Is it true?

Mips

Crikey, CSA1, 2 and 3?!

Why don't they get it right once?!

Anyways.. how do I know which CSA I am on? I am presuming it is CSA 2 as case was opened 3 years ago now.

Thanks for all your replies.

HoneyNutLoop

Yes, if it's been open 3 years it would currently be on CS2 unless you had received a letter telling you that you are being moved on to the 2012 scheme/CSA3, which is administered by the Child Maintenance Service rather than CSA. Easiest way to tell is if your case number has changed. If it still begins with 32 you're still on CS2.

CSAworkerx

The answer is simply yes as they work on the fact presented to them

No.

The CSA will not merely accept the contact order - if either parent feels an incorrect decision has been made they should exercise their dispute rights and progress to an independent appeal.

Yes.

@CSA2 at least.

not to say i wont accept a contact order in my final decision on s/c, however if i see a contact order from 2012 or before, logic would say theirs a significant chance the order would have stopped in the time from the initial order to the here and now. ive mentioned before, s/c is a headache when you have 2 people who cannot agree on it, we tend to make an average of what the 2 people have said these days....

DUTR

CSAworkerx wrote: »

The answer is simply yes as they work on the fact presented to them

No.

The CSA will not merely accept the contact order - if either parent feels an incorrect decision has been made they should exercise their dispute rights and progress to an independent appeal.

Yes.

@CSA2 at least.

not to say i wont accept a contact order in my final decision on s/c, however if i see a contact order from 2012 or before, logic would say theirs a significant chance the order would have stopped in the time from the initial order to the here and now. ive mentioned before, s/c is a headache when you have 2 people who cannot agree on it, we tend to make an average of what the 2 people have said these days....

That seems to make sense then as to why there are so many exaggerated claims from both sides of the fence.

CSAworkerx

DUTR wrote: »

That seems to make sense then as to why there are so many exaggerated claims from both sides of the fence.

evidence is one thing, but when you have an nrp who swears blind he has 4 nights s/c and a pwc who tells me he hasn't seen the kids in 6 months, How on gods green earth am i supposed to make a "right" decision, diary's? Great, now i have 2 diary's, one from a liar, one from someone telling the truth, oh wait, im still not a mind reader.

Averaging is the answer, which is why so many complaints are made as obviously if the pwc is right im giving this nrp 1-2 nights s/c discount on his maintenance when he doesn't at all see the kids, and if the nrps right, im making him pay more than he should.

Honestly its the worth headache we have.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

DUTR wrote: »

That seems to make sense then as to why there are so many exaggerated claims from both sides of the fence.

Is that true, CSAworkerx? When I was frontline in CS2 you had to make a decision to accept either the PWC or the NRP's evidence, writing up and fully justifying why you made the discretionary decision. CS2 would then use the figures of the person who you felt was telling the truth, based on the information you had. There was no leeway to average this information out due to the system design.

HoneyNutLoop, have things changed in the past couple of years?

HoneyNutLoop

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

Is that true, CSAworkerx? When I was frontline in CS2 you had to make a decision to accept either the PWC or the NRP's evidence, writing up and fully justifying why you made the discretionary decision. CS2 would then use the figures of the person who you felt was telling the truth, based on the information you had. There was no leeway to average this information out due to the system design.

HoneyNutLoop, have things changed in the past couple of years?

I have scoured the internet and cannot find what I would consider to be a definitive answer. Certainly the legislation has not changed for the 2003 scheme. However, these are my thoughts, for what they're worth.

The main hinge point to me for this particular consideration is Paragraph 7(3) to Schedule 1 of the Child Support Act 1991, which states:
"First, there is to be a decrease according to the number of such nights which the Secretary of State determines there to have been, or expects there to be, or both during a prescribed 12-month period."

This means the decision needs to be based on what actually happened, unless the decision is to be predicated on regulation 7(4) of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000. This allows the Secretary of State to use a different period other then the 12 months ending with the effective date to base the decision upon, but only in two specific sets of circumstances. Commissioner's decision CCS 2570 2010-00 confirms this understanding of the legislation. http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3239

The responses to these two freedom of information requests about shared care seem to reinforce the point that the caseworker needs to gather information and evidence to make a decision about the actual level of care provided by each parent:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/117554/response/291057/attach/html/3/Townsend%20FOI%20Response%20Ref.VTR2178.pdf.html
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/162966/response/402494/attach/html/3/FOI%20Response%20VTR2463.pdf.html

I can see how taking an average of two diametrically opposed statements could speed things up, and obviously the changes to the 2012 scheme that I've referenced above indicate the government wants to change things in this area. But, without a change to the legislation for the 2003 scheme, I can't see how an average can be legitimately used.

The 2003 scheme says a shared care adjustment must be based on the number of nights determined to have taken place. A decision based on the average of the statements/evidence provided can never really be said to reflect that legislative requirement. If one parent says no contact and the other says 4 nights a week, what you definitely do not have is any information or evidence that contact is 2 nights a week, and the 2003 scheme legislation requires the secretary of state to make a determination of the actual amount of care. To me, using an average is juxtaposed with this requirement.

I guess the question is: has the CSA online procedural guidance referenced in both FOI requests been updated to instruct all caseworkers to use an average in cases of dispute? Or does it still reflect the process Prelude has quoted and is partially referenced in the FOI requests? And I can't find an answer to that.

CSAworkerx

With the amount of cases we have, and the time frames due to the new scheme, alot of legislation is known but not used, I remember when you didnt make assessments until you have a minimum of 5 weekly / 2 monthly payslips under any circumstances, these days we will base the entire assessment on as little as 1 payslip taken verbally.

then there is mef calls, used to be 3 calls over 2 days, one morning, one afternoon and one evening, over 2 days, Now? depending on start date you can issue the mef without calling, and make calls when possible, but mainly its 3 calls anytime of the day, on one day.

so in other words, legislation is obviosly the way things are supposed to be done, but as youll know prelude, that can go out the window when grade 6/7's are !!!!ed off that cases are not progressing.

HoneyNutLoop

No offence, but that is precisely the problem. Legislative requirements are absolutes not optionals. How else will you achieve accuracy in a decision or consistency between caseworkers? How is an NRP or PWC supposed to know if a decision is accurate if they are at the whim of their caseworker doing whatever they like to get the job done, instead of what is legally required of them?

Additionally, the other examples you have given are procedural, not legislative ones. There is nothing within child support law that specifies a number of calls to an NRP before sending a MEF, or about how many wage slips are needed, or in what format that evidence should be obtained. A legislative example would be the law requiring an arrears notice to have been sent before you can serve a DEO for non-payment but due to pressures for expediency you issue a DEO without the NRP having ever been sent one.

HoneyNutLoop

And as an aside, do your procedures instruct you to average?