Can the CSA make these demands when their letters are inconsistent?

February 13, 2013

My husband has continued to provide for hs children since his divorce and and the PWC has confirmed to the CSA that he takes them on holiday and gives the youngest one 40 a month and the eldest 80 a month which is more than the case states he should pay on his salary.

However, since he has set up a new business she thinks she is missing out even though she takes no income from it. She has now approached the CSA for more monies with a claim dating from 24/09/2011, we have provided details of incomes and are currently in process with a tribunal.

We have provided self assessments, tax returns etc however, they now want personal and household incomes dating back to the 06/04/2010 surely this can’t be right this is 18 months prior to her claim? Can they do this along with the inconsistency of letters demanding monies which differ week by week?


19 Responses to “Can the CSA make these demands when their letters are inconsistent?”

  1. Alice on February 13th, 2013 7:47 pm

    Is your husband’s case opened under 1993 or 2003 scheme?

    In respect of the money given direct to the children has the PWC stated that she considers this money to be in lieu of child maintenance?

  2. Lisa on February 13th, 2013 8:05 pm

    Of course to get more money the PWC isnt going to state its in lieu of child maintainance, i have been here before, CSA belive the payments my hubby gave his ex were a gift??? a gift laughable really, Dont worry though Alice your bonus is probably safe, the amount of women you have sucked in on this page and other forums is disgraceful you should be ashamed,

  3. Alice on February 13th, 2013 8:53 pm

    @ Liza Glover – some PWCs do consider payments made direct to the QC’s as being in lieu of child maintenance, especially where the children are older. I asked the question for valid reason and no ulterior motive – you may not have read other posts on this site so may be unaware that I work for the CSA, I am not on here for any personal gain – unfortunately there are some on here (and other forums for people involved in the csa) who believe that ‘all pwc’s’ are the same – sorry your thread has been hit with a post which is only there for the purpose of an individual being able to express her biased view of PWCs and another invalid assumption about me

  4. Liza on February 13th, 2013 8:57 pm

    The case is under the 2003 scheme

  5. lisa on February 13th, 2013 9:01 pm

    Alice yes we all know you work for the CSA, we also know this isnt your real name, were not interested in minor details like that but you are very biased towards the PWC as we have seen in other threads, Why did the CSA let my hubbys ex get away with telling them that CS payments were actually gifts so she could claim more money out of us, the DEO that was put on my hubbys wage was unlawful and had to be removed, even so your collegues have been told it doesnt matter how you get payments as long as you get them, even underhanded ways, Why would any man give CS payments as a gift??? if you were told that on the phone would you belive that a man who has a limited income could afford to do both the gift and CS????

  6. Liza on February 13th, 2013 9:22 pm

    As far as I am aware the PWC as not stated that these payments are in lieu of CS, I want to know why the tribunal/CSA want to know household incomes and outgoings for 18 months prior to her claim. It also frustrates me that we are living in a flat with two children whist the PWC who only works 16 hrs a week lives in a 200k house, how does she manage that, perhaps it’s because she received a large sum of monies of which I’m sure has not been disclosed to the Tax Credits department!

  7. Alice on February 13th, 2013 9:36 pm

    Lisa – as I do not have access to your husband’s case details and all the relevant information on the various issues I could not possibly comment.
    Almost every post by you that I have read either on here or elsewhere contains either a broad stroke opinion of either PWCs or CSA employees, you have on many occasions been confrontational and abusive in your posts and as such I have no wish to communicate with you.

  8. Lisa on February 13th, 2013 9:51 pm

    Because he is an NRP of course you.couldt care less, the CSA dont give a toss about the Nrp or there family, maybe I should tell lies about who I am then maybe I might get a right honest answer,

  9. Alice on February 13th, 2013 10:09 pm

    the fact that your husband is an nrp has no bearing on me not wishing to communicate with you on his case, as previously stated every post I have read which has been written by you has contained broadstroke opinions and abuse/aggression/accusations/assumptions – you continue to assume I would not offer advice and information to an NRP, again this assumption is incorrect.

    I will state very clearly so that there is no mis-understanding, I will NOT offer advice or information to you.

  10. Sally on February 13th, 2013 10:59 pm

    Awe Alice… You are letting your standards fall….. “You will NOT offer advice or information” … I thought the whole point of you being here was to help and ‘guide’ us all… The one thing you have achieved by that statement is to prove that ALL CSA staff ARA the same… You pick and choose the ‘easy’ issues to respond to and avoid the difficult issues…. I have said it before and I’ll say it again…. The CSA staff are lazy and incompetent…

  11. Lisa on February 13th, 2013 11:13 pm

    Alice the reason you didt want to answer the simple question I is because you CSA staff look down like scum, well let me tell you this, after finding your ip address and copying this lot pin.pointing you to a csa office I.will.make sure everybody in the area knows, stands im just going to.make sure people on this group see you for what you are, a general.scumbag that hounds NRP,s and.there families to the brink of suicide its right, all fir the PWC viased bitch thats evil, I hope your.proud

  12. Lisa on February 13th, 2013 11:20 pm

    Well said sally, couldt have put it better myself, lazy imcompetent idiots,

  13. Alice on February 14th, 2013 6:43 pm

    Sally – I am not on here as a csa staff member – this is in my own time, I am happy to offer advice or information to any member here who may benefit from it, but I do so out of choice, not obligation. If a person wishes to be aggressive and abusive – often on a personal level then I will make the choice not to offer any help to that person.

