Child Support USEFUL LINKS

Chloexxx

www.afairercsaforall.co.uk
www.afairercsaforall.myfanforum.org
Help&advice

Sensemaya

'If the child is in advanced or higher education they would no longer qualify for child maintenance. Some examples of advanced and higher education are:
Advanced Education and Higher Education

• Degree
• NVQ level 4 and above
• DHE
• HND
• BTEC HNC / HND
• SCOTVEC HNC / HND
• Teacher Training'

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/

LH side. Click on Forms and Guidance.

Type in C10 or you can browse Children's Act.

The 'child' can instigate proceedings.

Jamoe

As I am on the old system of the CSA pre March 2003 I have to pay £153 per week. If I was on the new system I would have to pay £98 per week. I have 2 children and I don't mind paying for them as they are my children but I just want to be treated fair.
I have been in touch with my local MP and my next step is the ICE ( Independant Case Examiner). The CSA say they can't transfer me to the new system because the computer system can't do it. More like they earn more from me and don't want to.
I have a link to a petition to send to the Prime Minister and I would be really pleased if as many people as possible can sign it so as some of us so called NRP's ( Non-Resident Parents) can be treated fairly and not give up the will to carry on.
Here is the petition link http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Csaruinslives/

Thanks for your time.

Sensemaya

Jamoe wrote: »

As I am on the old system of the CSA pre March 2003 I have to pay £153 per week. If I was on the new system I would have to pay £98 per week. I have 2 children and I don't mind paying for them as they are my children but I just want to be treated fair.
I have been in touch with my local MP and my next step is the ICE ( Independant Case Examiner). The CSA say they can't transfer me to the new system because the computer system can't do it. More like they earn more from me and don't want to.
I have a link to a petition to send to the Prime Minister and I would be really pleased if as many people as possible can sign it so as some of us so called NRP's ( Non-Resident Parents) can be treated fairly and not give up the will to carry on.
Here is the petition link http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Csaruinslives/

Thanks for your time.

Have you thought about lodging a Judical Review? It might just work if you can get together a lot of people in the same situation as yourself and get a lawyer to act pro bono. Otherwise the cost is prohibitive.

This is the only way forward in my opinion.

jon_stead

Jamoe wrote: »

As I am on the old system of the CSA pre March 2003 I have to pay £153 per week. If I was on the new system I would have to pay £98 per week. I have 2 children and I don't mind paying for them as they are my children but I just want to be treated fair.
I have been in touch with my local MP and my next step is the ICE ( Independant Case Examiner). The CSA say they can't transfer me to the new system because the computer system can't do it. More like they earn more from me and don't want to.
I have a link to a petition to send to the Prime Minister and I would be really pleased if as many people as possible can sign it so as some of us so called NRP's ( Non-Resident Parents) can be treated fairly and not give up the will to carry on.
Here is the petition link http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Csaruinslives/

Thanks for your time.

Hi Jamoe - I've signed it.

I don't know what a pro bono judicial review is but if anybody's starting one I will certainly consider joining it!

Sensemaya

jon_stead wrote: »

Hi Jamoe - I've signed it.

I don't know what a pro bono judicial review is but if anybody's starting one I will certainly consider joining it!

Pro bono means a solicitor or barrister offering their services for free. It would be good if a great many people would come together and take on the CSA.

JR is a very, very expensive business. If people would pool their finances together the option of instigating a JR against the CSA might become a group option.

In my opinion, this is the only way to take the bull by the horns. One can faff about organising petitions and so forth, but nothing will ever change.

jon_stead

Sensemaya wrote: »

Pro bono means a solicitor or barrister offering their services for free. It would be good if a great many people would come together and take on the CSA.

JR is a very, very expensive business. If people would pool their finances together the option of instigating a JR against the CSA might become a group option.

In my opinion, this is the only way to take the bull by the horns. One can faff about organising petitions and so forth, but nothing will ever change.

Thanks for that - how would one go about getting something like that off the ground?

Presumably we'd have to know what it was we wanted to be reformed? We couldn't just say, "We want the CSA reformed!" Could we?

Sensemaya

jon_stead wrote: »

Thanks for that - how would one go about getting something like that off the ground?

Presumably we'd have to know what it was we wanted to be reformed? We couldn't just say, "We want the CSA reformed!" Could we?

