A legal challenge against the CSA
I’m considering mounting a legal challenge for sex discrimination against the CSA.
In my case I have two sons with my ex-partner, and my eldest son has lived with me happily for over a year. As my other son still lives with his mum I am classed as both PWC and NRP.
The Mother and I both agreed initially that we were going to pay for our respective costs as they were both equal. She has now gone back on this as the CSA have advised her that as well paying for the costs at my house I have to give her money as well. This is due to the process of that we have to counter claim against each other. I have tried to set an example to my kids by being employed and showing them that a work ethic is the right way forward. The mother on the other hand has now got 10 kids and has absolutely no intention of working. So she gets approx 15% of my wages and I get nothing because she is on benefits.
Surely this cant be fair and possibly illegal? I’ve done a Freedom of Information Act to obtain the number of cases where there is one child each, and I am pretty certain they will come back and say that the man pays the woman close to 100% of the time. If that is the case then although the PWC and NRP counter claiming each other isn’t sexual discrimination in itself, the overall EFFECT of the process surely is. Also, page 20 of the CSA handbook also has an example where a couple share the care equally, yet goes on to say the man has to pay 21 pounds weekly. Why is that so when the man has already provided equal care? The CSA booklet makes an assumption that ‘the man has to pay’. Would he now be entitled to Child benefits etc instead of the woman? The CSA literature assumes not.
Has anybody ever tried to legally challenge the CSA on these grounds? I can find nothing on the net and now have about three weeks to appeal the decision.
23 thoughts on “A legal challenge against the CSA”
Leave a Reply
please get in touch with nacsa straight away as they have solicitors which are preparing to mount a case against the csa for sexual discrimination!! they were asking for cases to be forwarded to these solicitors
where can we get more information on this Rach…. you should post this on every website you can…. it would be great to see the NRP fathers being treated fairly….
http://www.nacsa.co.uk/ this is the website
this is what they printed on their facebook page
N.A.C.S.A
12 June.
We have been contacted by a solicitor who is preparing a Judicial Review against the Agency’s ‘irrational’ decision for refusing Financial Redress (compensation) to a client.
The outcome of the Judicial Review may benefit a number of clients, and as such the solicitor is inviting any applicants who may be willing to support the Judicial Review Application.
The decision by the CSA must be an unreasonable one. The test is “unreasonable”, so there has to be salient points that would lead to us believing that the decision meets this test.
Please be aware, Judicial Review is a long process, and there will be costs involved. If several people agree to support the application, any cost will be divided between the number of cases involved and so much less than a single application.
As a separate issue, a law firm has expressed an interest in the Gender Bias that is often the focus of complaints. Again, because it is impossible to show sex bias on a single case we need 10+ case so that we can show, on the balance of probabilities, that the CSA tends to treat a man differently to the way that they treat a woman.
If you believe your case demonstrates a bias because of gender, or you believe your case was unreasonably denied appropriate Financial Redress, please email admin@nacsa.co.uk. Please limit your emails to a small summary of the case history, and the reason why you believe a bias was evident, or that compensation was unreasonably refused. These emails will be forwarded to the appropriate legal teams, who will contact clients directly if their case is appropriate to use.
PLEASE NOTE: WE CANNOT RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS RAISED IN YOUR EMAILS. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON YOUR CASE, PLEASE USE THE APPROPRIATE EMAIL ADDRESS FOR A RESPONSE
the gender bias would refer to the poster!
I have been an NRP and a PWC whereby my ex was allowed to fail to pay me for 2 years, where I paid my child support staright away. I eventually complained to my M.P. and she paid.
having been a victim of this shambolis system run by incompetent oafs, I have looked at legal redress, but not on sexual equality. I sought advice from a top lawyer, who informed me that there ‘may be’ a breach of Human Rights, by the mere fact that all those involved with this system are paying on three different system and at various levels.
I didn’t have the finances to pursue a legal case, but I wrote and complained to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but they wanted me to go through the legal system in the UK first and get a judgement that could be ‘tested’ at the ECHR.
So, there may be an avenue to bring this not fit for purpose shambles, before the courts on the basis of a breach of Human Rights!
CSA Hell, please keep all of us updated if you can, as I would throw my hat in the ring for a class action against these CSA scumbags!
Good one rach, hopefully government will see how stupid their set up is in cases like the above.
