We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Old CSA debt and the Limitation Act

Options
2»

Comments

  • HoneyNutLoop. Well done! that is a good find.

    I run it by a solicitor mate of mine and she mentioned this is a "regulation" and the Limitation Act is an Act of Parliament, for former being "secondary legislation" (regulations created under a power of an Act to a government agency) and the latter being "primary legislation" (created by Parliament)

    Primary legislation cannot be rebuked by secondary legislation. Only another Act of Parliament, or an amendment or repeal to the Limitation Act would be needed to repeal it for the purpose of child support. The repeal of the Limitation Act for child maintenance would need to be made within the Child Support Act 1991 itself or another child support amendment Act.

    It confirms Child maintenance cannot have a fresh liability order if the sum is more than six years old.

    It also indicates the CSA will still pursue a sum using measures not involving a liability order, and non-compliance can result in a committal proceeding. The committal can be defended using the Primary/Secondary legislation conflict because the court cannot - by law consider a defence for an application for the liability order obtained on a debt that could be lawfully revived in this way.

    Does anyone have any more thoughts on this?
  • HoneyNutLoop
    HoneyNutLoop Posts: 568 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 18 January 2014 at 11:00AM
    Yes: the CSA has been deemed not to be bound by the Limitations Act, as I said at the beginning of my post, so the rest of your conclusion is wrong. Please look at the first link. Or if you want more corroboration the actual upper tribunal ruling:
    http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed56378
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.