Is it true?

JJWSJS8700

Crellow4 wrote: »

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..........

My CSA1 case ref no. opened 1994 begins with 32


My other CSA1 case ref no. opened 2000 begins with 32


both were closed for different reasons and when I opened a new case last year on CSA2 the new reference number still begins with 32 *confused*


Surely there are many posters reading this who could verify.

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.

Actually Crellow I have just had a brainwave...that is one my queries that the CSA are trying to tell me that my 1994 case was also opened in 2000 with the other one , so maybe you are correct regarding the 32 ref number (I will dig out my really old paperwork to confirm).


Even so, posters cannot advise that if a reference number begins with 32 they are on CSA2 when they are clearly not, as in my case.

HoneyNutLoop

JJWSJS,
Firstly, my understanding of the CSA numbering system reflects what Crellow has said. All CS1 cases had 10 digit numbers beginning with 10 or 70. Those cases only acquired the 32 on the beginning if they were moved to the CS2 computer system, but as Crellow says that does not mean those cases then migrated to the 2003 scheme rules. While your old rules case may have had a case number starting with 32 for up to the last 10 years, it would not have started that way in 1994.

Secondly, you have taken my post out of context of the question asked. The op was trying to figure out if she was on The 2003 scheme or the 2012 scheme, which on the forum are often referred to as CS2 and CS3. She confirmed her case began 3 years ago, utterly ruling out the possibility of the case being under the 1993 scheme and CS1. My response was to give her a quick way to identify if she remained on CS2 or had been moved because of a linked case to CS3. As such, my response stands as originally posted.

You ask in a linked post about advance payments of maintenance and if the CSA should pay you one now. In the first sticky called useful links, I have previously posted a link to the Special Payments guide and references to the page numbers that contain the advance payment criteria. If your case meets all the criteria at this time, you are eligible for a payment. If your case does not meet any one of the criteria you are not eligible, and will have to wait until your case does meet the criteria to get one. Poster Sensemaya has received one previously, so may be a good source of advice.

Appendix C and D of the guide from page 56 explains how they calculate simple interest on special and advanced payments. If I had to guess, I would say they would use that to calculate the interest on reimbursing you the DNA costs. It is just a guess though.

Regarding your post about NRP notified changes and effective dates. NRP's are only required by law to proactively notify the CSA about 2 changes in their circumstances, and even those two requirements have not been in place since 1993. If memory serves, the requirements were only enacted by legislation made after the 2003 scheme had been launched. Those two changes are: change of address which should be notified within 7 days of the move; and change of employer if, and only if, they are paying by DEO. The NRP has no legal requirement to proactively tell the CSA about any other change. Page 10 of this booklet confirms this: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@benefits/documents/digitalasset/dg_198872.pdf

Additionally, this legal requirement for those two changes does not alter the way the effective date for any new assessment is set - it is still from the date the CSA was notified, unless they were notified by a 3rd party like an employer, in which case different rules apply. The penalty for failing to report those two changes is that the CSA could try to prosecute the NRP for their failure to report, and if found guilty the NRP could be fined. The fine is payable to the treasury, not the PWC.

If the CSA has been told about a change, asks the NRP for info/evidence and the NRP fails to provide it or knowingly gives false information about their circumstances at the time, these are also criminal offences and the CSA could choose to prosecute. But that is not the situation you describe. Your NRP apparently gave accurate information at the time and then failed to proactively notify a subsequent change in housing costs. As such, the assessment should change from the time the CSA were notified about it, not when the change occurred.

HoneyNutLoop

HoneyNutLoop wrote: »

Your NRP apparently gave accurate information at the time and then failed to proactively notify a subsequent change in housing costs. As such, the assessment should change from the time the CSA were notified about it, not when the change occurred.

I have had a thought over night. On CS1, if an NRP returned the Maintenance Enquiry Form within 4 weeks, the initial start date (effective date) of the case was deferred by 8 weeks. e.g. Initial would have been 01/07/94 but was deferred to 26/08/94. The information used in the assessment should reflect circumstances at the effective date, i.e in my deferment example 26/08 not 01/07.

So if your ex qualified for the deferred effective date and he paid off the chunk of the mortgage before the deferred effective date, you could have grounds for the assessment to be corrected. If he didn't pay it off until after the initial effective date, then my above post stands.