How to beat the CSA


The CSA, or Child Support Agency, claims to be putting children first and is interested in getting payments to children. This of course is not true, as the complaints about the CSA from both non resident parents and parents with care prove – complaints that can be read on this website.

Children would be much better off if the CSA were not involved and a private arrangement were made between parents concerning the payment of maintenance. This is in fact the best way to beat the CSA. If you are your ex can come to an agreement on how much should be paid, and how often, you can leave the Child Support Agency out of the equation, saving a lot of stress and heartache for all concerned.

Of course, you must be careful to record all payments and keep a signed agreement between you both. Never pay in cash, and always pay in a way that keeps a paper trail, such as a direct debit or BACS transfer.

This is one way to beat the CSA, but when some fathers ask how can they beat the CSA they mean how can they avoided payment to the CSA altogether. This isn’t advised because your children need your support, but there ways to reduce your payments so that the CSA doesn’t get as much as they wish.

For example, you could complete a variations form so that the CSA has to take your expenses involved with access to your children into consideration. You could become self employed so that your daily expenses are treated as tax deductable, reducing your declared earnings – or you could leave the country altogether, where the CSA has limited powers and generally will not bother with the hassle of pursuing you.

The CSA wants easy targets – NRPs in full time employment so they can issue a deduction from earnings order. Beat the CSA at their own game.

Comments

51 Responses to “How to beat the CSA”

  1. Sir Gordon on August 4th, 2016 10:54 am

    CSA is a disaster, from Day One. And I can’t fathom how the people that work there go home at night satisfied.

    There are wasteful individuals in our society using this system to their convenience, to steal hard earnings from good ad honest people, whilst claim all other level of assistance, working minimal hours and the rest. If you find yourself in a higher wage bracket it is +%%. So why should a “wasteful individual” who personally has a new home (with Claims), New car and goes as please when the child appears in poor attire, seconds and bargain bin offers. Feeding of another’s blood, sweat and tears.

    The CSA only bolsters those “non contributors” life style. We jail people in court for the same belligerence. Yet we punish the worker, the contributor and up standing person CSA / Child Maintenance. Clear the system has been created by “idiots”, very evident by is end result and outputs.

    I agree on a system, though the correct process must be in place with simple parameters and characteristics, The new 2014 20% punishment on the new scheme is a disgrace. The approver(s) should be shot. If the mother does not agree to a fair amicable amount within reason and goes for her on greed. The payer is then further punished with 20%. Even CSA staff voice there disgruntlement about this and are embarrassed.

    We “Mess” around with silly laws, break our economy, waste money on events rather than our infrastructure, but yet they cannot address correcting the CSA / maintenance topic with common sense and a system that is fair balancing equality of life.

    What ever happen to equal rights ……… but yet the Sherriff Clark can refuse on the basis “The child is too young to stay with his father” ….. after you blow 000’s to see your child breath. What a disgrace ….. the child’s father has joint responsibility and psychologically the child needs best of both equal to support a robust and stable upbringing. We live in a country where idiots place idiots in front of them and do not have the balls to do what is equally right, logically and balance equality.

    1. There should be a review (21st Century permits even a conference facility)
    2. There should be a cap at the current standard of living. If One exceed, then this at one’s own effort
    3. % applied if under the “Cost of Living”
    4. Divisible by Child
    5. Penalty to the non-agree’r providing there is a fair and amicable proposal

    I have no issue providing for my child, though I need to see him to do so for soft and hard purposes. Not because of a whim to say no, attempt to control and bolster greed.

    Proposal :

    If everyone likeminded donates and collaborates with justice for fathers in the UK, we can take the parliament to court repeatedly with queens councillors. The government will soon break, press will sound publish facts, All publish proof from there experiences and those people being buried under the poorest attempt of administration there is today will be heard. People are jailed for these outcomes in other circumstance or fired from jobs for these failures and poor performance.

    Its theft, its not equal, is poorly defined ………..

Got something to say?