CSA arrears

Sensemaya

baz9192 wrote: »

They have reassessed me because my ex has moved, so when she rang up to change details, they asked her if I should be reassessed on my income. How happy is she going to be when she finds out my payments will be doubled and I somehow need to give her 5200 pound.

I am going to see citizens advice today,what advice did they give you? then I may go down the mp route."may"? We are also going to receive some free legal advice because my wife is part of unison.

When I receive my next phonecall (tomorrow), should I tell them?Tell them what? You have been to the Citizens Advice and you are going to receive some free legal advice via your wife's union? Do you think those two things will stop the CSA? Should I ask for a breakdown of why the arrears have come to this much (i know it is their system error) and I want ut in writing.Entirely up to you. Would all of this stop at least the first payment coming out next month?IMO...NO!

Just get your MP involved.Cannot advise further.

gigoo

with arrears? Is it when the case is ongoin and an assessment is made? Rather than if you lose your job and then get another reassessment based on your new situation?

How do arrears occur? We have never missed a payment but we aren't assessed every year.

Fission

kevin137 wrote: »

... it could be leaving the CSA liable to charges of theft if taking money from a shared account ... ! That is what i was told by a solicitor and a judge as a actually queried it ... and asked the CSA of there powers to take money from my account. The judges answer was, is your account joint, which it is, and as it is a different surname for the other account holder, she advised the CSA that if they did this, i would, or the other account holder would have a case for pressing for charges of theft.

That's a peculiar thing for a judge to say.

Theft is defined in law. According to the Theft Act, "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1

I can already hear siren voices crying out that that is what the sequestration of money in a bank account would amount to - but it wouldn't, and that's because the essential element of theft is dishonesty (which in such a case would have to be a belief that the PWC was not entitled to the money and that it was therefore a dishonest act to obtain it for her or him).

Since she obviously is entitled to the money, and since the removal of the money from the account would be visible and transparent, there would be, and could be, no dishonesty involved - and therefore, for the most glaringly obvious of reasons, no theft.

That judge would think otherwise is most surprising.

kevin137

I think the point the judge was getting at, is that an account with a different name on as a joint account, could never be know as to who's money it is, so the 2nd party named on the account would have an expectation of security from removal by unknown parties, and if indeed the money was removed by another party of that money without her knowledge then it would in fact be a theft.

The point she was making to the barristor for the csa was in fact that she had already granted an injunction against them, and ordered them not to harass me, yet they continued to write and call regarding so called arrears that where subject to the court proceedings and i wanted it clarified, as one of the conversations i had with the collections department was, a judge can't tell us what to do, and your injunction is worthless, we will just take the money from your bank account direct. So i clarified the point and gave all the letters to the judge along with copies of the recordings of the conversations and she clarified it that it would be something that could be subject to theft, she also ammended the order to say that no money was to be collected and no contact was to be made. So it was in fact a mute point, but it is what was said...

Fission

kevin137 wrote: »

I think the point the judge was getting at, is that an account with a different name on as a joint account, could never be know as to who's money it is, so the 2nd party named on the account would have an expectation of security from removal by unknown parties, and if indeed the money was removed by another party of that money without her knowledge then it would in fact be a theft.

Maybe that's what the judge was "getting at". But that position is not supported by law.

If all a parent had to do was run a spousal joint account in order to avoid the collection of unpaid maintenance, that would be an enormous - and very silly - loophole for Parliament to have left in the legal provisions.

Wouldn't it?

kevin137 wrote: »

The point she was making to the barristor for the csa was in fact that she had already granted an injunction against them, and ordered them not to harass me, yet they continued to write and call regarding so called arrears that where subject to the court proceedings and i wanted it clarified, as one of the conversations i had with the collections department was, a judge can't tell us what to do, and your injunction is worthless, we will just take the money from your bank account direct.

Again, and with respect, collecting money from you by enforcing the child maintenance rules is not "harassment" and could never credibly be described as harassment.

As a matter of fact, no-one is allowed to harass anyone else. That goes without saying. An injunction may be available and in some cases, certain forms of harassment may be an offence in themselves.

If simply operating the law were harassment, it would become impossible for the CSA (or the Customs, or the Revenue, or the local authority) to collect any money legally due from a citizen - if that citizen objected loudly enough and called the process "harassment".

kevin137

A joint account is something that i have never heard of been attached to to have money removed i have to say, but i have heard of accounts being tapped for so-called unpaid maintenance. So would the other account holder not have an expectation of security from unauthorised removal...?

I have not seen any legislation that covers a joint account for removal and the fact that they where "suggesting" the removal of money from such was addressed.

As for any form of harassment, they chase me for arrears which where in fact the subject of legal action, and as such fall under the jurisdiction of the court. And any attempt to continue to remove the said arrears does in fact fall under the heading HARRASSMENT and if that is not the case, then it certainly would fall under the heading of contempt of court...!!!

The judge issued an injunction after me applying, admittedly i applied ex-parts, and it was not granted, so it was adjourned and they failed to attend. It was granted. They then attended the next hearing and argued that it was notified to the incorrect department. An issue which the judge frowned upon, as it was sent to the department that all previous paperwork had been sent from. They then argued that the fax machine that the court sent the hearing date to, was not in fact in use and as such the injunction should be overturned. They tried every trick in the book. The judge got the hump, and called the clerk who faxed the hearing date to them, and in fact asked how you obtained the number, and was told by a clerk that it was in fact the CSA themselves that gave that specific number for a fax to be sent to.

They use underhand and devious tactics in most everything they do, with under trained staff preaching from a script that is not always correct. If they got things write, the CSA would not be in the mess they are in surely...

kevin137

Just to further clarify, when the LO changes over to the ALO then they can attach joint accounts.

But it would still be open to a legal challenge...

Sensemaya

Fission wrote: »

Maybe that's what the judge was "getting at". But that position is not supported by law.

If all a parent had to do was run a spousal joint account in order to avoid the collection of unpaid maintenance, that would be an enormous - and very silly - loophole for Parliament to have left in the legal provisions.

Wouldn't it?

I'm pretty certain the CSA cannot extract money from a joint account - and indeed they cannot enforce an Order of Sale if other people are resident in the property.



Again, and with respect, collecting money from you by enforcing the child maintenance rules is not "harassment" and could never credibly be described as harassment.

As a matter of fact, no-one is allowed to harass anyone else. That goes without saying. An injunction may be available and in some cases, certain forms of harassment may be an offence in themselves.

If simply operating the law were harassment, it would become impossible for the CSA (or the Customs, or the Revenue, or the local authority) to collect any money legally due from a citizen - if that citizen objected loudly enough and called the process "harassment".

Ever heard of Harassment of the Debtor?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/section/40

niggyp

can they just make their own assessment on the fly?

one thing tho get the docs from the csa and triple check the overpayment amount, they tried screwing me over for an extra £900 until i provided written evidence that they were wrong