CSA remit

Robin-o'-the-Hood

Hello all!
As anyone who knows me will testify, I make no claims to high intelligence but I'm not stupid either...so, have I missed something in regard to the CSA's remit?
Allow me to illustrate!

Letter from CSA (August 2014): "Debt Enforcement possess extensive powers with regards to enforcing [maintenance] debt and are able to apply for a Liability Order against Ms. xxxx....The Liability Order enables the debt to be legally recognised and thus enforced by the Courts"

Letter from CSA (March 2015) "Please be advised that the Agency do not take responsibility for non-resident parents non-compliance, Ms. xxxx has been aware of her liability and has had a legal responsibility to pay child maintenance."

Does this mean the Agency can't or won't take action? Or something else? thank you in advance if you can enlighten me!

eve31

Sounds crazy to me. Total contradiction. Surely there is only one set of rules they follow. What a shambles.

Surprise, surprise you will have to make a fruitless phone call to a member of staff who doesn't know their !!!! from their elbow either I'm afraid.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

Thanks eve31! Glad it's not just me thinking its contradictory. I don't call them anymore...in 6x monthly bills (chosen simply as they were higher than other bills, calls to Agency numbers were around £65. In context, in the last 5 years I received £290 maintenance.
They agreed to refund £9...I have no idea which £9-worth, or why these calls were deemed 'refundable') I email the Agency instead. Then they have to call you

eve31

I'm have my phone package with virgin media and upgraded the package to include 0845 numbers. I did request it and it wasn't included to begin with. In the first week I spent £12 on calls to CM.

Can you not upgrade your phone package to include 0845 numbers. I didn't know they have to call you once you email them, is that on the online portal? good to know.

Despite all the claims I have read about enforcement on non payment I have had 5 missed payments which are next to nothing anyway and nothing has been done, just fobbed off.

Fission

It isn't contradictory at all.

The CSA has the power to take enforcement action, but it does not have a prescriptive duty to take such action in all cases.

If a case closed with a debt of 50p, or even £50, you would not necessarily expect a court case costing many hundreds of pounds to be used as an enforcement method.

Would you?

eve31

This is about a specific case, not 'all cases'

Definition of contradiction:a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.

HoneyNutLoop

I don't think they are contradictory at all. One is confirming they are able to take enforcement actions and that there are a range of them available. The other is saying that ultimately the responsibility for the debt, and paying it, still rests with the parent who was non-compliant in the first place.

If I don't pay my council tax, the responsibility for that debt doesn't shift from me to the council, just because they have the ability to take me to court. The excuse "well if you wanted me to pay, you should have forced me to sooner, so it's your fault I still owe this money" just doesn't wash in my opinion. If you owe money, you have a responsibility to pay it, it's not the other party's responsibility to "make you".

I think they are saying that despite whatever powers they have, or decide it's appropriate to use, ultimately they don't accept responsibility for Ms xxx's non-compliant behaviour - she alone is responsible for it, and for paying her debt. Having an array of enforcement powers doesn't shift that responsibility from her to them.

Robin-o'-the-Hood

I take the point. However,while the NRP does have a responsibility to pay, equally the Agency has the power and responsibility to make it happen. If there is no threat or ability to sanction then not only could we all not bother to pay Council Tax, car tax, TV licence etc etc but commit other more blatant criminal acts as well.
(In regard to an above post about court cases costing more than might be owed or recoverable, I think that probably goes for a lot of other cases of many kinds.)