CSA forged legal records to make their debt stand

February 25, 2013

The CSA told me there was an outstanding liability order against me from June 2001.The total amount of the order was £18,100 so they say. I questioned this because back in 2001 i was never summonsed.

The CSA insist that the liability order stands and they have a copy on record. I contacted my local magistrates court and asked them for a copy of this liability order.

Sure enough they have sent me the memorandum of the hearing which clearly shows that the liability order was granted and that i was in attendance. The trouble is, i was never summonsed to court and never attended this hearing! Forging legal records has got to be illegal surely!

I find this very alarming. I told my local MP who said it was my word against theirs!

The moral of this case is “We are all [email protected]#ked!”

Comments

23 Responses to “CSA forged legal records to make their debt stand”

  1. Paul Ocallaghan on February 25th, 2013 1:30 pm

    I get the feeling now MP’s are backing the csa my MP’s PA is harder to deal with than the csa

  2. Lisa Roberts on February 25th, 2013 1:40 pm

    MP,s are usually good at dealing with things like this, email or turn up at the office,

  3. j on February 25th, 2013 2:04 pm

    Hi

    I’ve said before that in my view the csa is nothing more than an ‘illegal ponzi’ scheme set up to provide employment for low grade civil servants who couldn’t find work in the private sector and to collect stealth tax for the Sec of State for the DWP.

    This case just confirms my suspicion –

    “I find this very alarming. I told my local MP who said it was my word against theirs!”

    As for our MP’s –

    “I get the feeling now MP’s are backing the csa my MP’s PA is harder to deal with than the csa”

    Spot on comment, my own MP (Liebore) didn’t want to get involved, his PA did everything to ignore my complaint. Should be noted that a local Libdem politician also didnt want to know and as the csa is currently run by the tory toffs I can only assume that they are “all in it together”.

    Please folks remember this the next time there is an election!

    Meantime daveycrockett is there any way you could prove you were not there, doctors appointment, holiday, work records etc? Surely there must be something in your favour? Do you have all your data prints?

    Here is some general advice –

    ‘This isnt the csa its an open forum so don’t give names/details etc especially of children. (your own name can be used to identify the kids, and your case)

    Don’t deal with the csa by phone, everything in writing, sent recorded, keep the receipts.

    Copy your MP into everything and try and get them involved as your advocate.
    Make a formal complaint about any decision you are unhappy with from the outset as time limits are involved. Always go for an appeal tribunal asap following the internal process.

    Get a copy of your Data Protection prints from the outset so you know what you are dealing with, again follow the correct procedure in wording your request to get ALL information, send it to the right department, send the correct fee.

    Don’t be afraid to complain about any csa staff, or their superiors if you feel you have just cause.

    Remember the process, internal complaint, ‘independent’ case examiner (the csa protection department), appeals tribunal, parliamentary and health service ombudsman through your mp for maladministration.’

    There are a couple of sites you can also look at –

    © ChildSupportLaws – general info.

    ww.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8006 – not sure it will help but worth a look.

    ww.deadbeatdadsassociation.co.uk – they don’t help you if you are getting advice elswhere.

    ww.nacsa.co.uk/page/contact_us.html – I’ve heard of them and they get a good review but cost money. (£30pm I think)

    Read the various threads on here eg ‘Court ruling leaves child maintenance authority ‘emasculated’ – ‘November 1, 2012′

    You may pick up some useful info.

    Finally a specialist csa solicitor may be worth talking to but can be expensive and usually end up putting you in touch with a specialist barrister. Still worth an initial interview though but to reduce costs you can use a ‘direct access’ barrister (find through internet) and save on solicitor costs.

    Good luck.

    BTW –

    There was a case on here a while back where a letter in a DP file, the the NRP never received, had the NRP’s correct address on it, but the date was way before the NRP had even moved to the address (can’t remember which member it was – sorry).

  4. Lynne Smith on February 25th, 2013 3:47 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  5. wilf on February 25th, 2013 4:12 pm

    When I read this post it sounded as though the memorandum came from the magistrates court confirming what the poster had been told.
    No where does it say the documents forged or otherwise came from the CSA.

