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
RT @CSAHell: CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal?: My ex who I had been paying csa payments to for my twin chi… http://t.co/bjo …
it is the Parent or Person with Care’s choice as to whether they wish to open a case with the CSA. As you say your ex’s sister is in a position to open 2 cases as both yourself and your ex are non-resident parents, the CSA will have advised her of what the assessments would be based on the wages information supplied to them, it may be that she chose not to claim against your ex if the amount was low – she may have decided that the money would be better left in your ex’s budget to help raise the twin who has moved with her.
Alice
So you are saying the CSA disclose information on both NRP’s and then the PWC gets a choice on who would pay the most, bear in mind I already pay for both, and the ex has not contributed for 4 years for her daughter. I even paid her for 2 years when she did not live with her, Surely this is the CSA condoning a NRP not contributing for her child. Regardless of income the split should be 50-50 otherwise it is clear discrimination. Does it take into account when a PWC’s household earns more than the NRP’s? No it is discrimination to NRP’s in every way. Thanks for your input though.
Also a few data protection issues here if that is the way a claim is conducted.
As Alice says it is up to the person with care who she makes a claim against. She maybe has a verbal agreement with her sister.
When the CSA issue their assessment the person with care of the child will see your gross income, tax deducted etc. so they can see how the CSA have assessed maintenance.
Re data protection issues here is a link about it. It appears CSA do not breach legislation from this article http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/child_support_agency_-_use_and_disclosure_of_maintenance_assessment_information.pdf
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.
You would be expected to pay the same whether the other NRP pays or not.
Calculations are based on the NRP’s income.
If a claim is made against the other NRP the CSA would be obliged to process it.
They can not pick and choose it is entirely up to the person with care.
The CSA would not disclose any information about the NRP which would breach DPA – they would look at the information and inform the PWC what the maintenance calculation would be if they pursued a case. Your maintenance calculation would be based on your income and it would not change if the Person with Care also pursued the case naming her sister as a 2nd NRP – you are not being penalised or asked to pay more because your ex’s sister is not claiming CM from her.
So Alice why have the CSA allowed the sister to be non compliant by advising the PWC not to claim against her?
The sister is not non-compliant as there is no case opened, it is up to the PWC whether or not they wish to open a case and the PWC in this instance has decided not to claim against both NRPs
As I stated in an earlier post the agency would have advised the PWC what the MC would be based on the reported income and if the PWC has decided not to claim then that’s her choice.
you are missing the point, the csa advised her not to claim against her sister!!!!. advising her so her sister as a NRP is allowed to be non compliant and not contribute.
Alice you seem very sure what the agency would/should do, however they do not do as they say or as you insist. in fact they can not even discuss this with me. Many many errors on my cases and refuse to explain decisions made. is this ok as you seem in the know.
Sorry Stuart, I am not missing the point – a person cannot be deemed non-compliant if there is no case open. The only way a person can be deemed non-compliant is if a case was opened and they did not pay what they were asked to pay.
The agency would NOT advise your ex’s sister either to open a case or not open a case , they would inform her of what the maintenance calculation would be if she did open a case and it would be entirely up to her as the PWC whether she opened the case or not. If she decided not to open a case then that’s her choice, if she later changes her mind and decides she wishes to claim she can contact the agency at any time and apply for a case to be opened. If she has been told what she would get if the claim was opened and she decided not to open it then that is not the agency allowing a person to be non-compliant.
The fact still remains that whether your ex’s sister claims from your ex or not it will not make any difference to what you are being asked to pay.
In respect of them refusing to discuss the details of possible case between your ex and her sister, they are not allowed to discuss this with you, that would be a major breach of the Data Protection Act – just as it would be if they started discussing your case with your ex’s sister.
By advising her not to claim against her sister, That is what they did, despite what you say, She told me and has told the CSA. So how do you know they would not as they do, get everything wrong and yes i have the proof. Unless it was you who advised her????.
By advising her this, they are allowing a NRP to not contribute for her child, but have advised the male NRP should be the only one to pay. Thus she is non compliant by the CSA allowing her not to contribute and the CSA are ok with this.
The CSA then tell me that a claim was just against me when it was not it was against both NRP’s but the CSA advised and deemed Only I should pay. This is a clear lie backed up by the PWC and you feel the CSA are ok doing this when a PWC makes a claim?. as an obvious CSA employee you should know the CSA should do things but the reality is they don’t as I have loads of proof of. So please do not state what they would have done, I have explained aht they actually did which is different.
Stuart:- You seem to be missing the point.
The fact that the second NRP does not have a claim for maintenance makes no difference to your assessment for contributions.