You would need to gather many people around you and, if you couldn't get a lawyer to act pro bono, get a quote and pool your resources.

But it isn't that simple just thinking you can get a JR. For instance you have to go through the pre-action protocol. Do a google on Judicial Review for more info.

As for your second question, you would need to draft up a skeleton argument.

One argument would be getting rid of CS1. Like you say it's not just a matter of saying let's get the CSA reformed and fair to all.

The govt have been making feeble attempts for ages, hence C-MESS ( C-Mec).

Sensemaya

Many thanks to John for allowing me permission to post his link on MSE.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/3159.html

"written by John Bolch It's a rarity for an an appeal against the making of a liability order to be successful, but that's what happened in Bird v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2008] EWHC 3159 (Admin).

The Facts: The Child Support Agency made an assessment and informed the father that he was to pay it using Transcash. However, the mother and the father had agreed that the father would pay the mother's share of the joint mortgage on the former family home, in lieu of maintenance. The father therefore made no payments by Transcash, and the Agency sought a liability order. The order was made by the Magistrates and the father appealed, on the basis that he had paid the child support, but just by a different method.

Decision: Mrs Justice Slade in the High Court agreed with the father. The Magistrates are, of course, obliged to make a liability order if they are satisfied that child support has become payable and has not been paid. Mrs Justice Slade: "Section 33(6) of the Child Support Act 1991 requires a Magistrates' Court to find that child support maintenance has not been paid where it is not paid to or through the person specified by virtue of the Regulations made under Section 29(3)(a). However there is no similar provision requiring the Magistrates to find that payment has not been made where it is not made by the method specified by virtue of the Regulations made under Section 29(3)(b). The absence of such a provision leads me to the conclusion that Magistrates are not obliged to make a liability order if they are satisfied that payment was made by the liable person but by a method other than that notified by the CSA [my emphasis]. Accordingly the answer to the question referred by the Magistrates for the opinion of the High Court is: No." With impeccable logic, she went on: "An affirmative answer to the question posed for the opinion of the High Court would oblige Magistrates to make a liability order if they are satisfied that payments have been made by the liable person but by a method other than that notified by the CSA. Such an answer would, for example, compel a Magistrates' Court to make a liability order in respect of a parent who pays child support maintenance to the specified person by cash where cheque was the specified method of payment. In my judgment Section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 does not have that effect."

Comment: A common sense decision, and one that will, hopefully, be helpful in the common scenario where the non-resident parent is providing financial assistance by discharging bills for the parent with care, rather than paying maintenance direct. Note, however, that the question of whether payment of the mother's mortgage liability by the father was payment of child maintenance was not referred to the High Court: "The question posed by the Magistrates for the opinion of the High Court is predicated on a finding that payment of child support maintenance was paid by Mr Bird but not by the method notified by the Child Support Agency."
John goes on to say the that "the Commission will be able to make an 'administrative liability order' if it considers that a person has failed to pay child support maintenance. That person may appeal against the "order" (I thought only courts could make orders?) and I believe that the principles in this case would still apply."
Here's the link to John's Blog.

http://www.familylore.co.uk/

Sensemaya

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/work/cscode/CS-Values.aspx

1. The Civil Service is an integral and key part of the government of the United Kingdom1. It supports the Government of the day in developing and implementing its policies, and in delivering public services. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament2.
2. As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. In this Code:
   • ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests;
   • ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open;
   • ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence; and
   • ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well Governments of different political persuasions.
3. These core values support good government and ensure the achievement of the highest possible standards in all that the Civil Service does. This in turn helps the Civil Service to gain and retain the respect of Ministers, Parliament, the public and its customers.
4. This Code3 sets out the standards of behaviour expected of you and all other civil servants. These are based on the core values. Individual departments may also have their own separate mission and values statements based on the core values, including the standards of behaviour expected of you when you deal with your colleagues.

1 This Code applies to all Home civil servants. Those working in the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales, and their Agencies, have their own versions of the Code. Similar Codes apply to the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service.
2 Constitutionally, civil servants are servants of the Crown. The Crown’s executive powers are exercised by the Government.
3 The respective responsibilities placed on Ministers and special advisers in relation to the Civil Service are set out in their Codes of Conduct: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics [External website].