Can I ask, do you have a claim in against your ex? I take it you get child benefit so you can also get money, as she is an nrp too???
hi im actually an nrpp my husband is the nrp . do you get child benefit for the child that lives with you? if not you should get in touch with the child benefit office and get name changed to you and tax credits . email nacsa and let us know how you get on
John
it was discussed in parliament several years ago that csa2 scheme could be a breach of human rights as it does not take pwc income into account!! yet even with this information they are bringing out the new scheme which also does not take pwc into account!!
Im an nrpp too and the whole system stinks. I was told by the csa that the three tier system shouldnt even be in place because of the inequalities it brings…and your right its about time a pwcs income is put down to make it fair.
Rach.
I think the point that my legal advisor was trying to make, was that those all ready involved in the system say at CSA1, are bound by a different system and differing payment levels, than those on CSA 2 system, and again on a CSA 3 system.
So! You have thousands of NRP’s being treated and assessed differently, when we are all supposed to be treated the same in the eyes of the law. Hence, there may be a breach of Human Rights, in that the rights of those on all systems are not being addressed in a way.
The problem is that the UK has an opt-out under European Law with regard to its Social Security and Taxation system and Child Support is included in that opt-out.
Article 7 of the Human rights All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
I can’t really add any more, other than to say that the current system is a closed shop of compliancy and enforcement, with little or no legal redress, other than ‘rigged’ tribunals, where the adjudicators are in the pockets of the CSA!
Thanks for your responses, especially Rach. Apologies for the slow reply but I have been a bit tied up by doing the best bit of fatherhood and enjoying life on the beach with my sons.
I noticed you were trying to use the Human Rights Act. I was also trying to implement this in to my argument. I thought that paying money to my ex as well as paying costs at my own house may affect my Right to a Family Life under article 8. We would certainly have to cut back on things, our family camping holiday this year could well be the last. This could invoke Article 14 concerning discrimination on the grounds that I’m male, working or both. An initial response from a solicitors (I think from an administrator, not a solicitor) has indicated this wouldn’t apply.
I’ve had a reply from the CSA on my Freedom of Info request for statistics on other cases similar to mine. They said that 95.2% of NRP’s are male but can provide no further answers they would have to check individual cases which would go above the allowable admin cost. So no surprises there! Although they did say there are 21500 cases on their books of persons being NRP and PWC.
I’ll contact NACSA and see if the judicial review option is viable. I’ve also received a reply from a Solicitor in Scotland who has had previous CSA success. I have to be careful here as paying CSA and a big legal fee could put our family home at risk. Thanks again, Glenn.
glenn not the judicial review you want the gender bias one
Thanks Rach, re-read it and get it. Be interesting to see what NACSA are doing, if anything. That’s where the CSA gets you. Individually, most cant challenge them because of the costs involved. But if there’s 10 others out there who are willing to pursue this collectively, I think I would do it. Just a matter of getting a similar group on the same page at the same time, which is where the CSA usually wins. There’s no doubt in my mind there I have been discriminated against. Hopefully I can see which direction my appeal is going in if I can get the right advice.
Glenn – who is the successful scottish solicitor?
There are alot of interesting points here especially for the possible breaches of human rights. I am wondering as whether as a partner of a nrp and their children whether there is a bigger case of breach of human rights as a complaint against the CSA. Why should the nrpp and their families suffer because of this Agency? I know that it is the nrp who is liable but it has an awful effect on the whole family in so many ways.
carol i ask myself the exact same question! i think surely the 2nd family children have a breach of human right case being forced into poverty so their parent can pay the csa demands
Carol – John Fotheringham at Lindsays won a case earlier this year where he got arrears calculated by the CSA of £8000 down to £1000. He also got £1700 legal costs which is a first I think. All the info on the net of him is very positive.
He has already replied to my e-mail offering to discuss my case. If I dont get a reply from NACSA I will take up his offer and listen to his advices. Time is running out for my right of appeal.
Some interesting info on this thread, would like to find out more about Lindsays, did you say they were in scotland (Glenn) and can they do cases in england and wales?
I dont think we have ‘class actions’ as such in the uk (john) but the nacsa route looks promising.
