Feels like CSA want me to pay twice ?

spiritsfree

I wonder if any one has any advice or had a similar experience ?

Divorced 1986....Paid maintenance, and more on top when I could, with out fail, against a court order....and relationship with her ok !

Approached by Ex in 1992 to see if could help as she was in debt big time....(£63,000) She asked if I could pay the maintenance as a lump sum ( full and final settlement) We worked out a figure, agreed on it, and I subsequently gave her a very large sum.....which i retain proof of !!

1995 a magistrates summons arrives on my doormat saying I owe over £20,000 in back maintenance....Go to court ( Case lasted 10 minutes) and she admitted that I had paid....but wanted more !!

Next thing is she contacts the CSA and they are chasing maintenance. I have fought them continuously for years now, and they are still saying I owe my ex maintenance, despite tribunals, court case, as well as years of letter writing. They admit that I have paid the lump sum........but that they don`t have to take notice of what the courts say, or take the lump sum into consideration,..... and still want the money ??? I even had an enforcement threat this week, despite being in dialogue still with a complaint. I feel that morally I have acted in good faith and with my 2 children in mind, however if the CSA can override the courts then why is it they use the courts to achieve what they want because they can override them ???

Is there anyone who can help or has a similar experience that they can advise me on this matter?

It just doesn`t feel ethically or morally right that I have to pay twice ?....or is it ??

Any advice would be appreciated

DUTR

spiritsfree wrote: »

I wonder if any one has any advice or had a similar experience ?

Divorced 1986....Paid maintenance, and more on top when I could, with out fail, against a court order....and relationship with her ok !

Approached by Ex in 1992 to see if could help as she was in debt big time....(£63,000) She asked if I could pay the maintenance as a lump sum ( full and final settlement) We worked out a figure, agreed on it, and I subsequently gave her a very large sum.....which i retain proof of !!

1995 a magistrates summons arrives on my doormat saying I owe over £20,000 in back maintenance....Go to court ( Case lasted 10 minutes) and she admitted that I had paid....but wanted more !!

Next thing is she contacts the CSA and they are chasing maintenance. I have fought them continuously for years now, and they are still saying I owe my ex maintenance, despite tribunals, court case, as well as years of letter writing. They admit that I have paid the lump sum........but that they don`t have to take notice of what the courts say, or take the lump sum into consideration,..... and still want the money ??? I even had an enforcement threat this week, despite being in dialogue still with a complaint. I feel that morally I have acted in good faith and with my 2 children in mind, however if the CSA can override the courts then why is it they use the courts to achieve what they want because they can override them ???

Is there anyone who can help or has a similar experience that they can advise me on this matter?

It just doesn`t feel ethically or morally right that I have to pay twice ?....or is it ??

Any advice would be appreciated

Seems like you are going to have to learn from experience then?
Alarm bells should have rang at the request, as far as the CSA are concerned you have not paid, so it's not like you are paying twice, good luck.

Bluemeanie_2

DUTR wrote: »

Seems like you are going to have to learn from experience then?
Alarm bells should have rang at the request, as far as the CSA are concerned you have not paid, so it's not like you are paying twice, good luck.

When did the CSA come into force? How old are the children?

spiritsfree

DUTR wrote: »

Seems like you are going to have to learn from experience then?
Alarm bells should have rang at the request, as far as the CSA are concerned you have not paid, so it's not like you are paying twice, good luck.

Thanks for your help !!

Buellguy

Because the CSA isn't fit for purpose!!

spiritsfree

The children are 32 and 30 now....and the CSA came in to force 1993 i believe

Bluemeanie_2

I have a law degree, though I don't practise and graduated 6 years ago. I'd say it was more an issue with the ex. Strictly speaking I'd say your ex is in breach of contract. If she signed a contract saying she accepted the settlement as lump sum child support, then opened a case against you, I'd say she breached the contract so to sue her for that and then pay the CSA off? I can't remember what/if there is a statute of limitation with regards to suing for breach of contract, as theoretically you've had since she opened the case in 1995 to do so. Have you sought specialist legal advice?

