CSA cite Data Protection Laws as excuse for not telling me what evidence I gave them

January 7, 2013

I am a parent who looks after 2 children. On 13 November 2012 I received a phone call from the CSA out of the blue stating that I have been overpaid by £5000.00 I was a little surprised because for the past 11 months I have received no payments at all from my ex. (I did not query this -non payment- with the CSA at first because I thought as I am unemployed I thought that the money would go to the Government etc apparently not the case as I have now found out).

I was told that the reason why I have been overpaid by this amount is because back in 2006 (when I was working) my ex had informed the CSA that he was not working and on benefits and according to the CSA he should have been paying £5.00 a week in total for our children, I was informed at that time in 2006 that he was on benefits by the CSA.

Since 2006 he has now became Self Employed and has been ever since and the CSA I’m sure knows about this. What they are saying now was that back in 2006 they made an error in calculating the amount my ex should have paid and it is only now after 6 years that they have realised their error and they are now saying that from 2006 till now he has paid too much in child support when in fact for this year alone he has hardly paid anything. I wrote to them disputing the matter and sent them evidence (copies of bank statements from November 2011 to October 2012) in support of my dispute that he hasn’t made any payments. I also asked for evidence supporting their claim.

They returned my bank statements as requested and sent a rubbish reply in which they did not acknowledge the evidence (bank statements) that I have sent to them. Again I wrote to them requesting evidence in support of their claim.

I just received a letter back from the CSA stating that under Data Protection Law they cannot reveal such information. Do you think this is fair? All I want is evidence of payments they have received from my ex not his address and also a copy of their calculation and how they came to their decision I am within my rights to request such information especially when I have been accused of receiving too much money when in fact I have received hardly anything? I have also put in an appeal and I await the outcome of it. So wish me luck,


  • Alice says:

    Under Data Protection they are not allowed to reveal information about payments that he has made – they can only release information to you about payments that were due to you and payments made to you.

    If there is 1 NRP and 1 PWC the payments made by the NRP should match the payments received by the PWC, but not all cases are limited to 2 clients – some NRP’s have more than 1 PWC

  • brett says:

    Under Data Protection the CSA don’t want to reveal to the PWC what the NRP pays as a large percentage of it went into a pot to make up the child maintenance that the absent fathers wern’t paying anything for.
    I have read on here that all changed in October 2010 and the PWC now gets all the money ?

  • Alice says:

    after 2006 all money paid in CM by the NRP was paid to the PWC, if the case is long standing there may still be a portion of SoS debt

    But as previously stated a PWC may not be the only recipient of money paid by NRP, there can be more than 1 PWC to each NRP, as equally there can be more than 1 NRP to each PWC – either way details of what an NRP is not information that can be released to the PWC same as info on what a PWC has received cannot be released to an NRP

  • chall says:

    Quote Alice on January 7th, 2013 9:39 pm; after 2006 all money paid in CM by the NRP was paid to the PWC…

    The full benefit disregard was introduced on the 12th April 2010, since when ALL money paid in CM by the NRP was paid to the PWC.

    D BROWN,

    Did your ex make payments to you via the CSA or direct to yourself?

    Have you requested a complete account breakdown?

    Once in reciept you should be able to see the maintenance charge, date due, and when/how much was paid by the NRP etc.


  • >