What loss do think you have incurred?
Which piece of information used in your assessment do you think is false ?
The CSA will only discuss your circumstances and your claim with you.
What they might have said or not said to somebody with regards to another claim they would regard as confidential and not up for discussion with anybody but the PWC and the named NRP.
You have not described all the other errors so difficult to advise.
were you with your ex’s sister when she made the call and was the call on loud speaker so that you actually heard with your own ears the person from the CSA advising her not to open the case?
regardless of what was or was not said on the call your ex is not non-compliant as there is no case open
as I have said if your ex’s sister wants to open a case against your ex she can do so at any time.
whether she does or does not is not going to make any difference to what you are asked to pay
Was you on the call?
I have on several occassions had information from the CSA regarding my case, When I have checked this with the PWC it has turned out to be a lie.
The Non compliant bit is them allowing a NRP to not contribute by not opening a case against a NRP who has not contributing to her child for 4 years.
I know who I believe and your insistence the CSA would not do this and disbelieving both the PWC and myself, shows a huge degree of trust in this organisation, which experience has taught me and thousands of others is sadly misplaced.
Not just this decision but many others costing me thousands of pounds as a result of maladministration, admitted by the CSA, have happened on my case since 2001.
The refusal to discuss decisions made on the redress of this maladministation is 2 months later not forthcoming, but I am sure you feel this is ok too.
No I was not on the call and as you don’t appear to have been either then I don’t see how you can be sure what was or was not said.
The fact remains that a person cannot be deemed non-compliant on a non-existing case – you cannot be deemed to not be paying if there is nothing to pay. If your ex’s sister was to open a case and your ex did not pay she would then become non-compliant until then she is not non-compliant. That fact is not going to change. I think perhaps you are confusing non-compliant with not contributing. This is a matter between your ex and her sister.
You stated at the start of this thread that it has cost you money because your ex’s sister is only claiming CM from you and not from her sister as well – as explained it would not make any difference to your liability so on this point there is no financial loss to you.
You now say that you have lost thousands due to maladministration but have not given details – if you care to expand on that comment then perhaps further advice can be given.
Stuart:- The CSA can only open a case if they receive a maintenance application form (MAF) for the named non resident parent.
You have not answered the questions from my previous post.
You also appeared to have shifted the grounds of complaint from your original post.
People are only non compliant if do not comply to a request or instruction. It would appear the other NRP has not been asked or instructed to do anything therefore cannot be non-complaint.
I was not on the call but the PWC was and told me what happened which is different to what the Head of CSA complaints informed me. I know who is telling the truth as the CSA will lie and I have evidence of this.
Non contributing is condoned by the CSA by this action, Ok the termanology non-compliant was misused I apologise, but this is still wrong of the CSA to do this.
My case is long and drawn out but in a nutshell, the CSA have collected all my payments by DEO since 2003. Paid on time what was asked at every opportunity.
Then in 2010 they announced £10k of arrears and wanted £800 a month with no explanation, put me in debt and removed money at source via DEO. finally admitted errors and maladministration but have not taken the debt caused into account and paid the ex £5k. I am left in debt and they can not explain why the have reached this decision, currently at ICE, but can not progress with them untill I have the CSA rationale on their decision.
in respect of the initial statement the I have to re-iterate that this is a matter between your ex and her sister, if your ex’s sister feels that she was advised by the CSA not to open a case and does not agree with this advise she is within her rights to contact them now and make an application, as long as she is in receipt of Child Benefit for the child in her care the CSA cannot refuse her application.
If she opens a case you will not be entitled to any information on that case from the CSA.
I am not interested in discussing the case with the CSA just wanted them to know I knew they had lied again, I asked why I was the only NRP to contribute, the CSA said because the claim was just against you.
This is not the case the CSA have lied and just progressed against me. They should explain why I was lied to.
an Action that is allowing the ex not to contribute by their actions so she can benefit again and I have to pay only. hardly fair is it.
This is confirmed by the PWC on the call.
so your ok with this? that’s your opinion and one which is wrong if you are.
Wilf
regarding loss to me.
In answer to your question as an NRP loss is not just financial when the CSA plays NRP against PWC it causes bad feeling and child access issues, it causes stress and sleepless nights too.
If it was all about the money I would have given up work long ago. A little fair play and justice is what is required.
what my opinion is does not change the fact, by law the CSA will progress a case only if the PWC opens the case. I have not expressed an opinion in this thread, so I fail to see how you can claim my opinion is wrong.