  6. Lynne Smith on February 25th, 2013 5:02 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  7. Lynne Smith on February 25th, 2013 7:17 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  8. j on February 25th, 2013 8:22 pm

    Hi Wilf

    “wilf on February 25th, 2013 4:12 pm – When I read this post it sounded as though the memorandum came from the magistrates court confirming what the poster had been told. No where does it say the documents forged or otherwise came from the CSA.”

    Yes but it does refer to a ‘liability order’, that is issued by the csa. I think perhaps that the poster is suggesting a ‘collusion’ between the Courts and the csa?

    That wouldn’t surprise me. The letters from the magistrates suggest that you cant argue the amount of the liability, in fact I’ve known Court clerks advise the magistrates that they are not allowed to deliberate on arguments of the amount of a liability.

    However in the case of ‘PJG v Child Support Agency [2006] EWHC 423 (Fam)’ found in Family Law Week, it was found that – ” … the correct route for any appeals against CSA liability orders. He reiterates that the only route for an appeal is by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and not through a notice of motion in the Family Division. However in this case the magistrates had failed to ensure that the amount of the liability order was correct so a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Accordingly, Munby J ordered that there could be a judicial review through the Administrative Court.”

    This kind of suggests that you CAN argue the amount of a liability from the csa and for a Court clerk to advise the magistrates otherwise is incorrect. So I either witnessed a clerk who didnt know the law or there is a collusion between the courts service and the csa to get money in for the bankrupt government coffers.

  9. Lynne Smith on February 25th, 2013 11:32 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  10. Amanda Johnson on February 26th, 2013 2:11 am

    i would challenge the court as you state you werent present it may just be that its a clerical error on their part but besides which the outcome would have been the same they would have granted it wether you were there or not

  11. david wilkinson on February 26th, 2013 8:53 am

    hi out there,
    As i said in my post the csa told me about the outstanding liability order before i asked the court for confirmation. I know i never attended a hearing because i never received a summons. csa insisted that a summons had been sent.(their word against mine) If they did send a summons i definately never received it, but i am not losing my mind, i know very well i never attended a hearing and yet the document sent to me by the magistrates court service cleary shows that i attended the hearing.
    That is a false statement. The records have been falsified to suit the csa.
    The csa never acted on the liability order back in 2001 and made no attempt to contact me or collect money.
    12 years later they are using the liability order to collect “arrears” that they insist are owed from 1994!
    My daughter is 27 and the case was closed in 2004.
    This is a false document/record designed to allow them to collect money today that they failed to collect back in 2001.

    This has got to be criminal!

    dave

  12. John on February 26th, 2013 9:32 am

    Uttering a forged instrument.i.e the documents you refer to. That is a criminal offence.

    I think that there was something on the site to say that arrears accrued prior to 2000, were not enforceable/collectable, as legislation was not in place then, but it does’nt surprise me that the CSA are attempting to use retrospective methods which may be unlawful.

    I think that if it were me I would seek a free legal consultation.

    Good luck.

  13. KMcQ80 on February 26th, 2013 10:06 am

    Whenever we read or hear about divorce we only hear the woman’s side and their problems.
    Hardly if ever the man’s side.
    For most men divorce is financially devastating and few are able to rebuild their lives.
    The only positive thing I can say is you are not alone.
    Far from it.

  14. j on February 26th, 2013 1:13 pm

    Hi DW

    Well curiouser and curiouser as ‘alice’ would say. (the one in wonderland not the one in the csa who posts comments on here)

    From what you are saying I would be very suspicious. It seems like another case of ‘made up’ arrears that so many of us have had to face. There seems to have been an ‘explosion’ of these so called ‘arrears’ since the ‘austerity’ measures have kicked in. I suspect that if you check you will find that the arrears are not going to go to your child but are in fact for the Sec of State for the DWP as a ‘clawback’ for benefits your ex may have received.

    I am pretty sure this breaches Article 6 ECHR (as in the Karoonian case mentioned elswhere on this site) and also Article 8 ECHR.

    First there is the question about your ‘mythical’ court appearance, in other words did you receive a fait hearing or not? Second the arrears, if they are for your child where is the evidence that you actually owe them? If they are for the Sec of State for DWP it should be noted that any benefit payments your ex had have already been paid for PRIOR to your separation by you and her through general taxation – paye/NI etc, additionally if it is a ‘clawback’ then can they quantify the amount being recouped ie is there a correlation between the amount your ex received and the amount being claimed? (minus any contribution through taxation)

    There seems to be a growth since austerity measures started in the amount of arrears from years ago when records are sketchy and payments to the Sec of State. Its all just a big scam. I reckon that if someone puts it all together the whole scam would be blown wide open.

