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

CakeCrusader

I sent you a government link saying that the statute of limitations does not apply to child maintenance. If you don't believe that well, hey, go on a google search and there's a heck of a lot of other sites which will tell you exactly the same thing. There's a court case too, if you prefer; http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/333.html

You'll have to look for the relevant statute yourself I'm afraid, but the case and the Government information should prove that you do have to pay this.

Starduster

CC This is excellent material and I appreciate you taking the time to find it.

Reading the judgment, it confirms the liability stands but the CSA cannot take an enforcement step in respect of it.

I don’t think a driving ban would be appropriate because that would harm the British taxpayer more than me.

They can apply for a committal hearing, but that opens the door for me to question the validity of the liability. As I still have a copy of the telephone call made by a CSA official to my employer in Germany, accepting that I work there, it is irrefutable evidence I do not have a UK taxable income for 2003 and 2008 which this liability arises.

There is also an unsuccessful REMO application, It failed because I satisfied the court I am an excluded parent and not an absent parent. I was also awarded my costs. In the UK, the law does not differentiate absent parents from excluded parents.

I can only apply to injunct the CSA from taking an enforcement step if one is taken or threatened. So far, it’s just brown envelopes with computer-generated statements.

Excellent work CC, and once again, many thanks.

nannytone_2

Starduster wrote: »

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.

where did i say that its anything to do with being a male?

i said 'parent' and as far as i can remember one is male and one is female. ( in the majority of vases)

BOTH should be contributing towards the support of their childrn

Starduster

BOTH should be contributing towards the support of their childrn

Nobody is saying otherwise, but making statements like that doesn't answer the question.

justontime

Starduster wrote: »

CC This is excellent material and I appreciate you taking the time to find it.

Reading the judgment, it confirms the liability stands but the CSA cannot take an enforcement step in respect of it.

I don’t think a driving ban would be appropriate because that would harm the British taxpayer more than me.

They can apply for a committal hearing, but that opens the door for me to question the validity of the liability. As I still have a copy of the telephone call made by a CSA official to my employer in Germany, accepting that I work there, it is irrefutable evidence I do not have a UK taxable income for 2003 and 2008 which this liability arises.

There is also an unsuccessful REMO application, It failed because I satisfied the court I am an excluded parent and not an absent parent. I was also awarded my costs. In the UK, the law does not differentiate absent parents from excluded parents.

I can only apply to injunct the CSA from taking an enforcement step if one is taken or threatened. So far, it’s just brown envelopes with computer-generated statements.

Excellent work CC, and once again, many thanks.

When my husband had to prove that he did not owe a huge bill for alledged arrears (which had suddenly been 'discovered' from many years before and related to a period when he and his ex were still together) our MP and the staff in his local office were wonderful. They were very knowledgable and they didn't give up even when specialist CSA advisors told us there was no chance of overturning the CSA decision. We eventually won, CSA admitted they were wrong and they found that my husband (who had always paid in full and on time) had overpaid and was due a refund! Your circumstances are different, but you may find your MP's office surprisingly helpful in getting CSA to deal with the problem.

Starduster

Unfortunately my MP is as useful as a carrot.

If I get the legal analysis together then I can plead a cause of action.

The CSA can only play the committal card now, but that opens the door for me to challenge the validity of the assessment and I can apply to the magistrate to quash the liability and ask for a defendant's costs order.

The alternative is a tribunal, but I am well out of time and I understand they don't award costs.

I think it's best to build the legal argument, and execute it when an enforcement step is taken.

HappyMJ

Starduster wrote: »

Unfortunately my MP is as useful as a carrot.

If I get the legal analysis together then I can plead a cause of action.

The CSA can only play the committal card now, but that opens the door for me to challenge the validity of the assessment and I can apply to the magistrate to quash the liability and ask for a defendant's costs order.

The alternative is a tribunal, but I am well out of time and I understand they don't award costs.

I think it's best to build the legal argument, and execute it when an enforcement step is taken.

They are very unlikely to attempt to commit you to prison as that will potentially write the whole claim off.

So...they'll just be patient and wait.

Starduster

I'm not sure what the CSA is waiting for.

I'll park the matter until they take an enforcement step.

HappyMJ

Starduster wrote: »

I'm not sure what the CSA is waiting for.

I'll park the matter until they take an enforcement step.

Probably waiting for you to die...the debt will be paid by your estate of you've got anything.

They can and will wait a very very long time.

Even some council's still have not written off liability orders from over 20 years ago for Community tax and are just waiting.

Starduster

That isn't going to work.

Back in 2009, it was a bit of a fad for people of wealth to put all their assets and property into a "Family Protection Trust". It ringfenced everything over to trustees.

It offers protection from statutory liabilities such as care home fees and the effects of divorce. It ensures my estate passes to my children and is not disinherited sideways while allowing me lifetime use.

It means during my life, I don't actually own my estate. It is already owned by my beneficiaries who are the (some) of the trustees.

Pension companies do the same and that is why a pension pot does not count towards a deceased estate. The policy holder doesn't own it.

Setting up my finances in this way was nothing to do with CSA, but it would appear to have inherent protective benefits.