Is there a rule of CSA that revokes Section 9 of the Limitation Act

Starduster

Hi All, newbie here.

I used to have a CSA case back in the 1990’s until 2003 when I accepted a contract overseas. I have no contact with PWC. I informed the CSA and gave them my new employers details, the CSA telephoned them and all looked good. I had already lost contact with my 2 children.

I met someone and we have another son who lives with us. Last year I bought a place in the UK and we are now living there. I am now 51 and planning to start a company.

Rather by surprise I get a letter from the CSA with a demand for £14000 arrears. Digging deeper, it seems the CSA carried on charging maintenance from 2003 until some point in 2008 at which it stopped, then they applied for a liability order. The CSA did say all that correspondence was sent to my last UK address rather than my present one, but it was “returned DLO”.

I asked for more clarification, but I’m finding CSA officials to be evasive.

I’m about to instruct a solicitor, he is also my business partner, but is happy to act for me. However, I need to identify the following, and you need the help of you good people to find it.

The liability has become statute barred under the the effect of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.

A CSA official said a liability order never expires, suggesting it is effective for perpetuity.

My biz partner is of the opinion the liability conferred on a liability order expired after 6 years in 2014, which is why the liability order itself does not need an end date.

Before I bring a case to tribunal, and be able to recover my costs, I need to identify what legislation revoked section 9. CSA officials say “seek legal advice”.

Can anyone point me to the rules of CSA that revokes the operation of section 9 of the Limitation Act?

HappyMJ

A liability order lasts forever. It is not subject to the limitations act.

To write the debt off you need to declare yourself bankrupt and include the debt. As you own a home and are planning to become a director or a limited company you will have to pay the liability order off.

Contact with your children does not end your child support liability. You still do owe the parent of your child £14,000 and really...as you now own an asset which can be used to secure the debt I'd arrange to get it paid back as soon as you can to avoid that and the fees that will also incur.

They cannot use certain types of enforcement now such as bailiffs but they can suspend your driving licence and they can send you to prison. It's a court order.

So the advice is correct "seek legal advice".....and not your business partner who should have been giving you better legal advice without you having to resort to posting on a forum.

The legislation is within the Child Support Act 1991

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/48/enacted

Starduster

Can you show me what legislation provides exemption for child support from section 9 of the Limitation Act?

I have looked through the Child Support Act, (and other regulations) and we cant find anything that gets round Section 9.

I understand bankruptcy does not negate child maintenance, student loans and some other prescribed debt types.

HappyMJ

Starduster wrote: »

Can you show me what legislation provides exemption for child support from section 9 of the Limitation Act?

I have looked through the Child Support Act, (and other regulations) and we cant find anything that gets round Section 9.

I understand bankruptcy does not negate child maintenance, student loans and some other prescribed debt types.

Showing the CSA that you really do have no money and can't afford to pay anything can really encourage them to write the debt off if you do go bankrupt. It's not an option for you anyway as you own a house.

It is a court ordered debt so the payments can increase to the CSA order if you were to go bankrupt and do have surplus income. CSA is prioritized over your other creditors. If you can show to the court you have no surplus income then you can't be forced to pay CSA anything and you won't be at risk of imprisonment. That will encourage the CSA to write it off as unrecoverable.

The Limitations Act doesn't write off the debt it just prevents certain actions being taken by the creditor. Even if it was just a credit card you still do owe the money after 6 years of non payment you just can't be taken to court over it. Your creditor has taken out a liability order and can still enforce that order at any time.

Starduster

Its not about not having the money or having other creditors.

nannytone_2

if the mother of the children was receiving income related benefit, then the money would be recovered by the state in lieu of what they had paid out on your behalf

it amazes me that any parent thinks its ok not to contribute towards their children support, whether or not they see them

CakeCrusader

HapyMJ is right, there is no statute of limitation regarding maintenance arrears. If the company you worked for overseas was a UK based company, or if you had connections to the UK (like a house here, paid UK tax), then you were still liable under the CSA rules and their calculation still stood. You're still liable for this as it's a maintenance debt; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214338/cm-arrears-and-compliance-strategy-2012-2017.pdf

The mother of your children has been feeding your children for the past x amount of years probably by herself. She's been clothing them, keeping a roof over their head, taking care of them while they were sick, taking them to the doctors/hospital/opticians/dentists/school etc while you've been abroad and leaving her to cope alone, and with no maintenance to help her to do this. The least you can do is pay the arrears that you owe. The fact that you have no contact with your children is irrelevant - you're still financially responsible.

You want proof that you're still liable - check the link! Your solicitor is giving you incorrect advice if he's telling you that the statute of limitation applies for child maintenance. If he's a business solicitor he may not be too familiar with the rules regarding child maintenance; it's like going to see an optician if you have a problem with your foot. You do need to pay this and there's no way out of it.

CakeCrusader

nannytone wrote: »

if the mother of the children was receiving income related benefit, then the money would be recovered by the state in lieu of what they had paid out on your behalf

it amazes me that any parent thinks its ok not to contribute towards their children support, whether or not they see them

Quite!! :mad:

It's actually incorrect too. The state won't have recovered any maintenance, and it's been disregarded when calculating benefits for many years. His children have gone without for years because of the misguided idea that the state will recover anything he pays so his children will be no better off. Awful.

nannytone_2

CakeCrusader wrote: »

Quite!! :mad:

It's actually incorrect too. The state won't have recovered any maintenance, and it's been disregarded when calculating benefits for many years. His children have gone without for years because of the misguided idea that the state will recover anything he pays so his children will be no better off. Awful.

he is talking about the 1990's until 2003.

if the mother was receiving income related benefit ( at that time it would have been income support) then the state WOULD chase him for maintenance.

i know because they tried to take 46k from my children father for a period of around 4 months that id claimed income support after we split in 1990.
they were taking £500 a month direct from his wages for almost a year before they finally realised they were making a mistake and refunded the money. no apology though
this happened in 2009... almost 20 years on from my brief spell on income related benefit. the letters stated it was being reclaimed by the secretary of state on behalf of taxpayer

CakeCrusader

nannytone wrote: »

he is talking about the 1990's until 2003.

if the mother was receiving income related benefit ( at that time it would have been income support) then the state WOULD chase him for maintenance.

i know because they tried to take 46k from my children father for a period of around 4 months that id claimed income support after we split in 1990.
they were taking £500 a month direct from his wages for almost a year before they finally realised they were making a mistake and refunded the money. no apology though
this happened in 2009... almost 20 years on from my brief spell on income related benefit. the letters stated it was being reclaimed by the secretary of state on behalf of taxpayer

Ah, thank you! My son's 17 and I can remember having to fill in a CSA form when I claimed income support after his birth. I started working a year later and I can't remember the maintenance coming into the equation when I claimed Family Credit or whatever it was then. It took them 2 years to process the CSA so it didn't affect my income support/housing benefit as I was no longer claiming by the time they'd calculated it.

The mother of the OP's children may have worked, but even if she didn't, it's shoddy that he scarpered abroad leaving the tax payer or his ex to financially support his children, and now he's trying to weasel out of paying what he owes.

Starduster

it amazes me that any parent thinks its ok not to contribute towards their children support, whether or not they see them

Can we put aside the moral feelings for the moment. Just because I am a man I should not be prejudged with comments like this.

If the law says I owe the money then I'll pay it. But the evidence I have says I don't. Section 9 of the Limitation Act.

This will be my last call for anyone to come forward with legislation that places child maintenance in a class exempt from the operation of Section 9.