CSA debt over 6 years can't be enforced?

Sensemaya

...and further to what Kelloggs has said, don't forget lifestyle can be funded with help of family, although the NRP does not have to substantiate that in the tribunal. The PWC can demand a forensic accountant to be present in the tribunal if the NRP is self employed.

Oh...and even if the NRP's mortgage payment percentage exceeds more than what their actual income is, that doesn't matter.

As for the CSA themselves in the Tribunal, they don't usually open their gobs.

Yes...very difficult to prove with the onus being on the PWC. I feel it is just ' there' in the legislation to make life more miserable for the PWC not forgetting more bogging down bureaucratic claptrap.

But the civil servants and Tribunal chairpeople ( when I last looked they were paid in the region of £200 per day ) need to be kept in a job.

It's simply a money making racket at everybody's expense.

End of rant...

kelloggs36

Yes I agree! At my tribunal, the Chairperson said "and the CSA believe that nineteen pounds per week can easily maintain a good lifestyle, do they?" THis ninteen pounds was to pay for:

Food for 4 people for a week
Gas
Electricity
Council Tax
House Insurance
Petrol
Car Insurance
Holidays
Telephone
TV cable or Sky
School uniforms for their children

The CSA just said "yes" because it was the Departures section that made that decision and the CSA just have to stick to that decision even if it looks ludicrous. The housing costs were the only thing that had been accounted for from his income, which left the nineteen quid per week to live on. I did actually win my case, but he still hasn't paid and that was in August 2003. So even if you win the case, it still won't get you any money. Many NRPs will try and get that decision overturned on a point of law and the whole process takes months and months and months.

chickalittle

I have asked on another thread but no responses on it as yet. I have read thru the CSA's enforecement guide and various threads on here.

I am still unsure from everything I've read - what action the CSA should have taken to ensure that they can take enforcement action if the debtor ceases arrear payments after 6 years.

I am trying to get clarification - if a reassessment/review had been done within the 6 years, would the 6 years then count forward from the review date and not the original date of the liability.
If that was the case, I was thinking, if a review has not been carried out within that timescale and therefore provided this loophole, then maybe I have a stronger case for compensation. Does that make sense? Any thoughts anyone?

kelloggs36

Each month that a payment is due starts the 6 yrs from that date?

janiegs

Something is happening about the statute of limitations thingy, because they're now sending all debt from july 2000 to enforcement. I think it's 13/07/00 but can't be 100% sure.

kelloggs36

I read somewhere that any debt which accrued after 2000 is NOT subject to the statute of limitations. don't know how true this is, or how it works.

chickalittle

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Each month that a payment is due starts the 6 yrs from that date?

Hi Kellogs36 - that's not what the CRO told me. He told me that the 6 years starts from the date when the NRP was advised originally of the liability order and not from his last payment ( although you are right that under the statue of Limitation it would be 6 years from the last payment).

I have copied something from the web site about this in one of my earlier posts on this thread.

I'm just trying to get my head round this- I'm still unclear what/could the agency have done to ensure that this didn';t happen. I know my ex agreed to make payments and made these for the 6 years. Still trying to establish, if the agency had done a review/reassessment within the 6 years, would that notification then count as the "new" date the ex was advised and the 6 years would run from this new date. I have asked the CSA that question and they said no - even with a fresh assessment the 6 years still runs from the original notification - that just doesn't make sense to me and I'm not convinced they aren't trying to fob me off.........

Chair64

Hello all - new here
I am a father of 2 children one of whom I had care of from the age of 7 until they were 18 nearly 2 years ago. My daughter now 17 is the child the CSA are chasing me for. However, at 14 she left her mother and rebelled but throughout this time I paid maintenence for my daughter but never received anything for my son. The fact that my daughter never saw any of the monies is not worth mentioning. The fact that my ex left me with £30k debts and emptied our joint accounts is by the by.

Throughout this time of their childhood I have paid maintenence/support. When the CSA started I never challenged their calculations just thought it would all sort itself out.It didn't.

Needless to say I have since collected a debt of £8k which was being paid each month. Then in 2004 I became ill and confined to a wheelchair at which time the DWP continued to chase me with a passion, irrespective of my situation, and I subsequently lost my job and financial security. However I agreed and continued to pay £40 a month from my DLA and IB on the basis that I was at my end of my tether both financially and mentally.

1 year on I received a call from the DWP this week asking for an increase. I politely stated my previous agreement and that I am unable to work due to my disablity. I was then asked to pay by Credit Card or get a loan on the equity within my property.

Talk about kicking someone when their down. This time though I might not get up.

chickalittle

please - do any of you CSA staff who are good enough to respond to queries on this forum know whether a reassessment within 6 years would mean that the 6 years would have run from that date? I have read the enforecement guide but can't see anything regards this.

The info is to help with a roping in my MP and trying to claim compensation.

Any pointers or who I should contact would be appreciated - or should I see if my MP would ask the Q?

kelloggs36

I don't know chickalittle. Sorry. I would guess that it would be from the reassessment date as it is the most up to date info with corrected figures, although if the arrears already existed, it could be the date from when they were built up.