CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal?
My ex who I had been paying csa payments to for my twin children, upped sticks and moved off to Cornwall only taking one child, That child now lives with her sister, Her sister then claimed ahainst me.
This is fine as I am happy to pay for my kids,however the Sister the new PWC now had 2 NRP’s to claim from, I however was the only one to pay, I asked the CSA why this was, as she has only claimed against you was the answer, So i asked her why she had only claimed against me. She replied the CSA had advised her to do that as her sister was on a lower wage!
According to my MP this is not a criminal offence or fraud by the CSA, even though they have provided false information and I have suffered a loss.
Only in The UK can this be legal.
66 thoughts on “CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal?”
Leave a Reply
Ah at last………….it is not procedure for this to have happened but has and caused me issues.
Please tell Alice she feels the CSA would not do such a thing.
Stuart, at no point have I said any has or has not happened, I have stated information on the procedures and policies the CSA work by. It is you who keeps insisting that something was said on a call which you were not a party to – you are basing this on what you have been told was said, you cannot say 100% guaranteed that the CSA told your ex’s sister not to open a case against your ex.
You have changed your issues throughout the thread, each time you don;t get the answer you want you throw another issue into the ring.
The CSA have not broken any laws and they are not costing the tax payer any money due to the fact that your ex’s sister did not open a case. There is no law that states any NRP must contribute towards the upkeep of their child via the CSA.
Stuart, at no point have I said any has or has not happened, I have stated information on the procedures and policies the CSA work by. It is you who keeps insisting that something was said on a call which you were not a party to – you are basing this on what you have been told was said, you cannot say 100% guaranteed that the CSA told your ex’s sister not to open a case against your ex
you have failed to acknowledge or believe this to be true just stating what should happen……………it did not……..hence the PWC is now complaining and claiming from my ex………why would she do this if it had not happened….Explain?
You have changed your issues throughout the thread, each time you don;t get the answer you want you throw another issue into the ring.
The headline is not written by me, read the post i have suffered loss, I have many issues which when asked by yourself have expanded on.
The CSA have not broken any laws and they are not costing the tax payer any money due to the fact that your ex’s sister did not open a case. There is no law that states any NRP must contribute towards the upkeep of their child via the CSA.
Sex discrimination springs to mind. How much does the CSA pay out in compensation a year and over how many years? who pays this? By failing to process this against my ex as I explained it has cost tax payers money. as a tax payer you and I should not condone this action.
Can you guarantee 100% this did not happen? if not why are you continuing to defend the undefendable?
Alice you clearly stated
The agency would NOT advise your ex’s sister either to open a case or not open a case ,
Just to show your comment again!!!!. Followed by………
Stuart, at no point have I said any has or has not happened,
well you have!!! as shown above, you have judged all through this debate. and your belief no loss to me or tax payers money wasted as a result is wrong also.
@Stuart – I cannot acknowledge something to be true when I was not party to the call, and fail to see how you can acknowledge this to be true when you were not on the call either.
with regards to you suffering loss, it was only yesterday evening that you decided to state that you had submitted the original post without checking what a 3rd party had typed as the title, and insinuated that I and a n other were wrong to assume that the posts did not relate to a title.
I am not even going to comment on the sex discrimination comment
I am not defending anything undefendable, I have stated time and time again that neither of us know what was actually said. Can you guarantee 100% that this did happen? If not why are you continuing to accuse without proof?
@Stuart – I cannot acknowledge something to be true when I was not party to the call, and fail to see how you can acknowledge this to be true when you were not on the call either.
Wow fair enough but can you then decide it’s not true and act accordingly? do not see that logic. spent a long time defending something you are unsure of. I on the other hand am sure of what has happened and believe to be true. you seem so sure it is not that it is very suspicious considering who you work for.
with regards to you suffering loss, it was only yesterday evening that you decided to state that you had submitted the original post without checking what a 3rd party had typed as the title, and insinuated that I and a n other were wrong to assume that the posts did not relate to a title.