You say that you asked why you were the only NRP being asked to contribute and they have answered that you are being asked to contribute because a case has been opened naming you as the NRP, I cannot see any lie in that. They have progressed the only case opened by the PWC. If she wishes to open another case naming another NRP then they will do what is required of them by law and progress that case too.
The CSA do not get involved in any access issues. Child Maintenance and Access are 2 completely separate issued, paying maintenance does not give an automatic right to access the same as not paying maintenance does not automatically mean access should be denied.
Read the statement properly, You were the only NRP claimed against. this was the lie.
I was not, subsequently as the CSA advised her not to claim against my ex. So their advice discriminated against me and they did not process the claim against my ex.
My child access issues are all bought about by CSA actions. they are supposed to promote families, check their website. But then they do not honour their functions or principles either.
your advice/opinion is the CSA have done nothing wrong here. I suggest they have and is morally wrong for this advice to be given. as a footnote a claim has now gone in against my ex and a complaint from the PWC as she is unhappy with this too.
Read back what you have previously stated – by your own works you were the only NRP who was claimed against. Your ex’s sister may have enquired about opening a case against your ex but the case was never opened. Whether or not the CSA ‘advised’ her not to neither of us can say 100% as neither of us were on the call and you are basing your statement on what your ex’s sister has told you was said. You have not been discriminated against, you are being asked to pay an amount for your children which would not alter if the other case had been progressed. You have neither gained or lost financially because you are the only NRP being asked to pay.
The CSA is an organisation who’s remit is to establish maintenance payments for children who’s parents are no longer together when the parents are unable to come to a family based agreement privately between themselves. No PWC is obliged now to have CSA case.
Again I reiterate that I have not advised or expressed an opinion – I have stated facts as to what the CSA are obliged to do, by the legislation they have to work by.
Oh Alice how wrong you are……..FYI the thread headline I did not write, I have not mentioned money in my original post i mention loss………you and others assumed money.
The PWC rang the CSA to claim for the child, the csa advised her to claim from me alone. this is wrong to do so, irrespective of the finances is condones an NRP not contributing, the aim of the CSA. it discriminates by making just me pay and not my ex as she should as a NRP.
The CSA was forced on my ex and me as they refused to take personal payments into consideration neither of us wanted them involved but they did so and have caused chaos and caused me loss of all kinds.
And as I have explained if the CSA told me the sky was blue I would need to check it. your comments are what the CSA should do but at no point do you admit that the advice given was wrong and that is a shame for you as you have no idea how the CSA operates. I could shatter your illusions on this great department that puts children first and complies with the law and is morally and ethically corrupt to the core.
Quote stuart; The CSA then tell me that a claim was just against me when it was not it was against both NRP’s but the CSA advised and deemed Only I should pay. This is a clear lie backed up by the PWC.
How did the PWC make her applications to the CSA?
The PWC could apply for her Data Protection File, once in receipt, they should receive all the info the agency hold on her, including details of her initial application.
Also, with regard to arrears on your case, if you can’t get answers from the CSA, you could also apply for your Data Protect File with notepad sections dated and a complete account. Once in receipt, you should be able to establish what has been happening with your case.
chall ~ afairercsaforall
Thank you Chall
at last someone who does not think no wrong has happened here.
Application by telephone.
Have applied for data files before and trouble is they are only as good as the information written. My case now with ICE its a rationale on decisions made I require.
But will deffo ask the PWC to ask for a copy of the hopefully recorded call.
However they have “lost” a few in the past I have requested.
Thanks
Sorry Stuart but it is you that is so wrong …
stuart mitchell on CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal?
are you now claiming that this was not you? if so why not say so at the earlier?
Please explain your statement:
The CSA was forced on my ex and me as they refused to take personal payments into consideration neither of us wanted them involved but they did so and have caused chaos and caused me loss of all kinds.
As previously stated no PWC is forced into using the services of the CSA so I fail to understand how the csa have forced you and your ex into using them. If you ex wishes to close her case she can do so at any time.
You keep coming back to this ‘advice’ given by the CSA to your ex’s sister, and once again I reiterate that you have no proof of what was said on the call so it is pointless to expect me to admit that the was wrong in giving this advice. As I have said many times even if this ‘advice’ was given and your sister’s ex decided to act on this advice and not open a case against her sister she can call them back and open a case now, or at any point in the future. I can assure you that I have a reasonably good idea on how the CSA operate and I can further assure you that there are several thousands of PWCs and NRPs who are more than happy with the agency.
I wrote the thread not the headline, someone else did that before publishing it.
I was paying for a child via CSA, My 2nd marriage ended and I paid voluntary payments to my 2nd ex. I asked the CSA to take these payments into account when assessing my original case. They refused.