    Thing is DW they hope that you wont fight, that you will simply give in, that you cant aford to take them on. They get enough people who just give up that the whole ponzi scheme makes enough cash to keep going.

    I think everybody should make a fair contribution to the upbringing of their child but I totally hate organised crime and have no respect for the sort of criminal behaviour that destroys lives.

    I really hope you win this one, it stinks!

  15. rach on February 26th, 2013 7:19 pm

    first thing whenever you attend a magistrates court for a hearing you have to sign yourself in on the register (my husband did for a parentage hearing ) so i suggest you ask the court for a copy of that particular days register as proof you signed yourself in ! they obviously wont beable to provide this! next thing you may have to do a judicial review for the liability order. Fight fight fight you wil need to clue yourself up on child support laws and how the csa works then fight them all the way. good luck

  16. Lynne Smith on February 26th, 2013 7:47 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  17. j on February 26th, 2013 7:53 pm

    Hi Rach,

    I hadn’t thought of the sign in bit but you are right. I had thought of the security cameras but its so long ago I doubt that the Court attendance records or security tape are still in existence, still its worth asking if only to keep them on the back foot as it were.

    I still think the poster might be able to prove they were somewhere else on the day, work records, receipts etc.

    I agree though that the poster should continue to fight. Family Law Week is a good journal for info. Hope the poster has some luck.

  18. t on February 26th, 2013 10:16 pm

    i am currently fighting a liability order for over £21,000 and is in dispute the csa only spout the child suport act 1991 section 33 this then ties the hands of the bench ,i have sought leave of apeal under section 111 of the courts act that the figure presented was and is incorrect at the time of the hearing therfore a misscarage of justice has been insued ,currently have my m.p looking into this

  19. david wilkinson on February 27th, 2013 9:13 am

    At the end of the day the csa are puppets for the government in power. The conservatives introduced us to the csa during john majors term. The labour party did nothing to help during their term and now the conservatives are back in control they have changed legislation to allow the csa to act with impunity.
    The statute of limitations meant that no debt could be collected that was older than 6 years. the conservatives changed this statute of limitations in 2010 to 10 years,thus allowing csa to dredge up older cases.
    In my case an outstanding liability order from 2001 falls neatly within the 10 year time frame and is classed as arrears. so even though my case was closed they have been tasked to collect these arrears. not for the benefit of my daughter or ex-wife, but to put money into the treasury so that this inept government can squander it somewhere else.

    someone said it in a previous post. unless everybody with a grievance protests as one, nothing will change. neither conservative or labour care to make changes. the csa act as a debt collection agency and don’t care wether they destroy lives, increase the burden of debt on families or cause suicides. they are faceless bottom feeders who clearly have no moral scruples.
    If you go to Dunn & Bradstreet website you will find the CSA listed as a company trading as. If its a government department how can this be possible?

    Big Brother!

  20. Lynne Smith on February 27th, 2013 7:48 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

  21. j on February 27th, 2013 8:39 pm

    Hi T,

    You need to take a peek at – PJG v Child Support Agency [2006] EWHC 423 (Fam)
    which can be found on the Family Law Week webpage, just type PJG v CSA into your search engine and it should take you straight to it.

    The case was an –

    Appeal against a CSA liability order on the grounds that the amount of the liability was incorrect.

    ‘The case is of interest because of Munby J’s comments on the correct route for any appeals against CSA liability orders. He reiterates that the only route for an appeal is by way of case stated under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and not through a notice of motion in the Family Division. However in this case the magistrates had failed to ensure that the amount of the liability order was correct so a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Accordingly, Munby J ordered that there could be a judicial review through the Administrative Court.’

    So there you go, don’t give up you can beat this.

    Good luck

  22. dai on March 1st, 2013 11:23 am

    ref PJG v CSA

    unfortumnately much of that case was overturned in Farley v CSA but if there is an appeal the magistartes should adjourn any application for a LO.

    routes of appeal against LO have also changed [for the worse] as they are to a family court judge – guess whose side he/she will be on???

  23. Lynne Smith on March 1st, 2013 7:48 pm

    Lynne Smith liked this on Facebook.

Got something to say?