I am not even going to comment on the sex discrimination comment
type an article with no title on here, see what happens, not my fault and does not detract from your insistance I am lying and so is the PWC. with no proof provided from you. at least I have 2 people backing my story and complaints going in. why not respond to sex discrimination? NRP discrimination by the CSA goes on on a daily basis.
I am not defending anything undefendable, I have stated time and time again that neither of us know what was actually said. Can you guarantee 100% that this did happen? If not why are you continuing to accuse without proof?
same reason you deny it has happened without proof? why are you denying this without proof? as the post said originally CSA can do what they want and try and defend it, but not all is black and white in any case and to pre-judge is very wrong and dangerous. How many complaints does the CSA have a year? why is there a 1 year waiting list at ICE and again at the Ombudsman? CSA keep getting it wrong and will not admit it, cover it up and 2 years for justice is no fun when you do mess up.
apologies – allow me to re-word that, clearly I should have paid more attention to the exact wording of my replies.
to be clear
when the agency is approached by a potential client the process the officer taking the call is to follow is to inform the caller of the process of opening a claim, and, if the caller was able to provide information on what they believe the ANRP’s earnings to be, inform them what the potential maintenance calculation would be based on the information provided. The potential client can then make the decision as to whether to continue with the application. If the potential client decides at that point not to continue with the application at that stage they are welcome to contact the agency at any point in the future and make application.
I fail to see how I am wrong regarding cost to the tax payer? If a case had been opened the case would have required a case worker to administer the case, this would have incurred ongoing costs to the tax payer.
Alice with all due respect the process you state is what should happen. It did not in this case.
Hence why I am on here, You just will not accept it could be tue.
as you have recently advised that you are not here due to financial loss I would refer you back to your comment
stuart mitchell on November 16th, 2012 12:39 pm
There is no verbal agreement my ex has paid no money to the CSA, it is disgusting that the CSA will take circumstances as a measure when deciding who pays but not when they cause huge arrears and put a NRP in debt, double standards and should a female NRP not pay because the father earns more, has his monthly CSA payments already paid been taken into account, I think not, its 50-50 or nothing or else it is discrimination, based on ability to pay does not apply when the CSA cause NRP arrears so should not in this case.
what are you referring to by 50-50?
And, with all due respect, I ask why you continue to accept, without proof that it did not happen?
Can I ask, did you speak with your ex’s sister and advise her to reconsider her decision and advise her to open the case now?
Oh dear oh dear, are you paid by the CSA to be on here Alice???????.
if there are 2 NRP’s they should contribute 50-50 equally not just one paying, that is unfair and discriminates against the one paying.
You Then ask….
Can I ask, did you speak with your ex’s sister and advise her to reconsider her decision and advise her to open the case now?
Not content with not believing a word i say or that the CSA have made another mistake, you now stoop to accuse me of the above, if it is ok for the CSA to say it is up to the PWC to decide as you state, how relevant is this question, other than you again doubting my comments at every stage.
Unless of course you are directly involved in this case and know different, which you say you are not, Then your now desperate attempts to discredit what has happened here are very offensive.
Stuart:- Got it. You are upset because you ex is not being asked to pay child maintenance through the CSA as a non resident parent to her sister.
i am very annoyed that a CSA employee has condoned a NRP in not contributing, when making sure another does. By actually advising this it is discrimination. as a result causing bad feeling and issues to myself due to her actions. simple really.
Quote wilf on November 25th, 2012 5:39 pm
Stuart:- Got it. You are upset because you ex is not being asked to pay child maintenance through the CSA as a non resident parent to her sister.
– Did you not find it obvious from the original post wilf?
chall
Chall:- Just confirming it wasn’t all about money as the title implied.
on this occassion its not all about the money its about the lies, but in my other complaints ongoing it is all about money deception more lies and theft.
Oh and also my human rights i did do an article on human rights and DEO’s but it has not been published!!!!!!!
Strange.