CSA are putting children at risk

November 22, 2010

My ex husband was a great father to our son after we split up. We had agreed before we tried for a baby that we would always make sure we stayed friends for our childs sake should we split. This is how things were for the first 3yrs, then my ex met his girlfriend & he gradually stopped seeing him over the space of 2 years.

My ex works in the motor trade where wages comprise of a basic salary & commission. He has worked his way up from salesman to sales manager & has been earning over 50k for many years now. Earlier this year he stopped paying his standing order after realising he could get away with paying less if we went through the CSA! For 2 months I was left with nothing before he told me he had no intention of paying the money & told me to apply to the CSA. To cut a long story (& many phone calls to the CSA) short .. he got away with only having the payments assessed on his basic salary even though the CSA state that regular commission is taken into account. The payments we received were less than half of his previous standing order. He was living off his basic salary, plus his gf’s wages so he didn’t have to pay us much. He then got his commission paid in a final lumpsum payment when he left the company & used it as a deposit for their new house!

The CSA wouldn’t ask for his final payslip to prove this & see his total pay to date under that employer as they said ‘he has provided us with 2 payslips & has the right to be believed’. I couldn’t believe it! His new job is now working for a prestige brand rather than the previous volume brand before. He is earning some serious cash now but because he gets to choose his salary package he’s arranged to have a lower basic salary than he did before! The CSA have asked for 2 payslips again which are useless as he won’t have earn’t any commission on his first month & he went on holiday for half of the 2nd month. So now our payments are going to go down even though he’s earning 80k plus. I had to give up work 2 years ago due to developing MS & being unable to cope with my job.

Myself & my son are living on benefits while he has 2 large incomes coming in. He has said that he’s never going to see his son again which has destroyed my little boy & he’s not even paying enough to cover his half of our childs costs. The CSA are doing absolutely nothing about this, they won’t look into it any further, they just said the same thing (that they had received the 2 payslips from his employer & that he has the right to be believed).

So thank you CSA for making it impossible for myself & my son to stay in our home whilst letting my ex walk away from his son both physically & financially. It takes millions of pounds to run the CSA yet it’s a pointless institution! They just run a basic paper exercise & set up 2 standing orders! They would be better off just closing it down & the government employing solicitors to properly go after none compliant parents!

Comments

  • John says:

    This ‘shambles’ has cost two of my children their inheritance. They interfering in the basic Human rights in the freedom to have a private family life.

    It is for me to make financial provision for my children. Not a Politician. Not an Executive and Not a grade two clerk. They have a conflict of interests, as the more persecution they dish out the more that goes into their pay packets by way of bonuses, and towards their gold plated pension!

    The European court of Human rights should ne involved to shut this disaster down and order a review!

  • Richard Murray says:

    If your statement of accounts is true ,, Believe me in about 5+ years time your x will have forgotten about the CSA then BOOM!!! the postman will rock his world with the biggest demand ,, thats how they work ?

  • Jim Rigley says:

    Sorry to say I have to agree. But if you want to close the damn thing down we need to group together it will take a few thousand people all complaining.

  • Ian Davidson says:

    The more I look into the CSA and read everyone’s stories on here the more I despair. I have not and never will have a problem contributing to my sons up bringing, all I ask is it to be a fair amount and that I am able to have a relationship with him. I would love to be in the finical position as your child’s father, as I am sure a lot of people on here would. Even at the CSA’s 15% of £50k would that not be £7k, I am sure I could live like a king on the remaining £43k and to have a Mother that wants the Father to play a part in their child’s life, some people really don’t know how easy they have it. And yet the CSA seem to let these kind of people off with murder and seem hell bent on destroying financially and emotionally, hardworking, honest parents, who want nothing more the to be play a roll in their children’s lives. Surely and especially in the countries currant financial situation, limited recourses are being wasted making the lives of parents on both sides lives miserable, when the people who really should pay, live the high life and get away scott free. If any other business and lets be honest the CSA is a business, no matter what they say, was run to such high levels of waste, incompetence and with the number of complaints they must have, there would be reforms and changes made, with someone held accountable, but they just seem above the Law and without any sort of consequence or accountability for their actions.

  • Naomi Barnes says:

    Only two payslips? I thought they looked over the whole year, well they have done in ny experience anyway. Nice to see they are consistent. ..So useless

  • Karen says:

    Sorry but you cant let the CSA take all the blame for this, your ex too as he abused the system and the CSA let him, Im no fan of the CSA but it takes both of them to cause this.

    As ‘for he has provided us with 2 payslips & has the right to be believed’ yep that old chestnut, exactly what my ex did in court to a judge, but I found out and proved to the CSA that they were fake – which is fraud – but even so, nothing was ever done about that!

    You need to get it into perspective they are both are fault.

