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

Guest101

Starduster wrote: »

Can you provide the source for your advice?

If you want to retract your statement then please let me know.

Neither, I don't report to you. Was just sharing

Guest101

Starduster wrote: »

I think we have the most definitive answer we are looking for.

The CSA has racked up a debt that cannot be enforced. So it's stuck with it. Its solution is to spend taxpayers money on a machine churning out brown envelopes.

I am rather concerned we had an internet lawyer on this thread who is under a belief a Family Protection Trust is worthless if a property was mortgaged. To the less-informed, that advice could have resulted in substantial loss from seeking expensive legal advice.

I took the liberty of looking through some of the commentators posting histories. There is evidence that moneysaving is the general theme of this forum. The exception is child support which is focused on exposing NRPs to financial loss even if that advice contradicts CS regulations.

I have no qualms in telling you that I found CSA staff highly evasive and defensive in their manner. It was as if the CSA is a government agency full of misandrists.

Your opinion is duly noted.


I'm male and an NRP.

Tammykitty

clearingout wrote: »

Do your children not need a roof over their heads and food in their bellies even if their father is 'excluded' rather than 'absent'?

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Pay the maintenance. At least then you can say you didn't purposely let them go without.

If the OP was classed as an excluded parent, this most likely means he tried for contact and failed, if the resident parent needed support in putting a roof over the children's head, then she shouldn't have excluded him from their lives.



The OP has been assessed by the CSA as having no UK Income, so therefore owes no arrears.
REMO application also found he owed no maintenance.


Legally he has fulfilled his obligations to the children.


Morally, we do not know what the OP has or hasn't done, he may have contributed to a savings account for his children, or set them up a trust fund.

Guest101

Tammykitty wrote: »

If the OP was classed as an excluded parent, this most likely means he tried for contact and failed, if the resident parent needed support in putting a roof over the children's head, then she shouldn't have excluded him from their lives. - So because one parent doesn't think of the children, the other shouldn't either.



The OP has been assessed by the CSA as having no UK Income, so therefore owes no arrears.
REMO application also found he owed no maintenance.


Legally he has fulfilled his obligations to the children.


Morally, we do not know what the OP has or hasn't done, he may have contributed to a savings account for his children, or set them up a trust fund.

I'm sure he's done all that. Hence the trust.

Tammykitty

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm sure he's done all that. Hence the trust.

There is only so much a NRP can do if excluded.


If the RP has enough money to bring up the children, will the extra money the NRP contributes voluntarily actually benefit the children?


Or will it just be swallowed up by the household, and perhaps get added to the RP pension plans or savings?


It all depends on the level of income in the RP family, if the maintenance could increase the overall standard of living for the family including the children, then it may make sense to contribute, but if its surplus income, then if you have no legal obligation to give money to the resident parent why would you?


I could be better for the children that the OP keeps the money he would have paid and saves it for the children

Starduster

They receive my estate in any event. In fact, as trustee/beneficiaries of the FTP, they are already in possession of it.

My ex doesn't get to see any of it and neither the CSA. That is sideways disinheritance. The FP Trust is specifically designed to protect family wealth from sideways disinheritance.

Solicitors call it "predatory spouse", a spouse who thinks they can win a free house and the pickings by virtue of marriage, or having children and such a trust is structured to protect from just that.

Guest101

Tammykitty wrote: »

There is only so much a NRP can do if excluded. - Yes like paying CM.


If the RP has enough money to bring up the children, will the extra money the NRP contributes voluntarily actually benefit the children? - Yes, being above the minimum requirements tends to benefit people.


Or will it just be swallowed up by the household, and perhaps get added to the RP pension plans or savings? - Maybe, but does that mean the NRP can hold their head high and say 'I supported my kids', sure.


It all depends on the level of income in the RP family - Not at all , if the maintenance could increase the overall standard of living for the family including the children, then it may make sense to contribute - How does extra money not increase the standard? , but if its surplus income, then if you have no legal obligation to give money to the resident parent why would you? - Yes.


I could be better for the children that the OP keeps the money he would have paid and saves it for the children

That presumes that the PWC wouldn't save it for the kids? Does it matter who saves it, as long as its saved?

Tammykitty

Guest101 wrote: »

That presumes that the PWC wouldn't save it for the kids? Does it matter who saves it, as long as its saved?

Extra money doesn't increase the standard of living if it is simply saved.


If I had children and their father contributed an £200 a month in maintenance, I could save it my pension scheme, how does that increase my children's standard of living?

WYSPECIAL

HappyMJ wrote: »

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.

CSA debt is not written off by bankruptcy and the liability would remain.

HappyMJ

WYSPECIAL wrote: »

CSA debt is not written off by bankruptcy and the liability would remain.

As I explained further in a response it goes a significant way to prove to CSA that someone cannot afford to not only pay the existing debts someone has but also the CSA arrears and they will "consider" writing the debt off if there is no way the OP can pay anything. The CSA can't get money out of someone who has declared they have nothing. They can't chase the debt.