An MP’s guide to child maintenance

kevin137

RedSky wrote: »

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.

So you believe Government falls outside of contracted services...???

There is NO accountability at the moment, and as no charge is levied, it cannot be deemed a service as it is free.

So when you start paying, you only need 1 payment for over £100 as i see it to be covered by the legal weight of the VISA card and then you have a lawyer that should if the service not be up to scratch on your side...!

I can see them having major problems i know if i was in the system still i would be going after them at every opportunity...

PreludeForTimeFeelers

There will be three types of charges; an application charge, enforcement charges and collection charges.
The application charge will be the initial one-off charge for opening a case/getting an assessment.
The enforcement charges will be one-off charges for actions such as having an enforced DEO imposed or getting a liability order against the NRP.
Collection charging will add a certain percentage on to an NRP's assessment, and reduce a certain percentage from the PWC's payment. Obviously this charge will only be on payments received/payments sent.

With all this considered, there's not a cost for using the CSA per se - therefore it's unlikely that anyone could complain they weren't getting their money's worth.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

RedSky wrote: »

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.

Yup - see my post below (posted before I'd read this).

If you pay for an application and they don't process that application then you have cause to complain/get a refund.

kevin137

A charge for a "service" and if that service is not of satisfactory quality then if paid by credit card could cover legal fees for addressing the problem.

Whatever way you paint it, you are paying, and if you pay for something there have to be certain conditions, and those conditions will have to be explained if you believe that the service is wrong...

As an example, if they get an assessment wrong, and then come back for arrears after you have paid for the initial assessment, then the credit card would cover legal costs for challenging the arrears... As this would be a breach of contract for the service provided as any amount deemed payable would be a contract as a result of that service...

And that my friends would be arguable...!!!

RedSky

kevin137 wrote: »

As an example, if they get an assessment wrong, and then come back for arrears after you have paid for the initial assessment, then the credit card would cover legal costs for challenging the arrears... As this would be a breach of contract for the service provided as any amount deemed payable would be a contract as a result of that service...

And that my friends would be arguable...!!!

So the PWC applies and pays by credit card, the CSA make an incorrect assessment, the NRP is in arrears and the PWC's credit card company will cover all legal fees to challenge whether the NRP owes the PWC arrears or not?

kevin137

And the other way around as well, the NRP pays, the assessment is incorrect, and the CSA come back 5 years later for arrears and he can challenge the legality of the contract and the loss he suffers as a result...

Got to love credit cards and there protection, it is a nightmare waiting to happen i am sure of it...

The very 1st mistake they make that gets challenged legally will make a mockery of the system, and the payment is the key for the challenge in my eyes as it opens up a whole new can of worms that is just not there for the CSA right now... And that is the legal redress for something you are charging for and it makes NO difference that you are a government agency, that means you should have higher standards and a better system in most peoples eyes...!

HoneyNutLoop

The thing is, this isn't the first time the CSA have charged. When it was first introduced in 1993 there were fees applied, and interest. If what you are saying could be achieved is true, wouldn't those consequences have occurred the first time around?

Like RedSky, I don't really have any knowledge of contract law, etc, so I'm not qualified to speculate, but the fact this is not the first time they have charged for services leaves me questioning what you're saying. I think only will time will tell and anything else at this stage is pure speculation.

wayne0

kevin137 wrote: »

I don't know if anyone else is reading this, but there seems to be a few mistakes..

The 1st in here is there is still no legislation that connects CB to CSA so that would be wrong, and if it has changed legally i would love to see the legislation...!!!

wonder if they would reply to a FOI request based on this?

kevin137

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

The thing is, this isn't the first time the CSA have charged. When it was first introduced in 1993 there were fees applied, and interest. If what you are saying could be achieved is true, wouldn't those consequences have occurred the first time around?

Like RedSky, I don't really have any knowledge of contract law, etc, so I'm not qualified to speculate, but the fact this is not the first time they have charged for services leaves me questioning what you're saying. I think only will time will tell and anything else at this stage is pure speculation.

The 1st difference is that so many more people are aware of there rights nowadays....!!!

The 2nd is people are not as prepared to take the crap that is !!!!!!!! from the CSA and are more likely to question it...

The 3rd, more people now use credit and or debit cards backed by VISA for the very reason that they are covered with so much more protection now and don't have to pay interest when used correctly...

The 4th is how it is worded, and as it is offered as a SERVICE and is advertised as such, means they have to abide by the legislation they fall into for providing a service...

I'm not sure how much more you can go into it without it actually coming into force and being challenged, but it will be interesting to see just how it pans out with legal challenges and wether or not they get taught a lesson in how to run there "service" by this...

RedSky

Personally I am unconvinced that charging will make the slightest bit of difference and I certainly don't see the system collapsing from unsatisfied customers, that would have happened many times before now if the case.