Hints and tips from a caseworker at the CSA.

tattycath

OP, you could try to be more neutral- oh, and not assume that all NRPs are male.

Starrystarrynight

I can see that the tone of the original post has upset a lot of people here, but I do think it makes a lot of fair points. Might've been phrased a bit differently, maybe, but it's done now.

Many of the points made could probably be applied to any sort of mass-processing operation and I really think that some service users don't actually stop to think (or even to care) about the reasons for requests, processes etc. A little consideration goes a long way, as the OP says.

pretzelnut

tattycath wrote: »

OP, you could try to be more neutral- oh, and not assume that all NRPs are male.

OP may also want to STOP assuming that ALL PWC are money grabbing, bitter and jealous too.

We, well I just want what my children are legally entitled to and not a penny more or less. If he paid what he's legally obliged to pay, on time very time, i would be happy never to deal with him again.

Advice from CSAworker should be unbiased, based on fact, regardless of personal opinion. The OP's original post has stated scenarios which may help put things in perspective but offer no balance for both / all sides of the case. Singling out 1 scenario per point hasn't helped at all. There are always 3 (yes 3) sides to a story.

The scenarios posted make me feel stigmatised / tarnished when it isn't the case.

kevin137

There may well be some helpful "points" but the whole post stinks...!

The attitude of teh OP is not the greatest either, and i think if his line manager saw this, there could be repercussions for him/her...

We have helpful people on here from the CSA and DWP already, and whilst i and many others on here may not always agree with them, they are respected, and there advice is valuable...

This kind of "helpfulness" in my eyes, is not... You are not known here, you are probably not trusted here, and the whole thing seems fishy to me...!!!

Just what i think anyway...

And while we are on the subject, YOU are a public servant...!!! Act like one and do your job correctly...!!! WIthout prejudice... Then you may earn a little respect...

Marisco

pretzelnut wrote: »

There are always 3 (yes 3) sides to a story.

Aye, his, hers and the truth.

Prothet_of_Doom

Witch_Hazel wrote: »

I must have missed the helpful hints and tips, this just reads like a sour educationally limited and VERY stressed caseworker slagging off clients.

Edited4Accuracy

CSAworkerx

not going to quote every point id like to talk about, but let me just say one thing, this isnt "slagging everyone off" These are tips so down the line you cant say "why havent i been assessed"

@kevin137, i dont get to choose who im fair with? im fair with everyone in what i deem to be fair, my job title is actually classed as a DECISON maker, meaning i have the overall say on your case, sure you can appeal bad decisions but i wouldnt still have a job if i wasnt trusted to make fair decisions.

As for re-assessment, your right in one point, its 5% either way, but whether or not those cases actually get assessed? More often not, 10% is a good baseline, obviosly within your rights to make a claim for the 5% if you must. As for "who am i to make the decison" im your caseworker, if i dont make it noone else is going to.

@hazel, take it for what you want, if i want to slag off clients ill take to my collegues at work, i dont need to do it on a forum. The post may sound "angry" its not, its just not white washed in a PC fashion, its spoken by someone who doesnt have to wear a mask like we do on the phone. But it will help you in the long run.

@barahs, if you cant remain calm on the phone i would also suggest keeping things in writing rather than phoning, end of the day its not going to do you any favours to get angry on the phone.

@bluemeanie, dont worry to much about arrears "appearing" its a sad fact but most of the time its becuase the nrp hides the fact hes paying for other children with a new partner, ignores the csa, then when she finally twigs hes in massive debt, that is the most common reason.

@crellow4, the posnt isnt to sit you all down and let you cry on our shoulders, like we have to on the phone, its a mini guide on how to get a quicker service and not build arrears

@pretzelnut, sorry you feel that way about my posts, diffrence being about the posts and what you hear on the phone and in writing, is this is the blatant truth that we are not allowed to share while in work, doesnt mean its wrong though does it.

@tattycath, writing "he" for nrp and "she" for pwc is an old habit, infact the number of male pwc's is rising very quickly, but still the vast majority of pwcs are women and so just but habit i refer to them as such. As for being neutral, belive me i am, ive had enough bad nrps and bad pwcs to last a life time, its the ones that just want to do right by there kids i am biased to, those get the rewards of a faster service.

@starrystarrynight, im glad you can see the points i was trying to make, as for the tone, maybe it is a little harsh, but i dont feel the softly softly approach were forced to use at work is going to benefit people.

@marisco, to true, i feel like jeremy kyle somtimes trying to counsell a breakup, part of the job im afraid.

@prophet, im not stressed, far from it, done the job to long to let pretty much anything bother me at this point, educationally limited, not really, just didnt run the post through a spell checker, but if all people want to do is attack gramatical mistakes, shows they have no real points to raise, not fussed.

@his wife, its a harsh reality that we are tasked with making decisions as to not delay cases, honestly? Somtimes you make decisions blind, if an nrp is lieing to me about shared care, how do i know that? Am i going to psyically go to the nrps house and make sure hes there while the kids are asleep? Or am i just going to listen to the PWC? I have to go with what i feel is not only fair, but what i feel is the truth.

@cake, will make a seperate post for ure issues.

paulineb_2

I know someone who refused point blank to pay for his kids, to the point where he went off sick at the end of the financial year (hes very wealthy and owns his own business), hes now paying £500 a month I believe which is much less than hes supposed to be and his ex partner was told by the CSA that they did eventually get him to pay part of what he owed but they refused to tell her how

Shes also been reduced to tears on several occasions on the telephone due to the way her case has been handled to date

Also I believe theres a time limit in which people can pay arrears, one year or two? Not sure myself tbh

But I think theres something massively wrong when someone who is a millionaire can opt out of paying for his kids by feigning illness and almost a year on, shes getting a small percentage of what she should be owed

No system is perfect, of course not, but some people are very badly let down by red tape

She also cant claim benefits as they have property, but she has no access to any of them.

cakeforbrains

CSAworkerx wrote: »

<snip>

@cake, will make a seperate post for ure issues.