From a human rights point of view wouldnt it be better to go for the affect on the ‘quiet enjoyment of family life’ and the ‘right to a fair trial (hearing)’? I say this as family life is obviously affected if new partners/children are adversly affected as well and also because in a court of first instance the magistrates are bound by the decisions of the csa and not allowed to look at the facts of a case?
In addition the csa is a branch of the DWP so in effect a government body and is investigated by the so called ‘independent’ case examiner, also a part of the DWP, surely an issue there?
Going to look up Lindsays and nacsa, thanks and good luck to everyone here.
Hi j, thought this thread had died but shouldn’t really be surprised as there are going to continually be other fathers who are fulfilling their fair share of child costs and still sending money to their ex’s.
Unfortunately, I’ve had to drop any thoughts of a legal challenge as paying CSA and legal fees would probably cost me my house. I’ve already spent £4K on contact fees and just cant go through it all again. If there was a dozen or so others sharing the relative costs then I might reconsider but individually it’s almost impossible.
The NACSA option was a total non-starter. I dont know who or what they are but they never replied to my e-mail. I get the feeling they only want to talk to you if your paying them. John Fotheringham at Lindsays did which was very polite. Although I said to him I wouldn’t be able to pursue this he did state the best route to take my complaint. And when I get the chance to sit down and write my complaint to the head of DWP (probably Sue Owen) I will do just that. The independent case examiner will only look to see that the law has been implemented correctly and in my case it has. Unfortunately it is the law that is fundamentally wrong in how it is applied. The end result is that you have millions of fathers looking to escape ridiculous amounts in payments. Now if you had a fair system that worked on 50/50 care = nil payment either way you wouldn’t have half of the amount of evasion that goes on at the moment. Just imagine; a fair system that actually encouraged the morally correct principal of engaging fathers to be involved in their childrens lives. Cant be too difficult can it? Instead the Government want to off-load the cost of the CSA administration on to the parents. I cant believe nobody can see that they are trying to deal with the symptoms of discriminatory policy rather than the actual causes. But policy makers and politicians dont live in the real world do they?!
If you are in a similar position j please let us know how you get on.
Glenn on September 11th, 2012 5:00 pm
Glenn, cheers for the comments and for sharing your experience. All nrp’s (male and female) are getting treated very badly by this disgusting branch of the DWP. I think its just a set up to provide employment for low grade civil servants who would otherwise be unemployed, it may explain the siting of their offices.
So far I’ve found the ICE (which is another branch of the DWP) can only look at whether their work colleagues in another part of the DWP have followed procedure. In my own case procedure was not followed but the ICE concentrates on clearing up the mess the csa have made of a case so it can excuse the csa mistakes and claim procedure was followed in spirit. Thanks for the heads up on Nacsa, had a similar experience with deadbeatdads so it remains up to those of us still fighting I guess. Will give MR F a bell anyway and thanks again for the info. In my case I wasnt working, the csa knew I wasnt working but continued the assessment anyway, its well over 10,000 now and even though my case is now closed I’m still fighting. (and still not paying) I’m sure this thread will run for some time and your input is appreciated and valued so thanks. I agree with your comments about our politicians but they dont run the country, the civil service run it and they do so for the benefit of the civil service.
I hope your situation improves and wish you the best. Will buy you a pint if our paths cross, meantime have one on me.
Cheers
Slight over exaggeration …. NOT ‘All nrp’s (male and female) are getting treated very badly by this disgusting branch of the DWP’
One would assume, your case must have been live for regular maintenance payments for quite a while, to accrue an ‘alleged’ debt of ‘well over 10,000 now and even though my case is now closed I’m still fighting. (and still not paying)’
One would also assume that the CSA, will eventually seek to recover the outstanding amount. It’s a worrying time.
If you remained unsatisfied after ICE had dealt with your issues, what prevented your case being raised with the PO?
Regardless of who looks at the CS Acts, Legislation or the procedural guides, the contents remain the same.
I would agree that not all NRP’s and PWC are disadvantaged. I would say that in most cases the PWC’s are doing very nicely (as long as the enforcement to pay is there). The NRP’s are the ones who are shafted. The vast majority are male and have unrealistic amounts taken from them. In my case (and I know others) it is a license for irresponsible mothers to breed and have money thrown at them, while contributing nothing to society apart from an increased budget deficit.
The amount of attempted evasion that goes on and the spiralling amount owed by NRP’s tells you that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basic calculations that the CSA use.