  • Dawn Mcfeeley says:

    I thought they used the P60 so that they know a full picture. That would make sense but of course CSA don't do sensible. No point in using ICE – been told by them today that they are independent (guess that's why their called independent case examiner) and therefore can't tell CSA how 2 get things right or what changes 2 make. This has changed since last time I used ICE approximately 5 years ago – they were very good at writing a very condemning report then. Obviously now linked with the CSA but just trying 2 stay independent. Ha ha

  • Vikki JackDaniels Lomas says:

    we were told (and produced) 3 months wage slips, they said they can't use anything else…it's different rules for different people. The whole system is a joke, i have a money orientated step daughter who knows the more she stays away the more money she gets. we don't see her at all now…needless to say thats to the CSA it has destroyed what little relationship we had with her.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    the CSA aqquired only 2 payslips for my assessment…. not all the relevant period wage slips and calculated all previous from previous employment where I was on more money…Attempted theft and attempted fraud, but I'm dealing with it….the incompetence of the CSA and the selfish greed of the aroogant PWC…I have no intention of letting the PWC and CSA rip me off!!!!!!!

  • chall says:

    Hi Becs,

    When did your case commence?

    You are correct, earnings mean any remuneration or profit from employment. Although average earnings over 2 months can be used to calculate child maintenance, the agency can also consider cumulative earnings in the tax year in which the relevant week falls to the date of the calculation.

    If you believe that earnings info used does not accurately reflect your ex’s income, you should write to the agency (keep copies and send signed for) clearly stating your reasons and ask them to consider cumulative earnings in the relevant tax year.
    If the agency refuse to re look at the calculation, you can then complain and appeal.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall.co.uk

  • Peter Anderson says:

    Have you also taken into account, that if you are on benefits then any maintenance you get from the CSA will be what your ex pays less any benefit you are receiving? Unfortunately, most mothers fail to take this into consideration. Only if the amount he is paying in is greater than your total benefit will you receive his money directly and lose all your benefits! Or, Try a different approach. What was the court order made for the divorce? Arrangements for contact and what about maintenance, both spousal and for the children? Did it give you the option to return to court for maintenance? For example, if the order said £1 per month for you, this gives you the option to return to Court. Have a word with a solicitor, you may be better going back to Court. You need to look at the exact wording of the agreement/order. I only hope that by going to the Csa you have not destroyed your option of going back to Court.Sorry but the Csa are not really interested in you. They are only interested in cases where they get to keep the money collected for themselves. You can keep trying with them but its unlikely you'll get anywhere with them. It's a problem case so they'll just put it on one side. Do a statement, as per court, as to what's happened and take it and the copies of the correspondence to your MP. Maybe he can make the CSA re-investigate your case.

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    Peter, the law changed in April 2010. Even if a PWC is receiving benefits they keep ALL the child support due. Personally I think this is wrong. As a tax payer why should I pay taxes so lazy PWC can stay at home receiving all the state benefits plus however much the CSA decide an assessment should be? I know someone who lives on benefits and as her ex has a high paid job, she receives 15% of his net pay meaning her total 'take home' each month is in excess of £1500. As she has said to me before, there is no incentive for her to go to work, she can stay at home with her child and bring him up rather then putting him in a nursery while she works. I think its wrong. I believe if someone is in receipt of benefits then any child support they are due should be paid back to the governement to reimburse the 'pot'It would encourage more PWC to go to work for a living and show kids growing up today that working pays.

  • Peter Anderson says:

    Only if its a new case on CMEC. Fully agree with your other point Sarah-Jayne, the money from the father must go directly to the children and their mother. However as a taxpayer the DSS must take steps to ensure that she gets a job (part-time) if necessary, in order to support her children. If she refuses, then maybe the residence arrangements should change. As far as I am concerned, any application by the CSA/CMEC is the Government saying that it is not happy with the arrangements that have been made for looking after and providing for the children. Both parents should be looking after and providing for their children. That means both time and money. And, in this day and age, it means both parents must work.

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    When you say new cases, how new do you mean – because the person I know has been using the CSA for 8 years and got a lettter in April stating that she would now be receiving all monies they collected from her ex partner instead of the £10 a week she was getting as the rest was taken to reimburse the taxpayer. So she isnt a new case? Or is it new rules?

  • Allan Morrell says:

    This is evidence that the NRP is being ripped of by PWC and CSA…The NRP is supporting his own new family and his old family financially, why dont they all live together in same house with shared and joint resposibilies.. this would be a fairer system based on current administration and procedures made by CSA against NRP to provide PWC…. share the cost in one household and all individuals recieve a better deal!!!????Oooops! did I forget that this would not be beneficial to the selfish arrogant greedy PWC who wants NRP to supplement her retail therapy expenses????

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Oooops!!!!!! an in irresponsible spelling of responsibilities!!!!

