CSA mess!!!

Cally_Smart

Welcome to the club! We didn't have any schedules either but they said we owed £8000 -nothing we could do but be compliant (otherwise they said they could take 40% of household income as a DEO(deduction of earnings order)and pay and hope it all gets sorted out.It has been a very stressful period when we have been left with very little to live on.They took 14 months to tell us there was a problem(meaning we carried on paying the pwc by dd but this doesn't count as she wouldn't admit it was CM said it was for the mortgage!!) and it'll be 2 years in April since we had the dreaded 'arrears' letter! I sincerely hope you don't have the same struggle as we have. You could see your MP for advice they do seem to speed up communication with the CSA.

grass_is_greener

Cally_Smart wrote: »

Welcome to the club! We didn't have any schedules either but they said we owed £8000 -nothing we could do but be compliant (otherwise they said they could take 40% of household income as a DEO(deduction of earnings order)and pay and hope it all gets sorted out.It has been a very stressful period when we have been left with very little to live on.They took 14 months to tell us there was a problem(meaning we carried on paying the pwc by dd but this doesn't count as she wouldn't admit it was CM said it was for the mortgage!!) and it'll be 2 years in April since we had the dreaded 'arrears' letter! I sincerely hope you don't have the same struggle as we have. You could see your MP for advice they do seem to speed up communication with the CSA.

Thanks Cally. Your situation sounds awful, much worse than ours. I'm so sorry people have to go through this ridiculous system, especially when they are willing to pay and have always paid. It's ludicrous.

My partners statement from 2007/2008 do show the payments to the PWC as MAINTENANCE so I don't think it can be argued that's not what it's for. It's just that they won't accept direct payments. I keep hearing things about voluntary payments ... What does this mean?

Cally_Smart

We said it must be voluntary payments but they said no because they are from point of contact until you have the schedule and our case was open since 2003! Look up voluntary payments legislation online and see if you think you would qualify. Our dd said her name on it but the pwc has to agree that she 'accepts' the dd as CM which of course she wouldn't. Ongoing CM has stopped due the qualifying children being over 18 and 20 and working we just have the arrears to pay off (some light at the end of the tunnel) There are a lot of knowledgeable people on here so you should get some good advice soon.

grass_is_greener

There is a voluntary payment documented on this letter, of £800. I don't know where it's from though as it has no information where/when it's from. I did think maybe it covers the time in question but the total he paid between 2007/2008 is £2900. Slight difference if it is that they are referring to!!

Cally_Smart

It's so disheartening when they get so much wrong,you dont know what to believe- every member if staff has a different take on the rules! We always write down who we've spoken to that time our file of paperwork is getting on for couple of inches thick now !We asked for the Data pack on the case it cost £10 from them and takes up to 40 days to arrive.It does help you understand the case(a little bit ! )

grass_is_greener

Right, gone back to CSA letters from 2005.
On a 2006 letter, it states he MUST make payments directly to the mother (and it says how much). So, my question is, how can this NOT be taken into account?? He has followed their direct advice and the statements show MAINTENANCE as being the reason for payment. He has gone through every statement and it matches other than overpayments he has made whilst being out of work (and another when they called and asked him to pay an extra £200, reason unknown).
So damn frustrating.

DUTR

grass_is_greener wrote: »

Right, gone back to CSA letters from 2005.
On a 2006 letter, it states he MUST make payments directly to the mother (and it says how much). So, my question is, how can this NOT be taken into account?? He has followed their direct advice and the statements show MAINTENANCE as being the reason for payment. He has gone through every statement and it matches other than overpayments he has made whilst being out of work (and another when they called and asked him to pay an extra £200, reason unknown).
So damn frustrating.

The NRP does not have to pay directly to the PWC, many don't and won't.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

It's hard without knowing the ins and outs of the case, but it sounds as though it was set as a maintenance direct case around 2006 (which could explain the letter saying 'pay PWC directly'), then at some point in 2007 the PWC asked for payments to be taken through the CSA, with the NRP setting up payments in 2008.

The PWC has said that from her requesting CSA-collection up until the NRP set up his payments to the CSA she had received £800 in total, which is what shows as the voluntary payment on the client statement.

That's my reading of things from the posts here anyways.

DUTR

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

It's hard without knowing the ins and outs of the case, but it sounds as though it was set as a maintenance direct case around 2006 (which could explain the letter saying 'pay PWC directly'), then at some point in 2007 the PWC asked for payments to be taken through the CSA, with the NRP setting up payments in 2008.

The PWC has said that from her requesting CSA-collection up until the NRP set up his payments to the CSA she had received £800 in total, which is what shows as the voluntary payment on the client statement.

That's my reading of things from the posts here anyways.

Which draws me back to the comments in post #7 and 8 , sometimes people make mistakes, and it was mentioned the NRP was given a choice, later we are told he must pay directly.

grass_is_greener

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

It's hard without knowing the ins and outs of the case, but it sounds as though it was set as a maintenance direct case around 2006 (which could explain the letter saying 'pay PWC directly'), then at some point in 2007 the PWC asked for payments to be taken through the CSA, with the NRP setting up payments in 2008.

The PWC has said that from her requesting CSA-collection up until the NRP set up his payments to the CSA she had received £800 in total, which is what shows as the voluntary payment on the client statement.

That's my reading of things from the posts here anyways.

The first point is absolutely correct. The case was set up in 2004 and he paid direct to the mother as per CSA request.
In 2008 they calculated that he had underpaid during 2007 so they set up additional payments which were to be made (which he did as fair enough, he hadn't paid enough) and he then started paying direct to the CSA as they now requested.

I am not sure about the second point about the parent with care stating she has received £800, I have no idea how that figure was reached.

DUTR, I'm not sure why you keep saying he's made a mistake? we've checked the letters and they tell him to pay direct to the parent with care. There wasn't an option given of paying direct to the CSA until 2008 letters. Yes, I was wrong in my previous post, I thought it was a choice, it wasn't.