Arrears through CSA mistake

April 20, 2010

I will try and be brief with my explanation about my situation with the CSA.

When I got divorced in 2004 I owned a business with a partner but my wife also has some shares. My partner took her shares and paid her £77,664 for the privilege which he took as his earnings and paid the VAT and NI at the end of the financial year. This was classed legal and above board with the accountants and solicitors etc. during the divorce, but when the CSA got involved they classed it a diversion of income on my account to my business partner. This I accepted and therefore £77,664 was adsded to my 2004 years salary.

My dilemma is that the CSA have continued to add this amount to every years salary since 2004, and subsequently I have accrued an unpaid amount of £37,827.61 for 2005, 2006 and 2007. This is why the CSA have taken me to court and their Debt Collecting service are now harrassing me! I have written umpteen letters to the CSA and the Tribunal Services and NO-ONE will take an interest; the CSA say the Tribunal Services have to alter their decision before they can act and the Tribunal Services say the CSA have to receive evidence (which I have sent on more than one occasion) before they can do anything. I have sent letter after letter and spoken to these people on the telephone and cannot find anyone who can name a single person that can alter this decision about the £77,664 being added to EVERY years salary of mine instead of it being just added to the salary of 2004.

I have made regular payments to the CSA for my cildren since my divorce in 2004 but this extra £37,827.61 is classed as an outstanding debt but it is a wrong decision and needs to be addressed.

Can anyone help in any way? I urgently require any advice…..

Comments

One Response to “Arrears through CSA mistake”

  1. Brokenfather on April 20th, 2010 2:46 pm

    I am at a loss to understand the CSA’s reasoning here.

    The PWC sold an asset she owned to someone else, and the CSA deem that as you diverting your income to the purchaser.

    There is no logic to that conclusion.

Got something to say?