More experienced with the CSA, people like Kevin137 might be along to help you deal with them. Hopefully.

You have my sympathies. She sounds like a money grabbing moo

spiritsfree

Thanks Bluemeanie....I appreciate your kind comments. She clearly said in court that the money I paid her was maintenance, however the CSA won`t even take it into consideration. I do intend taking some legal advice on the basis if they can override and ignore a court decision, then maybe I should look at taking her back to court to regain the original lump sum, and then pay the CSA...which is a smaller sum than the original paid to her. Yes, you are right, she is very money orientated

missbunbury

So, to clarify, the CSA are asking you for back pay dating back some time since the kids are now fully grown? Sounds to me as though your ex was on Income Support at the time which would mean the CSA debt now being pursued is owed to the Secretary of State. I doubt your ex should have been allowed to take the lump sum, or they'd have stopped her benefits. You need legal advice on this one, it's clearly complicated given the age of the kids and age of the debt.

Basically, it used to be the case that any maintenance paid was offset against a single parent's benefits, so for example if she was getting £70 a week in Income support and you were paying £50 a week maintenance, she'd only have got to keep £15 or £20 of the maintenance and the rest was used to pay for her benefits in theory. A lot of people had private arrangements back then to enable the resident parent to keep more of the money (i.e "I'll chuck you the £50 a week in cash and you just don't declare it love") but in actual fact all single parents were required to have CSA cases and if they named the father (lots didn't) then he was theoretically being pursued for money. I would guess this is what has happened to you. You definitely want to get expert advice here, I am at the limits of my knowledge.

clearingout

I personally struggle to see how a lump sum could be considered to be 'in the best interests of the child'. Children are a constant drain on anyone's finances and therefore the need to constantly top up seems more reasonable.

regardless, has the CSA actually seen your agreement? was it dealt with by solicitors or the courts or was it simply something between you?

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

I personally struggle to see how a lump sum could be considered to be 'in the best interests of the child'. Children are a constant drain on anyone's finances and therefore the need to constantly top up seems more reasonable.

regardless, has the CSA actually seen your agreement? was it dealt with by solicitors or the courts or was it simply something between you?

I struggle to see how it could be in the childs best interest as well...

Until you consider the bailiffs may force eviction remove goods etc etc...

This gentleman clearly paid this in good faith albeit within an agreement as future maintenance. The point being she agreed in the childs best interest then wanted more blood...

It would be contractual between you and her as far as the courts are concerned, and if she was claiming ANY benefit at all then the chances are that the money owed would be payable to the state and not to her, which is why they are chasing the debt.

Not too sure how it would work in small claims, but in theory, she has breached any agreement you may of had by going to the CSA wether she had a choice or not, and it may be that she had no choice as she was on benefits (assumed) that being the case, then it is very difficult, but legislation cannot over ride a court order, so it would still be worth applying back to the court for this to be resolved for being breached.

My logic being that the CSA can only use recovery for a debt owed before, and i am hazy on this, but i believe it is 2003, i may be a couple of years out. If this is the case, then any money owed before that would be hard to recover using there normal Liability Order threats, as this would be considered wrong.

I would in your case issue against the EX and the CSA in court for the full amount to be returned, failing that, then attend any LO hearing they ay arrange for you for enforcement, there is very little a court will consider, BUT and it is a big BUT, i doubt very much they would apply a LO against you if you are in dispute about the money which is one of the few things they can use for not issuing an order. They may even consider it an abuse of power and say that having been provided with a CO for the use for Child Support they have NO claim for ANY monies due. As that would in fact be breach of a court order for future payment.

I never understood why a full and final could ever be questioned by the CSA if it has been judged by a Court to be fair. It causes more problems than it solves...!!!

If you do go the route of issuing for recovery so the CSA can be paid, then don't feel guilty, your kids are grown up, you have paid your way, but include a claim for interest as well...!!!