CSA endorses breaking the law
I’m proud to say I’m a socially responsible parent. Never been unemployed, paid the ex by standing order for 10 years in a private arrangement. My ex partner and mother of my two sons is a little different. Number 10 kid on the way, never worked, will probably reproduce as much as she can, to avoid work for as long as she can. I have an open ended joint residency that was awarded by a judge when my children were very young due to my ex’s instable behaviour. If I went in to the full story of the problems I’ve had with her and her various partners, you’d be horrified.
Now I dont mind paying for my childs upkeep, but when I was paying the ex and also paying for basic items on top of my payments then that’s when I get annoyed. Hair cuts, trainers, school shoes, clothes, football boots, sports clubs etc etc it was basically taking the proverbial. So when I take the money for their latest haircuts out of her standing order then off she goes to the CSA. No problem. I then requested that because the CSA have increased the payments she start sending their personal effects with them.
After consulting her solicitor she confirmed IN WRITING that she is under no duty to do this whatsoever (surprise, surprise) as I get a reduction for the 1 night a week they spend with me. As my sons spend upto a week with me at least four times a year I appealed to the CSA to make a variation. I pointed out that while she had put conservatories on and had patio-ed rented houses, puts hen houses and chickens in their garden(!), walks round with the latest iPhone etc, my kids were walking round with holes in their footwear. I sent them a picture of their trainers as evidence. Basically she is happy for this to happen and wait for me to do something about it because I have standards and a conscience.
Also, I stated in my case to the CSA that as my payments had already contributed towards their clothing and footwear etc that I was going to have to pay for a complete wardrobe all over again, because she has NEVER provided anything more than the clothes are standing in. In effect I was having to pay for these items twice over! The one seventh reduction is not going to even scratch the surface of all the things I STILL pay for as well as a complete wardrobe for all weathers, at my house. In addition, because they see me in the week they eat at my house 181 evenings every year, almost half.
Now the CSA replied and rejected my appeal by saying that ‘this did not fall under their jurisdiction’ as there is a set list of conditions that satisfy a variation, and they are there to basically uphold the law as specified. My only option is to attend an Appeal Hearing (which I cannot win) and say that she is breaking the EC law and the CSA is not only turning a blind eye but financially rewarding her! The Human Rights Act Protocol No.1 Article 1 states:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The clothes, shoes etc I’ve contributed to belong to my sons not to her. When she has confirmed her actions in writing (which I forwarded to the CSA) I dont see how the CSA can say it’s nothing to do with them. When they are aware that the PWC is purposefully trying to financially disadvantage the NRP I dont know how they can ignore this. The ‘one size fits all and that’s it system’ is immoral and should have a degree of flexibility for some cases.
Now I dont know if any legal eagles are reading this but could I save my receipts and make a small claim against their mother based on this EC Law? It’s certainly not a law which I can enforce in any other way as far as I can see. Any advice would be appreciated.
28 thoughts on “CSA endorses breaking the law”
Leave a Reply
i pay 240 a month,plus arrears for the child i dont see,now the csa have taken into account the child that LIVES with me 6yrs old…is only getting £6..this is the child supports assessment ..FAIR i think not…
now there wanting double,which in turn is my food money for the month i`m having to split from my wife because im not in a position to support my current family now,SO NOW im paying for my 2nd child through no fault of my own but because THE CSA HAS DECIDED TO TAKE MY FOOD MONEY OFF ME and now me and the mrs must split …csa your a disgrace and the people who work for you……
This is exactly the very issue I have… I no longer am working due to illness and my disability, I have shared Care with my eldest son every weekend and through school holidays….I am now nil assessed and now able to make sure my son has clothing and footwear, my ex doesnt get a penny out of me now since I am no longer PAYE….There a several PWC's who will dislike this… but your story proves my point and arguments which have been raised by several PWC's with me when I comment on the unreasonable selfish arrogant greedy PWC…I can only comment how I made sure that my child is provided for from my own direct provision…. But in no way do I intent being the funding supply to PWC retail therapy!!I hope there is someone with a different solution who could help you but it appears that the only way u'll be able to make sure your child has clothing and footwear is by direct financial funding for those items for your child!!I wish you the best in finding a suitable solution to resolve your conflict with your PWC mate!!!!
The CSA are above all laws it seems, they dont see the human cost to their actions either. My second child suffers imesurably at the hands of these morons.Be interesting if there is something in EU law that we could use.
I have an interesting email Jim from Liberty if you want me to send it over, inbox me your email address, happy to send it!
Cool, cant message you without adding as friend… :-/
duly added and Liberty piece sent, let me know what you think of it? There were alot of contradictions : (
Thats just incredible Lisa…. and proves the CSA are above the law!
it does contradict itself though especially Judge Cranston his comparison is bull. Oh and judicial reviews if you can find a solicitor to take it on cost a minimum of £5k and no legal aid cert will fund it…nice!
Thats why Ive suggested a "class action", if we can get 2000+ people to all join forces….
OK so how do we go forward with this?
I,m in…where do I sign ?
