Is it true?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

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

I might have a look at this tmr, I'm pretty sure that OLBP would still state to choose either PWC or NRP's figures.

OLBP are generally written to match the design process, aligned to legislation, operational steers generally don't seem to be written down anywhere. I can remember a team leader putting pressure on my team that all arrears arrangements had to be set at 30% of net income, which wasn't backed by the procedures. There was even a ludicrous incident where an over-zealous team leader b0ll0cked my mate for setting arrears repayments at 22%, even though this had been agreed by the PWC...so we had a situation where both parents were happy with the arrangement, arrears would be fully paid off within 9 months, yet a team leader was kicking off because the caseworker had used their common sense and discretion!

HoneyNutLoop

To be fair, that is also a procedural example: no where in law does it prescribe an amount that should be paid for arrears if cleared in instalments, except the DEO maximum, though I am well aware of the policy you're talking about!! And yes, it is ludicrous that more time and resource would be spent on such a case if the parents were both agreeable to the outcome.

So to add to my question then, if the procedures don't instruct a caseworker to average, how would you know there had been an operational steer? Would it apply nationally or is it just your boss telling you to do something? What would happen if that decision was selected for accuracy checking? Or under the new mandatory reconsideration process or if appealed? This is why I always try to refer back to legislation or government produced literature, so I can work out what legally should have happened.

CSAworkerx

@prelude, we have been setting enforced DEO's at 30% for months now, to save the inbound traffic supposedly, which it doesnt, but atleast when an nrp rings crying poverty we just simply tell them we have run it as low as possible.

@honey, ive never had a case come back to me over s/c, ive had both nrps and pwcs who disagree with my decision, but ive never had the checkers pick me up on it, i suppose the answer you want is, Should all caseworkers use one persons evidence when assessing s/c, that answer is yes, but as mentioned when you have 15,000 cases and 4 months to clear as much as you can, they tell you all sorts of things.

HoneyNutLoop

Thank you for answering. I push because this thread started with the op asking if it was right that it would be based on the court order whether that was being adhered to or not. It could just as easily have been the op asking if averaging was right.

You say you have never had a case come back to you - what do you mean by that? Do just mean from the checkers or from appeals? Do you get told if your decision has been appealed and what the outcome is? Do you know which of your cases have been checked? And did any of those cases involve you using an average for shared care? What kind of a percentage of cases are checked?

The statement means little if you have not had a decision of this type checked and only have a handful of cases checked a year, and don't get to find out if a decision has been appealed. It means a lot more if you are having that type of decision checked every week and have hundreds of cases checked a year and get feedback from each of your decisions that are appealed.

Obviously with the PWC's and NRP's disagreeing, that would have been a dispute but now that would come under mandatory reconsideration. If I understand it correctly that means your decision would be looked at by someone else. Would that mean someone else on your team looking at it or is there a mandatory reconsideration team or designated officers? If the latter, what do you think will be said about these unofficial processes such as averaging or the ops case?

CSAworkerx

by never having a case come back to me, i mean both appeals and checkers, Problem with appeals is they have to prove i made a wrong decision, and the reason im making the "wrong" decision is usually because they fail to provide proof, so its a catch 22, they disagree but cannot prove, as if they could id have used there intial figure in my s/c decision.

we get cases checked at random, and you generally get an email or a phonecall from a checker to confirm what you did wrong, if anything, what to do next time ect ect, ive only had a few checked and all but one were fine, and the last one was about a freetext entry not the actual decisions on the case.

as for manual reconsideration, we are only sending cases there when an nrp/pwc is disputing the MC, i havent had to or heard of anyone sending a case to them purely on a s/c decision, but i suppose if an nrp/pwc called in and disputed the MC based on the allowance gave, or lack of allowance for s/c you would send it to them. Which would in turn lead those caseworkers to ask the exact same questions we do, then ask for proof, realise the pwc/nrp cannot prove it ( as they wouldn't have been able to during the intial ) and get told its being refused to be revised.

Crellow4

My biggest issue with the appeals process is that there is no end to end procedure. By that I mean that trends/themes are not identified and caseworkers are not advised if there decision has been appealed and the outcome.

JJWSJS8700

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

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.[/


I've had two cases from the year 2000, and even earlier, both on the CSA1 scheme and both of the references numbers on these cases begin with 32.


I thought at least one of the CSA 'workers' would have contradicted you here...unless I'm missing something.

Crellow4

When the old scheme cases transferred to being administered on the CS2 computer system the reference number was prefixed with 32 - this does not automatically mean you've been reassessed under 'New' rules, merely that you are now on the 'New' computer system.

JJWSJS8700

Crellow4 wrote: »

When the old scheme cases transferred to being administered on the CS2 computer system the reference number was prefixed with 32 - this does not automatically mean you've been reassessed under 'New' rules, merely that you are now on the 'New' computer system.

????

Crellow who are you replying to?

If it's me - my case was opened long before CSA 2 was even thought of -1994 to be precise and the reference number was and is 32 until child no longer qualified.

I reopened my other case last year on CSA 2 and ref number still starts with 32.

Thank you

Crellow4

The 32 prefix only came in with CS2, it changed 10 digit reference numbers into 12 digits. Prior to this all cases began either with the number 1 or 7. If you case is an original CSCS case then originally your reference number would start with number 1 and be 10 digits long..........