order for sale court date!!!!! advice please

clearingout

arguably, the non-payment of child maintenance could be a pivotal factor in whether or not the other children involved in this case are made homeless so personally, I don't buy the 'no judge will make a child homeless' argument as much as others do. Much will depend on the money owed and the extent to which both the OP and the CSA are able to make their cases. Head in the sand also won't help.

OP - have you tried NACSA?

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

arguably, the non-payment of child maintenance could be a pivotal factor in whether or not the other children involved in this case are made homeless so personally, I don't buy the 'no judge will make a child homeless' argument as much as others do. Much will depend on the money owed and the extent to which both the OP and the CSA are able to make their cases. Head in the sand also won't help.

OP - have you tried NACSA?

I wonder if the judge could actually do something sensible instead, i mean i don't know how much power they have in these matters, and i know appeals play a big part in it as well...

But the most reasonable thing i think the judge could do, is refuse the order of sale for 6 months, but impose a custodial sentence in leui of the LO, maybe suspended for 28 days for payment to be made in part at least, reserved back to the same judge means the case would already be known, have a good outcome for the CSA and kick the NRP up the !!!! knowing he WILL be sent to prison...!!! And still risk losing his house...!!!

Makes more sense to me...!!!

Gair_Rhydd

kevin137 wrote: »

I was going to ask the same thing, if the case was closed, then technically it can't have arrears, as you can't close a case with money owing...

.

A "closed" case in CSA terminology is simply one with no ongoing maintenance liability. Any outstanding arrears remain payable and can only be written off in limited circumstances. Confusing, perhaps, but they do point this out on the "closure" letters.

An offer of weekly payments isn't really appropriate when the kids no longer qualify because really it's now all about compensating the PWC for the maintenance s/he has missed out on. All you'd be offering to do is to further delay the full and final settlement of the debt.

I suspect the Court would expect a substantial lump sum up front with further payments in installments leading to a settlement of the debt within a short and mutually agreed time-frame.

Of course this NRP may have been the victim of maladministration by the CSA but , as other posters have pointed out, burying your head in the sand is no way to tackle that one. And to get this far down the legal route usually involves either that or downright irresponsibility. Neither plays well in the Courts, believe me.

clearingout

kevin137 wrote: »

I wonder if the judge could actually do something sensible instead, i mean i don't know how much power they have in these matters, and i know appeals play a big part in it as well...

But the most reasonable thing i think the judge could do, is refuse the order of sale for 6 months, but impose a custodial sentence in leui of the LO, maybe suspended for 28 days for payment to be made in part at least, reserved back to the same judge means the case would already be known, have a good outcome for the CSA and kick the NRP up the !!!! knowing he WILL be sent to prison...!!! And still risk losing his house...!!!

Makes more sense to me...!!!

well, you'd hope that a judge would look at all the 'evidence'. Assuming the OP has dated evidence of the case being closed, you'd hope that would be seen as crucial. After that, the CSA will need to work incredibly hard to 'prove' that money is owed - and presumably admit they made a mistake in closing the case in the first place. Once it's established whether or not any money is owed (and assuming something is owed), it should then be a simple case of the judge looking at incomings/outgoings and making a reasonable judgement as to what the OP's household can afford to pay on a monthly basis. I don't personally see a need for Orders of Sale or possible committal...but that's taking the OP at face value and knowing that the CSA is pretty useless and capable of making this kind of mistake.

If however, there is more to it (and of course there could be), and assuming that the CSA has made reasonable attempt to deal with the issue outwith the court system and has proof of that, then I believe it possible that the 'right' judge will indeed consider an Order of Sale - probably suspended - because ultimately, it's not sufficient to say 'it's not OK for these children to go without but it is OK for those children to go without'. Ultimately, there are too many possibilities for anyone without the appropriate legal experience to make a guess as to what might happen.

My own stance is that I wish there there judges a plenty who were prepared to make one family homeless at the expense of another where it is proven that the NRP concerned had clear ability to pay but has refused to and has refused all reasonable communication/discussion on the issue. It is not acceptable and it would only take a couple of well publicised cases for other NRPs to think twice about this dreadful behaviour. I live in utopia, however, or maybe cloud-cuckoo land....!