I'm in and willing to contribute a fair share !!!
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope… and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. ~Robert F. KennedyIt is really time for us ALL to unite and get rid of this system….
…….and deal with each man individually in court to decide what support should be paid and penalise those who dont
Both side, those who want to pay a "fair" amount and those who want to be paid suffer at the hands of this incompetent bunch.Ultimatly we all want the same thing, our childrens wellbeing and BOTH parents input into their lives. The CSA dont take this into account, they either fail to provide or are over zealous and hound those that do pay.No one wins do they?
We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong…. There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them. ~Alexander Bickel
I've an axe to grind, like all others on here, PWC or NRP.The most important thing is the children, we need to step back from our own position and view the wider picture. We really must work together to seek change that is in the best interests of ALL our children.One day, change will come….
the day when change will come is when there is no need for csa .That day will be when parents make a pledge to their new born to always support them either as a couple or individually.And stick to that pledge come what may.Parents should put their wish to have more children aside if having that child means they can no longer support their first born as usual. This applies to the married, pwc,nr that is why this world is such a mess .
Yes but not just financially which means the notion of a PWC and a NRP disappearing! All 'NRP's' should from the outset have the opportunity to have EQUAL CUSTODY of the child, where practicable. That would remove the need for a CSA as both parents would have the responsibility whilst they have the child!Problem solved!
what about the fathers that wont have their kids?
And, what about women who use their kids as a weapon to extort money from the father? The CSA is just another one of those methods. And the money taken is NOT used for the children.
mums are entitled to have a life too why should the dads not have to pay a penny, not have to say clean your teeth ,brush your hair, tidy your room. dads dont get the can i have can i have at the supermarket.Dads dont replace shoes that get a hole. or drop work to take their kid to hospital after a fall and then replace the torn trousers. Its all very easy being a sperm donor!
Tracy, well that is a difficult one to answer. It is clear that you're taking your position based on your own personal circumstances.The point I was making was that if all things were equal (where possible) then it should be automatically the case that you can have joint custody, which certainly won't be the case! There would be no need for the CSA as costs would be shared!Well since the government likes to FORCE things upon people then why not FORCE it upon separating couples, take the matter out of the hands of both parents!
You might want to use this. But you need to get your case into a Court.
CHILD SUPPORT: BIRD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS AND CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY [2008] EWHC 3159 (ADMIN)
While s 33(6) of the 1991 Act required a magistrates’ court to find that child support maintenance had not been paid if not paid to or through the person specified, by virtue of Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 1989), no similar provision required the magistrates to find that payment had not been made if it had not been made by the method specified. Therefore, magistrates were not obliged to make a liability order if satisfied that payment had been made by the liable person but by a method other than that notified by the Agency; if this were not the case, cash payments would not be recognised if the specified payment method were a cheque. The question whether the father’s payment of the mother’s mortgage liability was payment of child maintenance had not been referred to the court; the question posed by the magistrates was predicated on a finding that the father had paid the maintenance, but not by the method notified by the Child Support Agency.
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/bird-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-and-child-support-agency-2008-ewhc-3159-admin
You might want to try this. But you need to get your case into Court.While s 33(6) of the 1991 Act required a magistrates' court to find that child support maintenance had not been paid if not paid to or through the person specified, by virtue of Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 1989), no similar provision required the magistrates to find that payment had not been made if it had not been made by the method specified. Therefore, magistrates were not obliged to make a liability order if satisfied that payment had been made by the liable person but by a method other than that notified by the Agency; if this were not the case, cash payments would not be recognised if the specified payment method were a cheque. The question whether the father's payment of the mother's mortgage liability was payment of child maintenance had not been referred to the court; the question posed by the magistrates was predicated on a finding that the father had paid the maintenance, but not by the method notified by the Child Support Agency.http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/bird-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-and-child-support-agency-2008-ewhc-3159-admin
The more people dig then the more we can play this agency at it's own game!!!
Thank you for your reply Peter, it certainly is an interesting case.
I’m not good at deciphering the legal jargon but from the way I read the ruling was that Bird won because the question the magistrate asked on behalf of the Secretary of State wasn’t technically correct. Therefore the ruling was that maintenance was paid by Mr Bird but not by the method notified by the Child Support Agency.
In my own particular circumstances I just simply cannot go back to the High Court after spending over £4K on two trips to the family court to protect my children. If I had the financial resolve to pursue this I would on principle, but I feel it would put my house at risk which is home to me and 3 children. The legal costs I’d incur would probably offset the value of the items I have paid directly towards the boys. It’s even more annoying tho’ because if I was to get to the High Court stage and the correct question was asked if my receipts for all the items paid for direct WERE acceptable as payment of child support then common sense dictates the answer must be yes because the types of items apply to them directly.
I’ll keep the receipts of what I’m paying for but I need to think more about this one. It appears to me it’s a case I could win and would set a landmark in making the PWC a lot more responsible in what they should be providing in basic care. At the moment the CSA standard reply has been “If your children are neglected phone the Social Services”! That’s a road I dont want to go down.
Thanks again Peter anyway.