NRP possibly commited crime

Crellow4

It's not accurate to say that by asking for an aged decision to be reviewed that appeal rights will be opened up. If this was the case, ALL decisions would be appeal-able as one would simply ask for an old decision to be reviewed, await a refusal and then appeal THAT decision. There is an absolute time limit of 13 months from the date of the decision in which to lodge an appeal - you are clearly outside of this timeframe.

FBaby

So is the payment less than half what you pay towards your kids?

HoneyNutLoop

pemalu wrote: »

Honeynutloop, the link does not work http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg.../dg_198849.pdf

Do you remember the title of the booklet? Many thanks.

Sorry about that. Hopefully this one works:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@benefits/documents/digitalasset/dg_198849.pdf

HoneyNutLoop

Crellow4 wrote: »

It's not accurate to say that by asking for an aged decision to be reviewed that appeal rights will be opened up. If this was the case, ALL decisions would be appeal-able as one would simply ask for an old decision to be reviewed, await a refusal and then appeal THAT decision. There is an absolute time limit of 13 months from the date of the decision in which to lodge an appeal - you are clearly outside of this timeframe.

Agreed. However, the op does not need to rely on the right of appeal if the NRP misrepresented his circumstances, rather than failed to notify a change to his circumstances. The CSA could revise an existing decision under regulation 3A(c) of the Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, for which there is no time limit.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a1-6011.pdf

Revision of child support decisions
3A.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any decision as defined in paragraph (3) may be revised under section 16 of the Child Support Act by the Commission–[...]
(c) if it is satisfied that the decision was erroneous due to a misrepresentation of, or failure to disclose, a material fact and that the decision was more advantageous to the person who misrepresented or failed to disclose that fact than it would have been but for that error;

Crellow4

Is it really worth all the trouble for a possible increase for a maximum of two months? I suspect the Agency used payslips provided and the Tribunal looked at a longer period. If genuine payslips were provided for the earlier (April) effective date I can't see how the case falls to be 'misrepresentation'?

HoneyNutLoop

It wouldn't. There's not enough info in the thread to know. But, if the Tribunal have uncovered that April's wage slips were higher than the wage slips originally supplied than it would. Only the op can tell us the full situation and if it's worth the effort to her. But I felt it was an important point to highlight for anyone else in a similar position in the future, who might end up reading the thread.

pemalu

Hi,

I would be happy to provide more info, please let me know which aspect needs clarification.

I do not think 2 months is worth it either. I would have liked to have all decisions reviewed (I know, wishful thinking). NRP told CSA of his new job in July 2012. By Tribunal's request, NRP submitted his employment contract which shows that he changed job Sep 2011.

Initially I thought he scheduled his salary to be paid with variable amount through the year to suit his reporting to CSA. However, now it seems Tribunal and CSA had been working on different amount in April so he probably submitted different document instead of payment schedule. Unfortunately April decision prior to the current case.

When CSA made April's decision, I am guessing they would use March or April 2012 payslips.

Does he have a duty to report his job change back in September 2011?
Although the decision which seems most relevant is April 2012, would I be able to ask for review since September 2011?

Probably irrelevant but as additional info, ex and I separated since 2003, I started with CSA 2010.. He has gotten away with a lot already whilst we were on private agreement.

HoneyNutLoop, the link works, thank you very much.

Crellow4

He does not have a duty to report a change of employment for reassessment purposes. Therefore you are unable to have hi liability reviewed back to Sept 2011. This leaves you with the April 2012 decision which you will only be able to have revised if you can demonstrate that he misrepresented his income. I suspect the Tribunal used an average income from the start of his employment (year to date figure) whereas CSA will likely have used a couple of payslips. If payslips were accepted - which would be the usual acceptable evidence - I'm struggling to see HOW you will establish misrep?

HoneyNutLoop

Can I ask, if the NRP did not tell the CSA about his new job until July, how it came about that a review was completed from April. Who asked for this review and why? You say it seems the CSA and the Tribunal were working on a different amount in April than July, but you haven't said what evidence the Tribunal have used from the July decision and how this evidence differed from that used in the April decision. If Crellow's theory is right, that wouldn't be misrepresentation. The Tribunal are just choosing to use a different set of evidence to arrive at their decision than was chosen by the CSA.

To posit another theory of events, which also would not be misrepresentation, say the April review was completed because your NRP told the CSA he now had a child in his household, or there was a change to the shared care arrangements, the CSA would only ask to see evidence for the change that was being reported. If neither you nor the NRP had told them about the change of job and income, they would simply impact the reported change against the income already held. Then, when the new job was notified in July, they would gather evidence to update the income.

Misrepresentation examples would be: doctored wage slips, manipulated wage slips, I.e. delaying claiming for overtime worked to provide wage slips showing no overtime to substantiate a claim that no overtime was being done, saying he didn't have a second job when he did, etc.

Without knowing why the reviews were instigated and what evidence was gathered for each review, we can't say if it would constitute misrepresentation. Simply not volunteering info about a change when the CSA was not asking about it does not constitute misrepresentation, and as Crellow has said, based on what ypuve told us so far, there is no basis in law for you to go back to Sept 11 now. You could only do that if you or he had told the CSA about his change in job in Sept 11. If you did, and he denied the change had occurred, so the CSA didn't pursue it, that would also constitute misrepresentation, and in that circumstance they could go back now.

pemalu

I'll try my best to explain.

In April, I asked CSA for review and they came with decision. CSA came up with Y amount, which is around the same as 2010 decision.

In April & May, NRP sent various threats telling me to stop CSA and go on private agreement. I didn't budge so the threats escalated.

In June, CSA came with another decision because NRP reported they have another child and a new job with a lot less income. This made me think that he reported lower income just because I didn't budge, so I researched and learned he had a new job sooner than June but no idea when exactly. I therefore appealed and this case went to Tribunal.

NRP never showed up at tribunals so they have to make decisions based on papers. Tribunal sent me copies of documents they asked from him, which included P60s. From the tribunal I learned he started his new job Sep 11. Tribunal decided the earnings he told CSA for June's decision were atypical so they they decided a different amount. This decision is lower than P60 so I requested statement of reasons to understand their decision.

From the statement of reasons, I learned that one of the evidence Tribunal used to make decision, is April's earning. I don't know how Tribunal figure out April's earning, all I have is P60s.

The April earning figure which Tribunal used, is a lot higher than the figure CSA used to make their April decision. Unfortunately I didn't appeal April's decision in the first place but this information only came to me now.