change of circumstances..

X2012

If your child is working over 16 hours, They will not class as a QC, i assume you've spoken to child benefit, if not that would be my first port of call.

Cally_Smart

I think its only if they, the QC, do over 24 hours of work in a paid job.Thats when you have to tell Ch/ben not sure about the wtc,ctc but they probably go hand in hand with what ch/ben say ! Yes, spoken to ch/ben months ago!Nothing happened,still paying CSA !

kevin137

So how does that work, when so many people have NIL hours contracts...???

The government allow nil hours contracts due to the flexibility of the workforce and it is not like there are only a few around, pretty much anyone in part time will be on a nil hour, and an awful lot of full time would be as well, in fact when you look at people like McDonalds, a prime example of employment for younger people, my son included, they show up on HMRC, yet they still qualify for WTC CTC & CB purely because there is no guarantee of work, my son has worked an average 40 hours a week for the last 6 weeks, and yet it is a contract that when questioned allows him to qualify...

Slightly different in my case, as there is no claim, but i can see so many cases going through the system and abusing the system as a result... And teh Government wonder why they are in the state they are in... Mmmmm

Cally_Smart

Kevin,the thing is when they look at HMRC & see how much is earnt over all annually the tax credits will have made an over payment which they will then want to recover. Either deducted from future tax credits or in monthly payments making it harder to manage in the future !

kevin137

I understand that regarding WTC etc it needs to be recovered, but the eligibility for CB is what is more important, as if you are in fact working, then you are not due this, and if you are not due this, then you are not due CSA is that not the point of it, yet the system allows for systematic abuse because it is claimed...

That and the fact that the CSA use it as a qualifier and it is not in fact, makes it extremely hard to get anything sorted with the CSA as they simply state but CB is paid so we MUST collect...

Somebody please find the legislation that says this is true... As i do not believe it is, and it has never been proved, meaning that they can just keep saying this...!!!

Once this is proved, it will make it whole heap easier to actually raise a complaint with the CSA for using information that is incorrect...

Cally_Smart

For the CSA to say that we won't get anything back even if its proved she was doing it fraudulently was a bit of a blow! They 'haven't done anything wrong because their only concern is that pwc is claiming Ch/ben' that's what they said in our case.
But then I've said this before! When will some one take this agency to task ?They seem above the law!

nicky3

I am taking them to task on this point via the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

I won an appeal, so would suggest that you raise one of those against the decision. It was after winning the appeal that I asked for an apology. I have had nothing but abuse ever since, including being accused of withholding evidence which I later used for my appeal - this is utter rubbish and my complaint has elevated and elevated. I have overpaid nothing and my case is now long closed, however, as this forum testifies, this unlawful practice is widespread within the CSA, who do quote legislation, but as Kevin points out, this legislation DOES NOT EXIST. I am keen to forward any stories which demonstrate this widespread extortion and abuse to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and would urge you to contact me if you want to help.

Cally_Smart

I've pm'ed you. I urge others to do the same.All we want is fair system of Child support!