Help me Please

NiceMan2007

Thanks again kelloggs, I am aware of the rules that the CSA follow in regards to Bankruptcy but it never been tested in court the only reason is not taken into account is because the CSA say that theses payments are installments and not lump sum. The question that remains unanswered is that these payments ? were in installment payment between 1999 and 2002 but now they are asking for a lump sum payment which is covered by bankruptcy rules, secondly as the bankruptcy order was made after date given by CSA it could have been enclued is the said that the bankruptcy order because the law in 2002 was different to what is now and changes made in the law in 2006 should not applied to legal action taken in the past before the law changed. This a bit pointless because I am sure the CSA will get the way and as I had not disclosed all the details of my case on this site because of legal reason i cannot enter into discussion with others on this at this time but I can say that all amount and figure have been looked at and appear to serioursly floored.
Once again I thank for your advice but this is just very unfair and I was pleased to heard today that CSA is end in 12 months time and being replaced by new agency, lets hope that will be fairer to both parents and not just looking at things throught rose tinted glasses. The CSA also is only pursuing people they know about and not other non resident father because the mothers (if that the case) are on Income support.

Thanks

kelloggs36

What do you mean by a lump sum being covered by bankruptcy rules? Are you saying that the debt owed to the CSA would be effectively wiped out by the bankruptcy had they applied earlier? If you are then you are mistaken. No debt owed to the CSA can be taken into account for bankruptcy purposes - they are excluded altogether, so when all other debts are covered and effectively wiped out, the CSA debt remains payable. I'm not sure if this is what you are saying?

NiceMan2007

As I said in the posting it does not matter But the law concerning bunkruptcy covers all debts regless of where they come from? But because no one has challenged the CSA in Judicial enquire over wheather is this a lump sum or not it remains unanswered question because if it lump sum then it could be covered by a bankruptcy order just like Income tax(goverment department) and other lump sum monies owed is, this is all I am saying nothing else.

I think we need to be careful not to make quick judgements on things which have not yet been tested in court, having said that you are correct in what your say under normal circumstances CSA payments are not covered by bunkruptcy but this not normal circumstances? The CSA refers to theses arrears as a debt and not installments.


Thanks again

Sensemaya

I've looked into bankruptcy and Kelloggs is right.

Steven Lawson is the man to get in contact with if you wish to go for an JR.

NiceMan2007

I do wish people would read posting correctly I have not said that Kelloggs is WRONG he/she is right under normal circumstance so r u, But i make the point this has never been tested in court and it could be argued in my opinion and opinion of solicators that out date assesment ie over 6 years old have no liability (this nothing to limation act 1980) and are considered debts and not maintance installment which means they cannot be pursue under normal processes and it be argues therefore that they could be inclued in old bankruptcy order that were made before the law change because an indavidual do not know what the future law is and have not been informed of any outstanding debt by CSA over 6 years. This is meant just to be point of interest and nothing else.
It would appear to be aurguable case in enquire that all............

I would drop point now because it is not the issue, the issues is the unfairs of CSA against both parent and I for one is glad that it is being scarpped at the end of year because it is clearly not working.

aussiesbird

I would drop point now because it is not the issue, the issues is the unfairs of CSA against both parent and I for one is glad that it is being scarpped at the end of year because it is clearly not working

You are right, the CSA does not work but what makes you think that the new agency being set up will be any different. From what I have heard on the tv and read about the only difference will be the name -The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, to be known as C-MEC !! Still the same staff set in their same old ways making the same mistakes. If you ask me this is just a government cover up to try and get the heat off of them for a while, the government know there are too many flaws to list within the CSA and that people are up in arms about it so what do they do? say it's being replaced with another agency. It's not! The name is changing and maybe a few token amendments will take place but all of us tied up in the CSA system will remain to be there, being treated with the same contempt they have always treated us with. :mad: :mad: :mad:

The CSA currently has a backlog of around 300,000 cases, with an estimated £3 billion in uncollected debt. This is not going to disappear over night. Get in new COMPETENT staff and lots of them, clear this mess up once and for all and start afresh with a completely new stystem and FULLY trained staff.

kelloggs36

I agree that there needs to be many more staff, but to be fair many are quite competent, but are unable to do their jobs because of constant interference and pointless targets imposed by senior management whihc involves constant changes in people's jobs so they can't get stuck in and tackle the worst cases - so they get left behind- they are the ones who make the decisions about how to implement Ministers' decisions - the ground staff argue that it won't work but are told to put up and shut up and then get shouted at when what they said wouldn't work, doesn't!!! Mr Brown got rid of many staff and there are still more plans to reduce staff even further, so the situation won't get any better.

Soubrette

I do not believe it is a staff training issue as such.

The child support issue will always be a hot potato because there is no right or wrong - just moral issues which, to a greater or lesser extent, are grey. No matter what is decided a huge chunk of people affected will disagree and believe that the way their case has been treated is unfair and of those - many will blame the agency or their ex-other half (or both!)

Sorry to the OP for wandering off topic :eek:


Sou

TheWaltons_3

kelloggs36 wrote: »

I agree that there needs to be many more staff, but to be fair many are quite competent, but are unable to do their jobs because of constant interference and pointless targets imposed by senior management whihc involves constant changes in people's jobs so they can't get stuck in and tackle the worst cases - so they get left behind- they are the ones who make the decisions about how to implement Ministers' decisions - the ground staff argue that it won't work but are told to put up and shut up and then get shouted at when what they said wouldn't work, doesn't!!! Mr Brown got rid of many staff and there are still more plans to reduce staff even further, so the situation won't get any better.

Can you elaborate on competent? See, their hands are tied.. so what does it matter if they are competent or not?

kelloggs36

Many of the rules which people don't agree with, such as overtime being counted has nothing to do with competency or not, but it is the cause of many complaints and accusations of incompetency. Within any organisation there are incompetent people who are unable to do the job properly and fail to implement the rules. The policies are interpreted from the law, and are just that, interpretations which change over time when different people look at them. THE CSA is constantly undergoing such changes which results in changes in policy. Senior management refuse to listen to those on the ground who can see what is happening and the results of the constant changes, but refuse to listen. There are focusses on targets which are nothing to do with actually getting money to the children and everything to do with the Agency appearing to do something - lead by senior management, when those on the ground can do nothing to make it better, or face the accusation of failing to do what they are supposed to be, and facing the sack. An example is the change of policy to aim for INTERVENTION rather than OUTCOME. In Face to Face it was policy to go for outcomes - which required a common sense approach based on the merits of each case which would result in the most favourable outcome. EG a referral from an office would come in requesting the Face to Face service to obtain information from a non-compliant NRP who has refused to co-operate. What we would do, would be to look at the history of what action had been carried out, and decide what is the best way forward to get the info and consider an office interview, a notified home visit, an un-notified home visit or trace for employer and a visit there perhaps. Then the change came so that the number of interventions was more important, so we were forced to call them in for an office interview when we knew full well that they would fail to turn up, then the next stage would be to notify them that we were coming on X date and time to see them, so they would ensure they weren't in!!! The next stage was to consider an out of hours visit. If on the third intervention, we had not obtained the info, we had to send it back as a clearance but without having achieved anything other than wasting our own time. We complained and complained to management that this approach was purely target driven with no appreciation of the reason that we were there, but were told that they were trying to cut budgets - that was the overall aim!!!!!!!!!! So, it isn't JUST staff who are incompetent (most aren't though) it is those making the decisions.