An MP’s guide to child maintenance

HoneyNutLoop

Sorry it was a different thread. Here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/53621565#Comment_53621565

kevin137

Yet a child can leave school be outside of those the mother will claim CB and the claim will still go on outside of the supposed legislation... And it SHOULD cover all eventualities, that is why legislation is made...! To cover every eventuality...

If i had a child that qualified but lived in another country while CB was being claimed i can tell you now, that the CSA would still insist i pay... Because they are too blind to read and follow there own rules...!

HoneyNutLoop

kevin137 wrote: »

Yet a child can leave school be outside of those the mother will claim CB and the claim will still go on outside of the supposed legislation... And it SHOULD cover all eventualities, that is why legislation is made...! To cover every eventuality...

Yes, benefit fraud happens. Whether that's child benefit, tax credits, JSA, ESA, et al. I have no argument there. Is it unfair that someone else's fraud impacts another's life? - definitely. But there are lots of examples on here of that happening and it's not just confined to child benefit fraud. Plenty of allegations of NRP's working while claiming, or not declaring their full self-employed income. It goes on, and we just have to keep reporting the fraud if we're aware of it. But the law says if child benefit is in payment for a child (and issues of where they are living/who is the carer are not in play) child maintenance remains legally payable. That's not going outside of legislation, that's adhering to it.

kevin137 wrote: »

If i had a child that qualified but lived in another country while CB was being claimed i can tell you now, that the CSA would still insist i pay... Because they are too blind to read and follow there own rules...!

Well that's a whole other issue isn't it? The CSA not adhering to various other bits of legislation. I think the tricky bit with that scenario is what kind of evidence could be provided to them to prove a child or person has moved abroad. They aren't allowed to access passport/immigration data, so if no evidence is provided, they would look at the data they do have access to - DWP, HMRC, credit reference agencies. I

f you had to make the decision in that scenario, and you were being given two contradictory sets of information, how would you propose to work out who is telling the truth and who is lying? Would you put the onus on the person reporting the allegation to prove it is true, or the onus on the subject of the allegation to prove it is false?

kevin137

And so we go round in circles...

How many people on here get letters from the school in question stating the child is no longer attending yet it is ignored because the CB is payable, which is not always the be all and end all...

The legislation is full of holes and quoted as gospel... IT IS NOT...!!!

If someone raises a concern then as a "customer" and the paying customer at that, there MUST be some accountability...! And it is not the case...!!!

I can see the CSA being in BIG trouble when they start charging...!!! Some bright spark will start issuing proceedings against them for failing a contractual duty and charging for it, and they will get crucified...!!! All it takes is one smart !!!! lawyer to bring the system to it's knees...

Just like the LO, it may still be being issued or applied for, but anyone with any sense just claims the amount is wrong... And it can't now be issued and if it is, there are so many different grounds for appeal it is crazy...!

Sensemaya

kevin137 wrote: »

I can see the CSA being in BIG trouble when they start charging...!!! Some bright spark will start issuing proceedings against them for failing a contractual duty and charging for it, and they will get crucified...!!! All it takes is one smart !!!! lawyer to bring the system to it's knees...

Not even a lawyer. When the CSA start charging and they mess up I will be the first to sue them. yep...breach of contract.

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

And so we go round in circles...

How many people on here get letters from the school in question stating the child is no longer attending yet it is ignored because the CB is payable, which is not always the be all and end all...

The legislation referenced by HoneyNutLoop stated payment of CB is a deciding point to be used by the CSA when determining CM eligibility. It is down to HMRC to judge CB eligibility so sending school attendance letters to the CSA is a pointless exercise.

kevin137 wrote: »

The legislation is full of holes and quoted as gospel... IT IS NOT...!!!

As is all legislation, it is created by humans therefore prone to error and omissions. You seem to have a habit of pinpointing specific mismatches and using them as reasons to reject complete sets of legislation. Unless you are qualified and experienced in law then I find these statements misleading.

kevin137 wrote: »

If someone raises a concern then as a "customer" and the paying customer at that, there MUST be some accountability...! And it is not the case...!!!

I don't see why payment will make DWP more accountable, they should be accountable regardless. Previously when CMEC was a quango they were able to avoid accountability but the reason for bringing them under DWP was to make them more accountable.

kevin137 wrote: »

I can see the CSA being in BIG trouble when they start charging...!!! Some bright spark will start issuing proceedings against them for failing a contractual duty and charging for it, and they will get crucified...!!! All it takes is one smart !!!! lawyer to bring the system to it's knees...

Again I fail to understand why charging makes a difference.

kevin137

As it stands it is a free service.

When it changes you will be paying for a service and as such the accountability will be higher or should be... You will also be offered lots of different types of protection... Like if i pay by credit card then i am entitled under law to a certain quality of service or a refund by teh card company...

Wonder how that will work...

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

As it stands it is a free service.

When it changes you will be paying for a service and as such the accountability will be higher or should be... You will also be offered lots of different types of protection... Like if i pay by credit card then i am entitled under law to a certain quality of service or a refund by teh card company...

Wonder how that will work...

Surely a contract (and I only use the term contract as you mentioned it previously) is just an agreement or promise. You are only in breach, regardless of whether payment was exchanged or not, if your fail to perform what was agreed or promised. Accountability will be within the terms of that agreement, regardless of whether you have a credit card company behind you paying the legal fees to fight your corner. But, this is just my opinion and understanding, I do not proclaim to have any expertise in this field.

Sensemaya

kevin137 wrote: »

As it stands it is a free service.
When it changes you will be paying for a service and as such the accountability will be higher or should be... You will also be offered lots of different types of protection... Like if i pay by credit card then i am entitled under law to a certain quality of service or a refund by teh card company...

RedSky wrote: »

Surely a contract (and I only use the term contract as you mentioned it previously) is just an agreement or promise. You are only in breach, regardless of whether payment was exchanged or not, if your fail to perform what was agreed or promised. Accountability will be within the terms of that agreement, regardless of whether you have a credit card company behind you paying the legal fees to fight your corner. But, this is just my opinion and understanding, I do not proclaim to have any expertise in this field.

http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/breach-of-contract.html

When any contract is made an agreement is formed between parties to carry out a service and payment for that service. If one of the parties fails to carry out their side of the agreement then the party can be said to be in breach of contract.

Simple as that.
It should be interesting to see whether they issue terms & conditions and whether signatures are required.

Edit: And what will happen if a 'client' does not agree with the contract provided. Will there be scope for a compromise? I suspect not.

RedSky

I am not knowledgeable enough to know if, when or how contractual law applies to governmental services. If the contractual promise is simply to apply their powers within the limits of their jurisdiction for the collection and payment of eligible CM, then breach may only occur if they did not apply their powers.