    @ Liza – on CS2 the agency will only be interested in the NRP’s income and not household income (other than CTC if applicable) for the purposes of a Maintenance Calculation. I do not have any knowledge of tribunal work so cannot answer your query.

  14. lisa on February 14th, 2013 6:49 pm

    @ Alice, to work for the Shit support agency in the dya and then do this at night you must really love your job,

  15. Liza on February 14th, 2013 10:04 pm

    Alice – why do they want household income and outgoings and why 18 months prior to the PWC’s claim? It’s irrelevant I would have thought, I also find that CTC given to one family for their children as support is classed as income for the NRP to give to the PWC who also receives this benefit! I am in contact with my MP with that one who also believes it to be absurd. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul!

  16. Alice on February 15th, 2013 9:36 am

    @Liza – nothing prior to the PWC’s claim should be relevant in respect of the MC – as for tribunal purposes, I cannot comment as i have no dealings with tribunals.

  17. Liza on February 15th, 2013 9:57 am

    Thank you

  18. Charlotte on April 14th, 2013 6:51 pm

    Liza, we have been through two higher-tier tribunals in our case and had a similar experience.

    Yes, the tribunal judge will demand a lot of information going far further back than the CSA can or will, even further back than the Family Courts will for, for example a Schedule One application for a lump-sum settlement, in our experience. In our case, the first tribunal judge asked for information dating back before the breakdown of my husband’s relationship with his ex, including full bank statements as well as details of property sales, payslips, P60s, tax-return calculations etc.

    Trying to look at it fairly, the judge will be trying to draw a line under the dispute by laying all possibly relevant facts out in the open. PWCs are able to appeal against CSA assessments for a number of reasons, the most common being that the NRP has income or assets greater than those which have been declared or that their lifestyle indicates that they might have. Because of this, PWCs usually end up claiming that the NRP “prepared” for the break-up or CSA case being launched by siphoning income and assets into new bank-accounts or transferring them into different names.

    In this way, some unscrupulous NRPs are able to take a sizeable nest-egg away from their relationships which is never assessed by the CSA – and have left all other NRPs in a position whereby they have to prove their innocence, rather than the PWC having to prove their guilt.

    The tribunal judge will be trying to establish whether there is any evidence that the NRP concealed assets at any point before or after the break-up, whether or not the PWC is alleging that at this point. The judge does not want another tribunal coming before them making that classic allegation in the future. The only way to prove that the NRP has not concealed assets is to demand that they produce an exhaustive amount of data. The judge will be looking for, for example, where the proceeds of sales of property went to, where credit-cards are paid off from, where holidays are paid for from etc. If, for example, properties are sold and no bank records of money being received exist, it is a fair assumption that other bank account(s) must exist to receive such sums…

    Although the tribunal process is long, horribly stressful and intrusive, if you are able to apply yourself to providing the detailed information requested you will, at least, have the advantage of it being assessed in the end by a qualified judge and not by some quasi panel or by a poorly paid, poorly trained and overworked CSA minion. Judges are not perfect, but they tend to have brains and more to lose by making mistakes.

    Whereas the PWC or the CSA may be capable of making basic errors in interpreting, for example, reading a bank-statement, it is less likely that a judge will. By way of illustration, in our case the PWC read copy bank-statements and saw two figures in one corner which represented the total money in and the total money out of the account – since it was opened in the 1980s. She took this to refer to two large sums of money that “must have been” transferred out of the account the month before the month reflected by the statement.

    For another example, we live in a farmhouse which was built to replace another farmhouse back in 1910. The old farmhouse has the same name as ours. It was used as a barn until 2006, when it was bought from the previous owners by a developer. The barn is now for sale and the PWC alleges variously 1)that it is our house, that we live there and that it is worth less than half what we claimed our house was worth, so must have siphoned off other money we claimed to have used to buy our house and 2)that the barn is owned by us and that we have understated our assets by about 225k, meaning that we owe CSA arrears of about 5k. Although the CSA seems unaware that the land registry exists and that the existence of two separate titles and two separate registered owners, one of whom is nothing to do with us, destroys both cases – I am pleased to say that the tribunal judge was able to see that land registry documents represent better evidence than the say-so of a bitter PWC when it comes to who owns what properties…

    All I can say is that the tribunal will be painful, drawn out, horrible – but it offers a last faint hope of somebody with sense making a decision about the facts of your case. Stick with it.

  19. Liza on April 14th, 2013 10:13 pm

    Thank you Charlotte will keep you posted x

Got something to say?