DEO Discussion...

kevin137

Yet it has business registrations and ccj's against those businesses, so how does that work.

My case for the injunction was granted as it was a business, and there barrister could not prove it wasn't, and with business registrations shown to the court they agreed it was in fact a business.

It may not be the case now, but they definitely did have business registrations...!!!

Business Identification

Name CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Number UC2339568

Very easy to find...!

Fission

kevin137 wrote: »

...they definitely did have business registrations...!!!

Business Identification
Name CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Number UC2339568

Very easy to find...!

That's the website domain registration, isn't it?

Even government departments have to comply with that.

You might just as well complain that the CSA makes cars under the name "Ford" because there's a pool of fleet cars at each centre.

kevin137

No it's BUSINESS registrations, they have all there CJ listings with it in companies house...

As i have said before, when i applied for the injunction against the CSA and there DEO, the judge initially said that it could not be applied through a County Court as it was a Government Agency, i provided the listings, they could not answer as to why they where registered as a business or 6, she asked for proof that they where NOT a business as provided by companies house, and they couldn't, so an injunction was granted...

As such, the legislation you point out where point out that other legislation, that directs to other legislation for government agencies... And as there is a precedent, certainly in my case, that they where deemed a business, i think there is standing for the employment legislation to apply...

I am not sure how it would read for others, but once ruled if i do it and win, how can they defend it...???

clearingout

Kevin,
stop reading the Deadbeat Dads website...what's on there is, at best, manipulated to say what they want it to say. At worst it's just down rights lies.

I suspect it will be perfectly possible to register each office of the CSA indivdiually using regular business means as a means by which it operates/does it's business. Much in the same way as most charities are registered as limited companies, for example. In this way, suppliers are able to pursue the CSA through the court system if their bills remain unpaid or if they have some kind of greivance (say... unfair dismissal). Do you imagine someone, somewhere is making a profit from the CSA?

kevin137

This isn't something that came from deadbeat dads, although i have now seen it on there now...

This is something i feel needs addressing, they royally screwed me over using unfair unlawful and downright devious means to keep taking money by DEO when it was ILLEGAL...!

They need to be taught a lesson that they have to follow there own legislation as well as other legislation. It is not about not paying, i paid, and i paid huge amounts of money and they never once got an assessment right, and even when notified of change of circumstances they ignored or said it could only be reassessed after 13 weeks as anything less was a temporary change...

It's all a crock of sh*t in my mind...!

Shermanator123

im confused if you were paying why did the Csa have a DEO on you?

kevin137

They created fictional arrears by saying i had underpaid, thus providing huge debt to the CSA/PWC.

I refused to pay it (the arrears only) until my appeal had been heard so they imposed a DEO.

The DEO had a start date, and an end date, it's a legal document, and has to be abided by, by law (apparently).

This is where it gets confusing, as the legislation is up in the air over what is legal and what isn't as they fall outside of some legislation for imposing a DEO if proved they where registered as a business. Meaning the entire DEO was unlawful and should not of been paid by my employer.

If YOU had an end date, and requested a NEW DEO from the CSA on 8 separate occasions, and they simply said we do not need a new one, your employer HAS TO BY LAW keep paying, would you take there word for it or would you challenge it...?

I get fed up of reading how they impose this, impose that and there is no legal standing for it, they twist ad abuse the truth, and then create arrears with no consequence for there actions...!!!

I fully understand the need to pay and that they should be tough on those that do not pay, but they have to stay within the same law that we all have to, and they don't...!

The only thing they will understand is being taken to court, and IF they lose, there will be a backlash to thousands of people because of it. It is an outdated, screwed up system that gives no equal footing, and as a "customer" should of expected to be treated fairly...!

There own paperwork say they have no liability to YOU as an NRP so pay up and shut up...!

PreludeForTimeFeelers

kevin137 wrote: »

No it's BUSINESS registrations, they have all there CJ listings with it in companies house...

As i have said before, when i applied for the injunction against the CSA and there DEO, the judge initially said that it could not be applied through a County Court as it was a Government Agency, i provided the listings, they could not answer as to why they where registered as a business or 6, she asked for proof that they where NOT a business as provided by companies house, and they couldn't, so an injunction was granted...

It's not a business though...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaints_company_details#incoming-314832

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/csa_and_their_ccjs#comment-21564

I'm pretty sure that it's related to their court activities, and they need to be registered in relation to court costs, similar to all of the Ministry of Justice offices. They're not businesses, which is why you'll not find anything on the Companies House site - even the D & B screenshots on Deadbeatdads quite clearly state 'Line of Business: Government Department', something that Deadbeatdads just seem to ignore completely...

Fission

kevin137 wrote: »

I refused to pay ... the arrears ... until my appeal had been heard so they imposed a DEO.
The DEO had a start date, and an end date, it's a legal document, and has to be abided by, by law (apparently).
This is where it gets confusing, as the legislation is up in the air over what is legal and what isn't as they fall outside of some legislation for imposing a DEO if proved they where registered as a business.

What provision is that?

kevin137 wrote: »

Meaning the entire DEO was unlawful and should not of been paid by my employer.

Same question - what provision?

kevin137 wrote: »

If YOU had an end date, and requested a NEW DEO from the CSA on 8 separate occasions, and they simply said we do not need a new one, your employer HAS TO BY LAW keep paying, would you take there word for it or would you challenge it...?

You are always free to challenge a DEO in the magistrates court (it's provided for in law), but just making up stuff about government bodies being private companies is not best gauged to get you where you'd rather be.

kevin137 wrote: »

I get fed up of reading how they impose this, impose that and there is no legal standing for it,

But there IS legal "standing" for it: Statute law - the Child Support Act.

kevin137 wrote: »

they twist ad abuse the truth, and then create arrears with no consequence for there actions...!!!

"create" = "recalculate"?

kevin137 wrote: »

I fully understand the need to pay and that they should be tough on those that do not pay, but they have to stay within the same law that we all have to, and they don't...!

You could always try to prove (to a tribunal) that the recalculated liability was wrong (that is, too high). You could always try to prove (to the court) that you don't in fact owe the money, or all of the money, because you've already paid it. Taking those two rights together, you have total coverage for making sure that assessments and arrears are correct.

kevin137 wrote: »

The only thing they will understand is being taken to court, and IF they lose, there will be a backlash to thousands of people because of it. It is an outdated, screwed up system that gives no equal footing, and as a "customer" should of expected to be treated fairly...!

Yes, well... don't spend too much money on the case.

kevin137 wrote: »

There own paperwork say they have no liability to YOU as an NRP so pay up and shut up...!

That would be correct. The only liability in the system is that of a parent to maintain his or her children. And you've already accepted that (above).

shegirl

clearingout wrote: »

Kevin,
stop reading the Deadbeat Dads website...what's on there is, at best, manipulated to say what they want it to say. At worst it's just down rights lies.

I suspect it will be perfectly possible to register each office of the CSA indivdiually using regular business means as a means by which it operates/does it's business. Much in the same way as most charities are registered as limited companies, for example. In this way, suppliers are able to pursue the CSA through the court system if their bills remain unpaid or if they have some kind of greivance (say... unfair dismissal). Do you imagine someone, somewhere is making a profit from the CSA?

Deadbeat Dads sure got their name right!