Back to square one!

CSAworkerx

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

Sorry, but in my case that's absolute nonsense so I assume it will be for thousands of others too!
The DEO that I had was issued within 3 weeks of me receiving my ONE letter asking me to give you a call, and I had not gone anywhere and still live at the same address now!
Briefly, a few years ago the CSA just stopped taking my DIRECT DEBITS out my account so I was not avoiding payment, it was down to CSA error, they couldn't even get that right
Anyway, moving on, CSA later realised their mistake and wrote to me during the last biggest postal strike we had a few years ago, so I received a letter 12 DAYS after the date on the top of the letter which gave me 14 days to get back in touch, so in effect I only had 2 days to play with!
Cant remember all the details but there was no way I could use those 2 days to get back in touch as I was having a hectic time at work back then, so I think my intention was to probably sort it out the following weekend at my earliest possible convenience.
However, before I got chance to do that the next letter saying they were putting a DEO in place came through the letterbox, this was all done, start to finish, within 3 weeks of my ONE, I repeat ONE and only letter asking me to call them and get back in touch!
And the explanation why they even wrote to me that ONE time asking me to get in touch: The benefits agency database had showed that I was not receiving benefits so they had to assume I was working, NO KIDDING SHERLOCK!, I had never stopped working and was still in the same job I always had been. So, as you can all see, it does not matter if you try to do the right thing, even when you have a direct debit set up, somehow they even mess that up!

We phone a minimum of 3 times over 2 days before a deo is put in place, every letter sent will outline what a deo is, and if lack of contact you would be getting one.

Even if you only had 2 days to contact and you wanted more time to "play with" its not difficult to phone in and ask for some more time, any caseworker would allow you that. and that would take you about 60 seconds to achive.

Im sorry but i cannot see any reason other than negligence for getting an unwanted deo, you have plenty of warning before hand, and plenty of oppurtunitys to answer your phone / write in / phone in, Before we take any action.

Csa_Survivor

CSAworkerx wrote: »

We phone a minimum of 3 times over 2 days before a deo is put in place, every letter sent will outline what a deo is, and if lack of contact you would be getting one.

Even if you only had 2 days to contact and you wanted more time to "play with" its not difficult to phone in and ask for some more time, any caseworker would allow you that. and that would take you about 60 seconds to achive.

Im sorry but i cannot see any reason other than negligence for getting an unwanted deo, you have plenty of warning before hand, and plenty of oppurtunitys to answer your phone / write in / phone in, Before we take any action.

I have the 2 letters in front of me now, I have nothing to lose now, I dont have to pay for my grown up working child anymore and I would not dream of mis-informing anyone else having to go through all of this. The first letter, as I mentioned contains barely any details except saying I need to "contact this office on the above number". Absolutely nowhere at all does it mention the threat of a DEO let alone explain what one is!
The second letter is dated 3 weeks after the first and that is the DEO that says how much my employer should take, and when, and all the other information on it explaining everything. This is all the correspondence I received, fact!
I think you are missing the point here, at the time I was not bothered about the DEO because it wanted exactly the same amount I had been paying by direct debit plus a bit extra for the time I had missed because of the CSA mistake (I know you don't want to hear that)not taking my direct debits. It made no difference to me at all, I have always willingly paid for my child and it was in fact a good thing in one way, because my ex had falsely accused me of not paying in the past, now she couldn't do that could she because it was all recorded nicely on my pay slips!
I cannot make this clear enough to anyone else reading this, AT NO POINT DID ANYONE RING ME FROM THE CSA ABOUT THIS, EVER!!!!!!!
Goodness only knows what I would have done if I had been in hospital or away on holiday or something, because this was all was done and dusted in 3 weeks. Its just as well I did not mind paying this way or I may have become another one of the CSA suicides!
Sorry to be so harsh but it needs saying, you may be one of the more conscientious CSA workers but you only have to read these forums for years and years like I have to know your employer is a despicable organisation to both men and women alike, other workers around you probably do not care about helping people as you appear to do.Seriously, I respect you for coming on here with the intention of helping people, it cant be easy sometimes but I am one of your easy cooperative targets and look how you have treated me!

CSAworkerx

First letter you have is called a 301, its what we send if you do not respond to phone contact, i find it more than strange you say you were not contacted by phone, this is for 1 of 2 reasons, either no number was supplied at any point and our trace tools also couldnt find one, or the caseworker issueing the deo litreally broke procedure, if its the latter, then i cannot defend that, if the former however, After reciveing atleast 3 letters minimum ( Mef, 375 ( warning letter ) and the 301, then surely this is a good time to update ure phone number.

ill never know which it was, But the fact does remain, you had the letter and some time, albeit a minimum amount to phone us, maybe its just myself personally after working for the orginisation, but if i was an nrp id be ringing in the moment i was asked.

fiestafolie

Letter recived today from the CSA to advise that they are going ofr another liability order for another fixed period. Letter advises that once the court has accepted nrp has a liability the CSA can then persue via alternative enforcement measures - baliffs, bank account etc. My question is that there is already an existing liability order from 2006 so why can't the CSA just use that straight away and start trying to get back some of the arrears from that period of time? Why is it that many more months have to go by before any further action is taken?

Crellow4

If there is already a Liability Order in place for an earlier period, then this can be enforced using the mothers previously outlined. It would be worth 'phoning and asking for this to happen.

thick_tom

my sympathies.

clearingout

dannyneil wrote: »

Many NRP's are forced out of work and into self employed work due to the CSA's draconian work ethic, whereby a DEO is put in place that does not allow the NRP to support his new family so I take my hat off to your ex for securing a self employed role.

It seems as though your ex has successfully moved on with his life, got himself a good job which allows him to treat himself to a nice car, it's such a shame that pwc never seem to move on.

Ah yes, but when the PWC do move on, what happens? The NRP decides that their new car on the driveway/flat screen TV seen through the front window/new kitchen the children talks about/holiday taken in warmer shores...all means that the PWC has 'enough' money to support their children and refuses to pay maintenance.

So we can't win. Either we don't move on, don't work, are called 'benefit scrounging scum' and other choice names; or we move on, get on with life, have some success and still get called choice names (usually 'bad mother' for leaving our children in childcare whilst we work). Sigh.