They insisted the only way to do so was through them. therby forced on me.
Alice just maybe I am right and the CSA did advise not to claim against my ex? if that was so would it be wrong? you have no proof they did not yet maintain we are both wrong with no evidence. Strange..you will not consider this.
apologies – I wish to re-word part of the last paragraph.
What I should have said was
Even if you ex’s sister was given this ‘advice’ and she decided to act on this ‘advice’ and not open a case then, as I have said many times, she can still call them back and open a case now or at any time in the future.
ah right – so you hit submit and put your name to a thread with a title that you did not write without checking it for accuracy and amending if necessary, then other people are at fault for ‘assuming’
Again the agency can only take into account certain factors when doing a maintenance calculation- if you have more than one PWC and only one has a case with the agency by law cannot reduce your income figure for the maintenance calculation, it is therefore in your best interests financially to bring your second family into a case with the agency so that all QCs are included in the maintenance calculation. You can of course opt to go Maintenance Direct with your 2nd case.
Oh Alice you must be top girl at the CSA!!!
I did not see the headline as was answering responses very sorry.
how about answering what if i am right and the PWC has not lied? is it ok for the CSA to do this?
I have asked to contribute direct but the CSA refuse to respond to my requests for this, The whole process is flawed and can not work fairly.
Your responses are saying the PWC and myself are lying and the CSA can do all the above and it’s fine. with no proof.
Why did you not suggest in asking for a recording to remove doubt? but as the CSA lose them when they are bang to rights it is unhelpful.
Well Done.
I do not think it is appropriate to comment on ‘ifs’
With regards to Maintenance Direct being set as the method of collection/payment both the NRP and the PWC have to agree to this. if only 1 party wishes Maintenance Direct then the agency cannot insist that the other party agrees to it.
I did not suggest getting a copy of the recording as I did not see it as my place to do so – that could be construed as ‘advising’, had I given such advice and you had acted upon it and this subsequently caused issues between you and your ex’s sister due to you requiring ‘proof’ that what she had told you was in fact true this could have caused stress to you both and may have caused problems with you getting to see you child.
I did not suggest getting a copy of the recording as I did not see it as my place to do so – that could be construed as ‘advising’, had I given such advice and you had acted upon it and this subsequently caused issues between you and your ex’s sister due to you requiring ‘proof’ that what she had told you was in fact true this could have caused stress to you both and may have caused problems with you getting to see you child.
The CSA do not get involved in any access issues. Child Maintenance and Access are 2 completely separate issued, paying maintenance does not give an automatic right to access the same as not paying maintenance does not automatically mean access should be denied.
The 2 statements are both yours. slightly contradictory but hey ho thats the CSA. All I wanted was CSA to admit they lied to me regarding the claim process. Burden of proof would be in a recording which could be the clincher.
and still not answering if I am right as PWC says, and she IS complaining and claiming now. why would she do this if not advised wrongly regarding the claim.
Not everything is black and white, the CSA need to understand this in every case and the mistakes and life changing errors will reduce.
Obviously under Data Protection you would have no right to obtain a recording of the call your ex’s sister made. It would be illegal for the CSA to issue this to you. It would have to be your ex’s sister who applied for a copy of the voice recording or any other case papers, including a the Maintenance Application Form if she applied in writing.
and as for not dealing in IF’s
IF the csa followed the law it would be a better place. and IF they followed their procedured there would be no arrears and no complaints.
you are and have worked on the IF i am wrong…………………..chances are i’m not
as I said she is and will.
The 2 statements do not contradict – the first comment you have copied clearly states that it is not my place to give advice which could, as you have previously commented has happened in the past, cause stress and may lead to issues between the NRP and PWC and thus lead to issues with access … as such I was saying it would be inapproriate for me to advise.
The second comment simply states, correctly, that the CSA do not get involved in access issues.
As to why the PWC in question is now making a complaint and has opened a case, then I cannot be expected to state why a person who I have had no communication with whatsoever has taken a decision. If you believe that the CSA are to blame then that is your right – we all have the right to our opinion. You have made yours very clear. I have expressed no opinion or given no advice, I have stated facts in accordance with the legislation the CSA have to work to and tried to explain why they ‘refuse’ to consider certain things requested by a client. Regardless of what a person thinks, and by person I mean NRP, PWC or CSA employee thinks is fair, unfair, right or wrong, then bottom line is that the CSA employee cannot choose what they will or will no factor into a maintenance calculation – they have to do what is laid down in the legislation, if they didn’t ‘refuse’ to take into consideration the payments you were making privately to your 2nd ex and as such reduced your liability for the child(ren) in the CSA case then they would be breaking the law. It would also mean that other NRPs who’s private agreements were ‘refused’ would be discriminated against as they were not getting their assessments reduced and that by definition would not be fair.
as your ex’s sister is now going to be claiming this will result in an initial assessment on her case, this will in turn impact on the amount paid to each PWC. You will receive a new MC notification when this has been completed and a new Collection Schedule will be issued once the new calculation is in place.