  • Allan Morrell says:

    I must be an irresponsible NRP!!!!!!

  • Allan Morrell says:

    I also forgot to mention the expecting of NRP to supplement PWC's transportation costs to work didnt I Sarah Jayne Pattimore?????

  • Peter Anderson says:

    Don't tell me they are actually switching everone over at last. As I understood it, it was only the cases that are on the new computer under Cmec that this applied. But we live in hope. All money taken from the father must go directly through to the children and their mother, and if that payment affects her benefit then so be it. But the children should be made aware of what Dad is contributing. The trouble we've got with the Csa/Cmec is we've got old old rules, old rules, new rules, new new rules and Cmec old and new rules. The old old rules and old rules should have been forgotten long ago, ie pre 2000. And, again by 2006, we should have forgotten the new and new new rules. But the Csa/Cmec insist on keeping on using them. At the date of each change, everyone should have been switched over, but not Csa/Cmec. What a disaster! And, all the time its our children that suffer! The stress, the distress, for Christ's sake MPs, shut this damn thing down. And, remember all money taken by the Csa/Cmec that has not been given to the children and/or their mother MUST be returned. If not, then we claim it back from the Inland Revenue as that is what our money has been used for – Additional Taxation!

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Does anyone know the CSA are replacing their computers… a further waste of tax.. the CSA will still say that their computers are running slow….. watch this space…. else they are trying to cover up on their employees watching porn at work scandal!!!!!!

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    If a PWC is not working and receiving benefits to pay for their cost of living, along with their childrens cost of living, then any contribution from the NRP should go to the state. Its not a additional tax – its reimbursing the pot from tax payers paying to bring up other peoples kids!! Some NRP do not have a choice but to go through the CSA when a NRP refuses toi contribute financially. The agency has its faults, many of them, but if more NRP stepped up to their responsibilities then there would be no need for the PWC to use the CSA.

  • Peter Anderson says:

    No, any money the father pays MUST go directly to the children and their mother. If this affects her benefits then so be it, and her benefit must be reduced accordingly. I get sick of the women who complain bitterly that the father is paying nothing, when meanwhile more than half his salary is going to the Government (CSA) in additional taxation just because his ex refuses to get a job. If receiving money as child support is to be treated as Income, which it isn't, then her benefit should be cut. The root cause of the problem is the basic discrimination and incompetence of the DSS which does nothing to make these mothers find a job. The children shouldn't lose the benefit of their father's money because their mother is too darned lazy to work. The DSS staff must be made to make these people find work. As my son said when he went on benefit for a short while, "If any of the staff working in the Job Centre knew how to find a job, they would not be working there! So how can they help others to find work?"

  • Allan Morrell says:

    here here peter!!! well said!!!!

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    Surely thats the same thing?! Either way the government get the money back. The reason it was done with CSA conts going to the govenment and not the benefits being recduced for the PWC was because to many NRP were quitting jobs, money was not regular etc leaving the very children the money is needed for in extreme poverty. Surely its much better for the PWC to receive a regular weekly 'income' to suuport the child (it pains me to call income support/benefits a income) then have their 'income' reduced or totally cut, for example if the CSA assessment is greater then the amount in benefits being paid out – when funds are not forthcoming from the NRP?Peter, you might be one of the decent NRP who have no problem stepping up to your responsibilities and not making late payments, but sadly not all NRP are like that.Also, the DSS cant force people to work – especially a lone PWC. The cost of childcare is out of this world and altho there is currently a little help from the government in the form of childcare tax credits, these are being reduced. Jobs are also few and far between. I work for a private HR and Employee Benefits Consultancy (altho on maternity leave at the moment!!) and we help companies with their recruiting. One of my clients based in Guildford had a position for a part time, 20 hours per week, administration job. It had 328 applicants!!!!! Crazy! The economic climate the UK sadly finds ourself in right now has a lot to answer for. Of course, I think benefits should be there for those who need them, NOT a way of life – but if there isnt a suitable job available – or like my example, not enough jobs going round what do you suggest PWC do?

  • Peter Anderson says:

    No, it's not. Because these same mothers just keep saying that they are not getting anything from the father. If they actually saw their benefit drop when they received money from their ex, they might actually see that it would be worth while getting a job. And the children would also realise that their father was providing for them. Personally, I think receipts ought to be providing showing that the Child Support has actually been spent on the children.

  • Peter Anderson says:

    That's also why I completely disagree with the CSA. The whole way it works is completely wrong. Each case is different, how much time the children are spending with each parent etc. And if only, the Children Act 1989 had been brought in with the Presumption of Shared Residence as was supposed to happen then we wouldn't this goddamn all-full mess that's the family law system today. You cannot use formulae for child support. Both parents have to be involved bringing up, looking after, and providing for their children.

