no one told me

littlelady

I am so mad,only just found out this infomation,the story goes like this ex husband left in 1998,i contacted the child support and was told because he was on a benefit his contribution was NIL,ok after a while another letter came and said the same,only just found out that a change in 2003 meant eveyone in benefit must pay the minimum.Well why was i not informed of that?For four years he should have payed for his 3 children:mad: .I called the csa today and was told that i would have to close the old case with them and call back in 13 weeks to open it has a new case and then they will go ahead and try to claim from him ,hes still on benefit.The children are now 16,17,and 19 ,two still in full time education.Does anyone know ifi would be able to claim from 2003 or is that a lost case?

karenmaria81

Hi Littlelady

I work for the csa - not by chioce but by necessity!!

Unfortunately the advice you have been given is correct. Because your case was classified as "old rules" and still on the old computer system, your ex would not have been eligible to pay anything as is was and still is in receipt of benefits. If you open a new case under the new computer system (CS2) then he should be eligible to pay £5.00 per week. You will only be able to claim from the date that you request a new case opened, and it cannot be backdated til 2003.

A lot of Parents with Care are not aware of this, and the CSA should have done more to advise them. Whilst £5.00 per week for 3 children is a disgrace, it is better than nothing. Close your old case ASAP and reopen in 13 weeks, you may as well gt what you and your children are entitled to.

If you or anyone else needs any advice on CSA matters I'm only too happy to help as it is a very difficult system to deal with.

NACSA_CHAIR

As explained above, you can do it, but just be aware of the problems. Closing one case, and opening a new case 13 weeks later has the potential risk of the case becoming clerical - and you really want to avoid that if possible. Clerical means that the case cannot be administered by the IT system, and thus all actions are carried out manually, and this can mean lots of delays.

And even when the assessment is made, there is a possibility that he wont have the maintenance taken from his benefit. so whilst the opportunity to move across is there - its not all plain sailing.

Zara33

karenmaria81 wrote: »

If you or anyone else needs any advice on CSA matters I'm only too happy to help as it is a very difficult system to deal with.

Hey Karen,

Nice to have another CSA worker on board, i'm sure like the other CSA workers on this forum your advice and help will be excellent.

Thanks

enemes

You have nothing to loose by having your case migrated over to the new system. OK, thirteen weeks is thirteen weeks, a long time by any standard, but the point is you will get something eventually, albeit £5 a week.

The second point that comes to mind is that you could claim against the CSA as they never told you that the changes took place in 2003. I would write to them demanding everything they have on your caseload, under the Data Protection Act, and see wether they informed you of this or not. I'm no legal expert, but you may have a claim for a compensatory payment.

Don't beat about the bush, just go straight to their website, and fill in the complaints email right away, complaining that you were not informed of these changes. That will get you on to the complaints system, which is a start. You will have to wait for ten working days for them to contact you. If they don't in that time, go straight to your MP, as they will have failed in their Charter to reply within the ten days.

I did that, and boy, do they jump when an MP contacts them. Meantime, write to them for your info as per Dtat Protection Act.

Good Luck

kelloggs36

NACSACHAIR is right - although I wouldn't worry about the clerical bit as getting nothing now can't be worse! However, there may be reasons why the money isn't deducted from his benefit such as other payments coming out so CSA isn't taken. However, you can't lose as you are getting nothing now and the worst that can happen is that you get nothing later on!!!

Mr_Green_Genes

karenmaria81 wrote: »

... Whilst £5.00 per week for 3 children is a disgrace ...

Excuse me, but that is sadly the sort of mindless, thoughtless comment that those of us who are veterans of the CSA have come to expect.

Quite correctly, sensible CSA people like Kelloggs will post that things that may look wrong on paper have to be carried out "because they are the law". Now here you are, claiming that a fundamental part of the legislation is "a disgrace".

OK, that's what you think about one small part of the law. How do you stand on the rest of it? How do you look on the fact that the law says that any Child Tax Credit in the income of an NRP's family is automatically counted as assessable. Does that sound ok to you?

What about the way your employer actually behaves? Which part is "a disgrace" and which part is ok with you?

iluvfreebies

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Excuse me, but that is sadly the sort of mindless, thoughtless comment that those of us who are veterans of the CSA have come to expect.

Quite correctly, sensible CSA people like Kelloggs will post that things that may look wrong on paper have to be carried out "because they are the law". Now here you are, claiming that a fundamental part of the legislation is "a disgrace".

OK, that's what you think about one small part of the law. How do you stand on the rest of it? How do you look on the fact that the law says that any Child Tax Credit in the income of an NRP's family is automatically counted as assessable. Does that sound ok to you?

What about the way your employer actually behaves? Which part is "a disgrace" and which part is ok with you?

Im sure that if karenmarie81 could change the law she would do a much better job (and be a lot better paid) than the ppl who made the current legislation and am sure that everyone working in the csa would love to. however she is just doing a job making the most of the legislation that is in place under extreme pressure to acheive targets etc. - She is still entitled to an opinion which is what this forum is about is it not???