You can use the CSA calculator on their website to work out what your new calculation will be based on your income.
If you’re current maintenance calculation has been in place for a number of years and the income is now out of date any party involved can ask for a new assessment based on your current income. If your income has dropped due to current economic climate or reduced hours then you can of course request a recalculation, your income must have increased or decreased by 5% or more for a re-assessment to be implemented.
so in the CSA world
For the CSA to tell me that a claim was just made against me is not a lie.
It is just the CSA being economical with the truth. having advised the PWC to just claim against me and this is all fine and dandy with the CSA. as technically a claim is just against me as the PWC was advised to do that by the CSA.
Morally wrong and poor practice in any ones book but the CSA.
Now when you get in work tomorrow tell them someone needs to ring me and sort out the responses required i need for ICE. as per the charter they should explain decisions made.
Thanks Alice we will never agree and your idealogy of the CSA is well wide of the mark as will come out one day, on a scale of Hillsborough and hopefully compensation and prison sentences will follow for the people who allow this corruption and breach of human rights to go on unchallenged and unreported
Stuart:- So the title ”CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal? ” is not your title or sentiments?
Do think the title detracted from the full meaning of your thread?
In what way do feel the CSA failed to follow procedures?
Which laws do you think the CSA failed to comply with?
Again, based on the fact that I was not on the call and do not know what was or was not said, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether anything said was a lie or not.
The CSA have no legal obligation to inform you whether another case was enquired about, opened, or what was discussed with a 3rd party. To do so would be a breach of Data Protection. They may inform you, if asked, of what would happen to your case(s) if there was another case opened and what impact this would have on the current liabilities on existing cases – this is often information requested by NRPs who currently have a mixture of CSA cases and private agreements and require more information to enable them to make a fully informed decision as to whether to bring their private agreement cases through the agency
I am unable to instruct any member of staff to call you as I am not involved in your case, I do not know which office deals with your case and as such you will need to contact them yourself and discuss your issues directly with the department dealing with your case
Alice it may be in inappropriate for you to comment but you have and you have stated you do not believe it has happened. On what grounds? opinion. Do the CSA pay you to come on here or is it a hobby.
A CSA employee has at point of claim advised a client to just claim from one parent only. Wilf and Alice see no wrong in that? I Do as it has caused massive repruccussions and is morally and ethically wrong.
Simple really, what the CSA should do and what they really do are oceans apart.
wilf on November 21st, 2012 9:07 pm Stuart:- So the title ”CSA lies cost me money, and it’s all legal? ” is not your title or sentiments?
No I stated Loss
Do think the title detracted from the full meaning of your thread?
Possibly
In what way do feel the CSA failed to follow procedures?
By advising to claim from only the male NRP allowing an absent parent to not contribute.
Which laws do you think the CSA failed to comply with?
By allowing a NRP to not contribute but advising and progressing a claim against the male NRP only.
Due to earlier maladministration on this case when the CSA failed to progress this claim for many months causing me arrears, Redress was to pay the PWC the arrears I had owed as it was due to agency error. They also made payments to my ex as they had also allowed arrears to incurr on that case too, oh and another one !!!, Had they taken the claim for both parents as they should of done, then the tax payers money paid to my ex would have been less. As a tax payer this is wrong.
Can we stop arguing?
Stuart:- Quite correct it is not part of the procedure to recommend to the person with care from whom to claim.
As I have said before the CSA can only process claims made and by the same token cannot refuse a legitimate claim against any non-resident parent.
If a claim is not made against the other party it is not part of their remit to determine otherwise.
Also as stated previously you have not been financially disadvantaged by the other claim not being made. Only the person with care loses by not getting the maintenance contributions from the 2nd NRP.
All changes take far too long to administer and often do lead to arrears but with so many clients and so many changes a greater workforce is needed.
All maintenance payments since April 2010 are paid to the PWC whether they are in receipt of benefits or not thus no saving to the taxpayer.
I think the title of your thread was misleading and could easily lead people to misunderstand your motives for your post.
sorry matey no, not when the families of this country are being ripped apart by legalised lies and corruption.