Overpaid CSA

Shelldean

Oh and child benefit stopped for both nephews at the end of August. If that helps!!!

DUTR

Shelldean wrote: »

Can't help with the csa side but with regards to school leaving age to the best of my knowledge and I concede I may incorrect it is as follows...

Children born before 1/9/97 had no obligation to stay beyond sixteen.
Those born between 1/9/1997 and 31/8/1998 inclusive had to remain in education until 17. So a staggered year? Bit like they staggered the pension ages to get them all the same.

Those born on or after 1/9/98 remain in some type of education until the academic year they turn 18.

My nephews born March 98 and June 98, stayed for one yr.
My son Sept 98 has two yrs to complete.

I knew there was a staggered year in there somewhere. :cool:

Shelldean wrote: »

Oh and child benefit stopped for both nephews at the end of August. If that helps!!!

It does help as I'm due another schedule soon .

Shelldean

DUTR wrote: »

I knew there was a staggered year in there somewhere. :cool:



It does help as I'm due another schedule soon .

Don't forget the date the child.leaves full-time education dictates the end date of child benefit.

When approved education or training ends
When your child leaves approved education or training payments will stop at the end of February, 31 May, 31 August or 30 November (whichever comes first).

From this page

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-16-19


My nephews finished in June and July hence the Aug date applied.
And this is the rules for England, differs slightly for other U.K. countries I believe.

DUTR

Shelldean wrote: »

Don't forget the date the child.leaves full-time education dictates the end date of child benefit.

When approved education or training ends
When your child leaves approved education or training payments will stop at the end of February, 31 May, 31 August or 30 November (whichever comes first).

From this page

www.gov.uk/child-benefit-16-19


My nephews finished in June and July hence the Aug date applied.
And this is the rules for England, differs slightly for other U.K. countries I believe.

This is why I suspect the OP is due maybe a couple of months not years. But until he chases it up with regards the CSA then he won't know for sure. I don't beleive he need get into too much debate with the CSA rep.

WYSPECIAL

[QUOTE=DUTR;69166961
So me re reading the opening post and highlighting the 'relevant' bits suggests that it was a recent communication with the CSA and that the date on the letter contains a typographical error as in the year.
So have you been paying for the last 25 months even though you had a confirmation letter 2 years ago?
Whether the mother has committed fraud or not is not your main concern and to me just suggests a lingering bitterness, get your over payment back 1st if it is indeed due.[/QUOTE]

Probably not a typographical error. The CSA will send out letter with the current date on telling you a historical date when liability ended so in this case it is perfectly feasible that the OP was informed late that his liability had ended. This is usually because the PWC "forgets" to inform the CSA of the change.

If the CSA has already paid this money to the PWC and they state that it was used for the benefit of the child, even though they weren't entitled to it, instead of recovering the money from the PWC and repaying it they cut their ties and basically tell the NRP "tough". The two months refunded to the OP probably hadn't been paid out.

DUTR

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

Probably not a typographical error. The CSA will send out letter with the current date on telling you a historical date when liability ended so in this case it is perfectly feasible that the OP was informed late that his liability had ended. This is usually because the PWC "forgets" to inform the CSA of the change.

If the CSA has already paid this money to the PWC and they state that it was used for the benefit of the child, even though they weren't entitled to it, instead of recovering the money from the PWC and repaying it they cut their ties and basically tell the NRP "tough". The two months refunded to the OP probably hadn't been paid out.

It seems odd if an annual statement arrives in between, 'the benefit of the child' is a none valid cop out. Posters in the past have overpaid and got several months payment returned (whether the then PWC had to re pay it? who knows) .

WYSPECIAL

Similar thing happened to me. I was informed in December 2014 that my liability ended in August 2014. I have asked for the money paid for the three months to be returned to me and await their reply.

Undecided yet as to what to do if they don't. On the one hand take PWC through small claims to recover money, on the other put the last 15 years of CSA in my life behind me. OP seems to have been duped for two years though rather than my three months.

DUTR

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

Similar thing happened to me. I was informed in December 2014 that my liability ended in August 2014. I have asked for the money paid for the three months to be returned to me and await their reply.

Undecided yet as to what to do if they don't. On the one hand take PWC through small claims to recover money, on the other put the last 15 years of CSA in my life behind me. OP seems to have been duped for two years though rather than my three months.

Didn't you get annual statements though?
With my brother he only went a few months of paying as his daughter happened to mention that mum wasn't getting any monies, although he was paying it, he then got a letter to say the case was closed and then shortly after a cheque for the over payment.

As the monies is being paid to the csa then the issue would be with them, not the pwc (which I agree no point stirring a hornet nest).

WYSPECIAL

Annual statements wont highlight the issue here.

If the PWC has failed to inform the CSA of a change of circumstances then the assessment would continue and the annual statement would show the liability and amounts paid as expected.

What is happening here is CSA is finding out late that liability should have ended and are then retrospectively telling the NRP. In my case I queried when liability would end in November 2014 and got a reply in December, presumably after they had done checks with PWC, saying it ended in September and no more payments were required.

The PWC is legally obliged to tell the CSA, under threat of a fine of up to £1000, that the child is no longer a qualifying child but they don't appear to be taking any action when they don't and it would seem they have a get out clause about not recovering the money paid out to the PWC that they shouldn't have had or refunding it from public funds.

I haven't really looked into the options yet as in my case the time of over paying was short so the money involved, in the grand scheme of things, quite small and I would rather just put CSA involvement in my life behind me. The NRP is left to try to get the money back themselves or write it off.

What seems wrong is the double standard. If the NRP failed to tell of a CoC when legally obliged to I'm sure they would be treated in the most severe way possible and pursued relentlessly for monies owing.

eve31

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

What seems wrong is the double standard. If the NRP failed to tell of a CoC when legally obliged to I'm sure they would be treated in the most severe way possible and pursued relentlessly for monies owing.

Are you having a laugh? Seriously NRP fail to tell of change of circumstances and in my experience nothing is done and in many cases I have read about absolutely nothing is done either. It works both ways, and as statistically most single parents do not receive maintenance from the non resident parents there are more NRP who fail to tell of change of circumstances than resident parents.