  • Allan Morrell says:

    I agree peter, my PWC shows no evidence of provisions of payments have gone to my child, my child verifies he has not recieved much in new clothes and footwear during these payments, he has had to live on hand me downs from other family members of which there are many… but wer did all that money go… at least he is provided for in fashionable clothing from my own pockets… a very skint NRP… but I love my child enough to have to do without holidays to see that he is financially supported and moreso even though the PWC is 4 times financially better off than myself and yet she goes on holidays leaving my son to have only 2 days in wales with me in the past 2 years…. Hmmmmm!!!!

  • Allan Morrell says:

    rant over…lol

  • Peter Anderson says:

    And, that's why this case so annoys me. Why isn't this father being a responsible parent, looking after and providing for his son. She said he was great when they first split up. What's happened. Is it the new girlfriend that has tried to block his relationship with his son. I've seen this before, where the father has been forced not to see his son. But why has he then been so weak as to go along with it? Or is it something else that's happened? Does your son try to see his dad?

  • Allan Morrell says:

    or is it another sympathy story where PWC makes accusations in order to gain more monies from NRP via CSA?????

  • Sarah-Jayne Pattimore says:

    But they know why they dont see the money from the NRP – well, not that that is the case anymore as 100% of the funds goes to the PWC if they are on benefits or not. As a taxpayer, PWC and NRPP I do not expect my taxes to be spent on paying to bring up other peoples children. Thats why children have parents. If you cant afford children, use contraception (male or female this is aimed at!)

  • Becs says:

    Our case started around May 2010. It’s a nightmare, he moved jobs recently & they did a reassessment. But it came back at the exact same figure even though he’s earning alot more money! What I didn’t know was that he can legally pay as much of his wages into his works pension as he wants & the CSA only take into account the wages that are left after that!! I can’t afford the luxury of a private pension. So he’s been paying most of his money into his pension & ISA’s to make his income low. I seriously can’t believe that’s a legal loop hole. I don’t know whether I can take the stress of appealing. I’m sure he’s now lowered his pension contributions & is getting paid his normal wage again. It’s such a shame he can afford posh holidays, a mortgage & his wedding on such a low wage AHEM!!

  • Pauline Brown says:

    Sarah, why do you not find this young boy`s father and ask him why he chooses not to see his son or pay? 2, The woman is sick and so is unable to work, 3 I am sure she would like to work 4, Hopefully, this situation will not happen to you. Have some compassion and humility.

  • Melanie Jane Newman says:

    I am a lone parent, I CHOOSE not to deal with the CSA and accept what I am given in Maintenance through a private arrangement regardless of if it is what i should be getting or not. My daughters Father has been having a nightmare with the CSA over his other child for the last 7 years where his other childs mum is uncooperative and I am actively trying to help him get it sorted because I think the way the CSA operates is wrong. ALL the money i am given FOR my children goes into a separate bank account, Maintenance and Child Benefit, I do not touch this for anything other than things for my children. Not all PWC's are money grabbing, evil and manipulative you know. I have never stood in the way of my children having a relationship with their dad. I firmly believe in doing everything in the best interests of my children…. Children are not stupid and will make there own minds up and both NRP's and PWC's alike should remember that. Maybe if a few more people grew up a bit and put the children first there would not be so many troubled children and Bitter Parents and there would be no need for the useless waste of space government department otherwise known as the CSA!

  • Michael Hallett says:

    Melanie; The benefit of your situation is when the father gets the occasional inevitable windfall a bonus should come your way.

  • Melanie Jane Newman says:

    Occasional inevitable bonus? Hahaha thats so funny!

  • chall says:

    Pension contributions should be a reasonable proportion of net weekly income.
    The agency can look at excessive pension contributions and whether a NRP is unreasonably diverting large amounts of income into a pension fund in a bid to reduce CS payments.

    Have you recently requested a reassessment?

    chall

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Sarah Jayne Pattimore, and when the woman uses her deception and stops contraception and misguides the male partner and after 2 years together… would you still demand the use of a condom..????.. wake up!!!!The PWC chooses to use CSA to destroy NRP… for selfish arrogant greed and the satifaction of reducing NRP to low self esteem so he commits suicide!!!!! is PWC's major objective… it's all about retaliation… if there was no child involved… most women willl try to have some form of revenge on the man… especially financialy..

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Oh I forget… Sarah Jayne pattimore… you think NRP's are supposed to fund the transportation costs of the PWC getting her to her own place of employment…..

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Micheal is correct……. PWC grabs the percentage of Bonuses… thats..sssooooooooo tru!

  • Allan Morrell says:

    Does anyone else know what kind of woman who recieves or expects to recieve payment for results of a sexual act is????????

  • Sarah Laffan says:

    and does anyone no what a man who sits at a computer all day putting women down for having children is? answers on a postcard hey allan!

  • >