Snigger!

Feel like a naughty school girl now.

CSAworkerx

cakeforbrains wrote: »

Don't caseworkers work in teams? How are you supposed to make subjective, opinionated decisions about people's lives if you haven't even heard them on the phone?

What do you expect we do when we CANNOT get in contact with people? We HAVE to make decisions.


I thought that 'significant' was deemed to be 5% either way in CSA land?

5% is the bare minimum, but take it from me, a 6% re-assessment is somthing ive never seen or heard of.

Also, how are PWCs supposed to ensure that the assessment it correct if they're relatively out of touch with the NRP? Sometimes the only evidence is that the NRP has been seen coming out of some other workplace, especially if it's a second job. Why should the PWC and children be penalised because the ex couple aren't close enough to share personal information? And who are you to decide?


The pwc isnt supposed to "ensure" the assessment is correct, thats what i get paid for, Am i saying there never wrong? Ofcourse not, but unless you provide me with proof, the nrp has a right to be belived if he tells me he doesnt have a second job, that is written in law.

Who am i to decide? who else is going to make that decison if not ure caseworker? your MP?

I can understand this. I always use the phone. But I can also understand that people get very frustrated on the phone trying to get their point across to, evidently, biased caseworkers.

If you think caseworkers are biased, your living in fantasy land, who are we biased with exactly? 2 people weve never heard of or met in person open a case with a child we dont know, you tell me how i can get a bias from that?

i hear this alot from unhappy nrps/pwcs, "your biased" basically means "i havent got my way, so you must be biased agasint me" to that statement i say, grow up, we do not have a bias about anyone we dont know, just like you wouldnt.


I thought you could get this information in 'four clicks'

Majority of the time we do, Except when hes living with a new partner, or house shareing and not paying the rent himself, or living back with parents, or living with other relatives, or living in a cash in hand place, the list goes on, if you have an nrp who rents/owns a property, 4 clicks is all it takes, the problem comes when he doesnt have that luxury, or hes being delibrately sneaky, this is when YOU must (if you know ) tell us about this circumstance.

Why did you assume that the PWC was lying in the above scenario? The NRP could have been. Or they both could have been.

you must have missed this part "obviously this isnt the same for every case" i work on probability, if a nrp is going to claim as much as 3-4 nights a week shared care and has 0, he wouldnt go so high, hed say 1 night for the sake of it, just trust me on this.

I can totally understand that this must happen sometimes. There's no doubt that this is sometimes driven by greed. For some PWCs, however, the desire to move over to CSA instead of having bills paid by the NRP could be driven by wanting to be more independent or wanting to put those bills in their own name or whatever. Surely this is down to the individual to decide. I am uncomfortable with a CSA worker essentially telling (mostly) women to shut up and put up with what they've got so they don't rock the boat.

You misunderstand, we dont tell the pwcs anything, we let them know what we will tell the nrp, and im talking about cases where the pwc litreally just wants more money than the NRP can psyically give while paying bills.


If the NRP has more children you need to know about it.

We allready do most of the time.

If the NRP claims tax credits for those children you need to know about it.

We check tax creds on the majoity of nrps anyways.

If the NRP's lifestyle is significantly at odds with his declared income you need to know about it.

This i disagree with, both the pwc and nrp have somthing called a "Right to be belived" if he tells me he works at asda for 40 hours a week, proves this via payslips, and pays his maintenance, I dont need to know about his lifestyle, even if hes living a playboy lifestyle.

I thought that the NRP had to actually not pay to land a DEO?

No, if we deem an nrp non-compliant we are within our rights to DEO on the spot.

I can completely understand that this might annoy you because it's sneaky, but surely once you get all five correct payslips all you can do is add them all up and divide them again to get an average. It would be unfair to then take the payslip that had overtime and just do the assessment on this as you seem to be implying?

I couldnt tell you the last time i "added them up and divided them" that is not how an assessment works, and im not going to bore you with the details, but finding a wage slip like that is goldust to a caseworker, If i see overtime, your going to be assessed with it, the point was, if your going to lie about it i wont be in such a mood to start asking you why you lied, just tell the truth.


I do think that there is some sensible advice here. It never hurts to be polite and be honest. I do feel, though, that a lot of the attitude that's coming across seems to come from the point of view that all parents dealing with the CSA are just out to cause problems for poor caseworkers. I reckon that most parents are just desperately trying to make sure everything is correct so that their children don't lose out... that said, maybe if I was a caseworker for a few months I'd change my mind.

Month's? More like days, as for causeing us problems, its a job, i get paid to solve them, Majority of parents want to do right by there children in life, but those cases are usually set up privately, the reason most come to the csa is becuase they cannot set up payments amicably, therefore id go as far as to say the majority of cases we get have issues from them. Its just a fact.


I just want to re-itterate somthing to you all reading this, You may not like the tone, and you may not like my spelling, and hell you may not like the CSA in general. Thats fine, but dont think for a second im "having a go" at pwcs/nrps/both, The diffrence between posting here and talking to you all at work is, at work we have to take abuse, and we cannot just be straight forward with our advice, there is so much sugar coating its unreal.

if i offended anyone, sorry for that, but this is how it is from a caseworkers point of view, and belive me im not alone.