Gair_Rhydd

You can see the stats on the DWP website. Last year the CSA were granted 60 Orders for Sale. But 125 cases were settled when the NRP paid up before the final order was imposed. Which suggests a lot of these people had the means to pay all along but were just waiting for the system to come and drag the money out of them.

kevin137

clearingout wrote: »

well, you'd hope that a judge would look at all the 'evidence'.

And here in lies the problem, they are very limited with there powers, and cannot question the amount the same as in the original LO, the amount is irrelevant it is about the amount being objected too, which is where i feel the system fails, if a judge, with is technically a layman with legal training and qualifications could see the errors, they should be able to correct them after all they are being asked to rule on someones debt and outcome as a result of the debt, but time and time again, the amount is argued, and more often than not, quite rightly...!!!

When the CSA get there act together, and actually start producing correct figures, then the arguments should cease, but they are a victim of their own mistakes making it easy to circumvent the system and argue that it is not lawful...

I would raise the argument quite simply by the way of, i believe and think i can prove the figures are wrong, and as such you cannot legally enforce it... If a judge doesn't adjourn and address the situation and get accurate figures, it is grounds for appeal and all sorts of trouble could open up as a result...

What i suggested is what SHOULD happen in an ideal world, but i do not believe they have the power, they are just there to rubber stamp a case that is not argued against for the CSA, and as already stated, can only veto what isn't correct by way of disputed amount, which should be backed up by evidence...!!!

And let's be honest, that can easily be done with the CSA, i could do that simply by providing payslips, and the amounts would NEVER tally with what they said i had paid, because there system is always behind in collection and they miss and or lose payments in the system that is paid and accredited to your account but not registered, they mess up constantly... And then take someone paid weekly and it confuses the system again...!!!

I would prove payment, my employer could not pay it, they would get it late etc, and it all creates issues, and when there are already arrears which have not been supposedly paid, you have very simple proof...

And the easiest way is, proof of postage, i would phone, and post everything, but i requested a change of circumstances for change of pay from Full rostered to to 13 weeks of Rostered sick pay which was a reduction in income of 16%, and they would not allow, but it is in my contract, which was supplied, backed up by a doctors certificate for the 13 week period, yet they still charged the full amount, so, straight away, you have unlawful arrears...

I guess what i am saying is everything can be argued, but sometimes it needs some common sense and i do not believe the OP has told the whole story, and as i and others have asked for more details and these are not forthcoming, i will not lose sleep over it, but the worst case of head and sand i have seen in a long time...!!!

penjohn

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Do you agree with the arrears? Have you taken steps to make sure they are correct?

Hi yes weve spent 5 years in dispute over this and the arrears is a separate issue in itself, the first being the apparent justified reinstatement of them and then how they came to the amount in question. Im hoping we get our say in the courtroom seeing as for the last 5 years nobody actually cares about us it has been a total one sided system.:(

penjohn

The case concerning the arrears was closed 2001, arrears at the time were in dispute/appeal but the pwc and nrp had a mutual agreement to not use CSA and pay privately so they were left at that. A new case was opened with a nil balance 6 months later as myself and my partner the NRP had a daughter and the pwc went back to the CSA for more money than we were paying, for 6 years no arrears were stated on any paperwork nor were we told about any. we were paying on a new case. 7 years later my partner the NRP gets a court summons for arrears, we can not understand what arrears as we are paying on new case. anyway we find out when they're from and then spend 5 years arguing the closed case and the maladministration they admitted (in court), at the same time arguing the case the courts continue with LO etc, we offer to pay what we can afford via our solicitor twice offers were rejected. Then tried MP and ICE we were ready to go to the parlimentary ombudsman but in the meantime have received a court date. We are hoping to have our say, we still dispute the arrears but if they are found to be correct we want to offer to pay what we can afford but have been told before with the rejection that the PWC wants the lump sum and the only way they can get the full amount is the sale of the house. If they had have done their job right we would not be in this position we are not refusing to pay just want the arrears justified and for them to accept what we can afford. I have the data protection files which to us shows how unfair they have been as there is no evidence of the alleged arrears or any notificaiton they could be reinstated at any time we were never once told this until 7 years later.

kevin137

And as by your response, all it says is yes we argued, but there are many ways to argue and not al of them work, like the system they try and force on you...

And without details no one can help...

So as the saying goes in "Dragons Den" I'M OUT...!

jacklink

i do not understand how a court would take away a home for kids, yet is supposed to support kids and ensure a safe home as u have, the courts want to take away a safe environment, its utter maddness.