sub-paragraph (1) do not apply to any period of interruption of a person’s full-time education which is followed immediately by a period during which child benefit ceases to be payable in respect of that person.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Interpretation [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [FONT=&quot]In this Schedule “qualifying body” has the same meaning as in regulation 5(4) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 (extension period: 16 and 17 year olds)[/FONT][FONT=&quot](a)[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT]

1A of Schedule 1 is the bit about child benefit. However, these sections are only about whether or not someone is a "child" for child support purposes, not about if a PWC is a PWC or an NRP is an NRP, which is what Nicky3's case was about. When deciding if someone is a PWC or NRP, child benefit should only be used as a the deciding factor if 2 or more people provide equal care of a child, as per the regulation Nicky3 posted.

If Reg 8(2)(a) of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation and Special Cases) Regulations 2000 applies, then there is no need to have regard to Reg (8)(2)(b)(i). The only difficulty that would arise in the case of a child moving household is if the parents disagreed about the date the move occurred, at which point the CSA would have to look at any available evidence to decide the date. At that stage, child benefit could be looked at in the absence of any other evidence to resolve the dispute. If the parents agree about when the move occurred, that should be the date used, irrespective of child benefit.

If the issue of who is the NRP/PWC isn't in dispute, and it is just a question of whether or not the child continues to be eligible for maintenance, then if the child is under 19 years of age, child benefit is in payment, and the child has not been married/ a civil partner, then child maintenance remains payable because of Para 1A of Schedule 1 to the CS (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000.

Sorry this post is so long, would be much shorter if I could post links.

kevin137

A simple question...

When is a child NOT a child...!

If a child is old enough to give birth and support the child, then they are no longer a child.

You can't have it both ways...!

debtel007

kevin137 wrote: »

A simple question...

When is a child NOT a child...!

If a child is old enough to give birth and support the child, then they are no longer a child.

You can't have it both ways...!

Just been told by csa my case will continue until September when my daughter is 18 years and 10 months. The fact she has a child is not relevant!!! Only in the UK could this happen. Absolute madness

stephief

debtel007 wrote: »

Just been told by csa my case will continue until September when my daughter is 18 years and 10 months. The fact she has a child is not relevant!!! Only in the UK could this happen. Absolute madness

I have to say this does sound like utter madness. If she is an adult now, which clearly she is if she has a child of her own and thus her own entitlement to benefits, why on earth should her mum be able to claim child support? Yes of course if she still lives there, there will still be the same expenses, but once you are a grown up surely you should be meeting these expenses yourself (either through working or claiming benefits in your own right) and not expect child support from your parents to meet them?

Its no wonder so many nrp's dislike CSA rules so much, they are bonkers.

Mind you my husband and I still give weekly pocket money to 2 of his grown up kids who work full time! But then again that is our choice and not govt sanctioned!

Elvisia

If she's a child then surely that makes the father of her baby a pedophile? ;-)

EIGHTOF8

duchy wrote: »

So she's presumably living at home with a baby -and you want to deprive the household for the money you pay to support your child ?

Do you think because she has given birth she no longer needs shelter, food, electricity etc ? Not exactly the poster boy for parents or grandparents are you ?

Obviously a no need to comment: comment. My daughter turns 19 in September ; Had a new assessment last week for the next 12 months which didn't take into account the FACT that she comes off CSA in September.
Have spoke with them tonight and WOW - they have realised this. AM shocked they have realised this.
Got to be honest - There are some good people in the CSA but the rest just use their protocols and take the ****. I still think they should be held accountable for their usless ways of doing things.
I did try to start a name and shame STICKY on here but, MSE are to scared to do that. Apparently.
Tempted to start my own blog - unless there is one already running???

PreludeForTimeFeelers

EIGHTOF8 wrote: »

Obviously a no need to comment: comment. My daughter turns 19 in September ; Had a new assessment last week for the next 12 months which didn't take into account the FACT that she comes off CSA in September.
Have spoke with them tonight and WOW - they have realised this. AM shocked they have realised this.
Got to be honest - There are some good people in the CSA but the rest just use their protocols and take the ****. I still think they should be held accountable for their usless ways of doing things.
I did try to start a name and shame STICKY on here but, MSE are to scared to do that. Apparently.
Tempted to start my own blog - unless there is one already running???

It's already been addressed repeatedly, but collection schedules are issued to cover 12 months based on the current assessment - they don't take into account the fact that a QC could stop being a QC within that timescale.

Starting a blog 'naming and shaming' would be utterly pointless. Why would you even do that? Pillock.

kevin137

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Starting a blog 'naming and shaming' would be utterly pointless. Why would you even do that? Pillock.

PILLOCK.... Haha

Not heard that for a long time... It did make me chuckle..