Ex says refused Car Insurance Because of Attachment of Earnings?

CSAworkerx

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

Hang on a minute, don't some people, I admit probably a small minority, actually opt to pay by DEO, I am sure I have read somewhere that you can actually choose to pay like that if you want, or am I mistaken? After all, when the CSA eventually messes up your case and accuses you of not paying what better proof can there be than to have it showing as deductions on all your payslips!
So, in a nutshell you may soon be able to apply to knacker up your own credit rating if you do opt to pay this way, Im sure they must sit round a table every week dreaming up ideas how to ruin peoples lives, that's a cracking idea that!

i wouldnt even say a small minority tbh, Vol deo's are commonplace, and infact if you cannot manage ure finiances, probly the best option for you. As whatever comes to ure bank account you can spend and not worry about paying X amount in 2-3 weeks by direct debit.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

Hang on a minute, don't some people, I admit probably a small minority, actually opt to pay by DEO, I am sure I have read somewhere that you can actually choose to pay like that if you want, or am I mistaken? After all, when the CSA eventually messes up your case and accuses you of not paying what better proof can there be than to have it showing as deductions on all your payslips!
So, in a nutshell you may soon be able to apply to knacker up your own credit rating if you do opt to pay this way, Im sure they must sit round a table every week dreaming up ideas how to ruin peoples lives, that's a cracking idea that!

Erm, if you read what I said it was that DEOs won't show up on a credit report, but that missed payments would.

You're right, some NRPs voluntarily select DEO as their method of payment.

HoneyNutLoop

Neither missed payments nor DEO's currently show on credit files. There's something within primary legislation that says further regulations could be made to enable some form of linking, and a lot of research has been done on whether or not it would be effective. It's a bit late tonight but tomorrow I'll try to locate the document I was reading about it and post the link. The parameters for any future enactment seemed quite limited iirc.

Csa_Survivor

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Erm, if you read what I said it was that DEOs won't show up on a credit report, but that missed payments would.

You're right, some NRPs voluntarily select DEO as their method of payment.

Ok smartypants, ha ha, when I was reading your comment I had a niggle that perhaps that might have been what you meant, but lets face it I don't think it would be long before credit agencies would view in a negative way someone with a DEO , and there would not be any safeguard for someone who had volunteered to pay that way!, Im sure you cant argue with that logic.
I think maybe your post there was one of those occasions where you knew in your own mind what you meant, but it was a bit ambiguous to myself, I notice pd001 and CSAworkerx did not pick me up on it so possibly they were not clear either, in my defence ?
In fact maybe it was as "ambiguous" as a CSA letter, because to most normal people if they received a letter saying they were no longer liable to pay child maintenance because, and I quote, "the parent no longer has the qualifying child or children living with them" then that is exactly what it meant!
But no, not in CSA land, according to the CSA when I followed this up that letter is what is known as a standard letter and is a bit "ambiguous"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO,its not ambiguous, I think that is very clear and so would everyone else who read it don't you! You see , according to the CSA, it may NOT mean that parent and child no longer live at the same address, it could be that the reason I no longer have to pay is because the child is working or maybe perhaps another reason! WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
So, maybe your post was as ambiguous as a CSA letter, you don't happen to work for them do you!, do you understand where I am coming from with my anger.
Ha ha, ok, I will stop there, I am being a bit naughty there, I believe from one of your other posts you do work for them or have some previous connection with them, just teasing.
Regards

HoneyNutLoop

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

Neither missed payments nor DEO's currently show on credit files. There's something within primary legislation that says further regulations could be made to enable some form of linking, and a lot of research has been done on whether or not it would be effective. It's a bit late tonight but tomorrow I'll try to locate the document I was reading about it and post the link. The parameters for any future enactment seemed quite limited iirc.

Here's the document I recalled reading:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214338/cm-arrears-and-compliance-strategy-2012-2017.pdf
Mention is made on page 16 and page 31 re: possible plans for the future for giving info to credit reference agencies that would then impact credit files.

Csa_Survivor

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

Here's the document I recalled reading:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214338/cm-arrears-and-compliance-strategy-2012-2017.pdf
Mention is made on page 16 and page 31 re: possible plans for the future for giving info to credit reference agencies that would then impact credit files.

Thanks for that HoneyNutLoop,
It appears that my sarcastic reply earlier in this thread may possibly be not far from the truth, anyone applying to pay by DEO may run the risk of Knackering up their own credit!!!!!
I notice it says it would act as a deterrent " PARTICULARLY" for indebted parents and those who rely on credit(ie the self employed) should these powers actually be enacted.
Hands up anyone who think that this will not be the next massive mess?
From everything I have read and been through with the CSA so far I can forecast what will happen now, there will be nothing to distinguish between someone voluntarily on a DEO and someone who has had it forced upon them. All that the credit agency will see is the word DEO and that will be a dirty great black mark on a persons credit, you can bet your life that giving information to credit reference agencies will not be restricted to the bad paying parents, it will end up being everyones information! with a CSA case!

HoneyNutLoop

In small print at the bottom of page 16 it says "the powers to share information only applies in relation to cases where there is a liability order in place, or the parent who should be paying child maintenance consents."

So those with DEO's whether voluntary or mandatory are not impacted by the current proposals.

I'd be surprised if it came to pass - the suggestion has been put forward as far back as 2006, and the primary legislation has been in place since 2008 and they've not gone there.

I seem to recall several years ago reading part of a research paper that indicated there was little correlation between someone's payment patterns for standard credit debt and child maintenance debt as the motivations for compliance/non-compliance are very different. So someone who defaults on child maintenance is not a good indication of potential future default on a credit card or vice versa.

It's only worth enacting legislation if they thought it would be a useful tool, and that depends heavily on the weighting a normal lender would give to default on child maintenance as an indicator for future credit compliancy. If they don't think creditors will be fussed about the presence of child maintenance default, there's little merit to pursuing that avenue.

Csa_Survivor

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

In small print at the bottom of page 16 it says "the powers to share information only applies in relation to cases where there is a liability order in place, or the parent who should be paying child maintenance consents."

So those with DEO's whether voluntary or mandatory are not impacted by the current proposals.

Well spotted, I did not see that, but I can bet you anything it would not be long before it would be rolled out to everyone if it looked to be working, or worse still, they wrongly applied it to the wrong people if they just used it as suggested!
Government always try to introduce these things gently to everyone at first, off the top of my head you only have to look at cameras down the High St and the garbage they come out with saying they are there to protect us and help fight crime, you cant open your curtains nowadays without feeling like you are being watched!
Another example is a certain Agency that was introduced with the aim of making errant fathers who did not pay for their kids pay up, but actually spends most of its time squeezing decent loving NRP's to the point of despair or worse, need I go on!
Sorry to be so pessimistic/cynical but I have every right to be nowadays, the whole system stinks. Lets be honest, men get the better deal in life when it comes to jobs and earnings etc, but there is no justice at all when it comes to blokes and there kids, none at all.
I once remember a story in the paper of a young lad on a minimum wage that got drunk one night and climbed through his ex's window to try and see his kid. The judge said he should have gone through the correct procedures and gone to court! IDIOT, the lad hardly earned any money, how would he have afforded to pay the parasites who would represent him.