CSA says children in Plymouth owed £25million

July 20, 2010

Absent parents around Plymouth who have failed to keep up with child support payments now owe a whopping £25million. Figures published by the Child Support Agency show that £15.2 million of this is owed by non-resident parents living in the city’s two constituencies.

Parents in South East Cornwall owe £5.9million, whilst those in South West Devon owe £3.7million.

CMEC, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, missed the targets set for collection of money by £23 million in 2009, driving the total amount owned by absent parents across the UK to an astonishing £3.8 billion.

However, CMEC has said that the debt fell by an average £5million per month leading up to March, with 2009 seeing 114,400 brand new enforcements alone.

Fiona Weir, the chief executive of Gingerbread, the lone parent charity, says that children are being excluded from crucial funds as the Government concentrates on recovering debts. Speaking to local newspaper The Herald, she said:

“Child maintenance is vital for children in separated families.”

“We know from single parents that this is much-needed money which pays for items such as children’s clothes, school meals, trips and activities and childcare.”

“Ultimately, the responsibility for paying child maintenance rests with the non-resident parent.”

A spokesman for CMEC stated that they do not write off any debt, nor do they give up pursuing non-paying parents:

“Regrettably, some parents go to great lengths to avoid their financial responsibility to their children, requiring costly and time-consuming enforcement action to be taken against them.”

“The Commission is using tough enforcement measures, including deducting money directly from bank accounts, seizing properties through Order for Sale action and preventing or reversing the transfer of assets from a non-resident parent with outstanding arrears to another person in order to evade child maintenance.”

Comments

4 Responses to “CSA says children in Plymouth owed £25million”

  1. KarlGarrett on July 20th, 2010 6:11 pm

    Oh Joy – CMEC want to make you the NRP homeless & then take away your ability to travel, and then stick you in jail…therefore costing the tax payers cast sums of money
    (probably more than the total claim from the greedy RP), and removing your ability to gain employment. That really helps!..The point in having children is?..what exactly. If they are being referred to as a debt..where’s my signature on the credit agreement? – any why doesn’t the RP share 50% of the cost?.. I know dam well that my 2 kids DO NOT cost £750 per month to look after… that’s WAY more than even I ever receive for my own needs (not that CMEC care). The whole system is wrong & geared to the women. IF your a bloke, with kids, your better off dead.

  2. Karen Bedford on July 21st, 2010 9:52 am

    Karl you are so wrong! The system is not geared towards women. It is unfair for both PWC and NRP – the ones who dont abuse the system! I wish I could have even got half of the £750 you paid for your two kids a month! I was lucky when I got £50 pw! And that was a man earning £40+, not paying the correct tax, i.e. self employed lying to the tax man about his earnings that he earnt £17k he has £25k+ in savings and that is just in one bank account and over 2 yrs ago!!

  3. Michael on July 21st, 2010 10:35 am

    In a sense you’re both right. The CSA system isn’t geared towards women, it’s geared towards the CSA. They’re out for themselves, pure and simple.

    However, the system in the UK is geared towards women. When parents split, the woman automatically gets custody, unless there’s an extreme reason for her not to. She doesn’t have to allow the father access in any way, and there’s very little he can do to see his kids… unless, rather adversely, he’s a jobless deadbeat with alcohol and drug problems. Then the social workers rally round him to protect his rights (as happened to my niece and her ex).

    If however you’re a hard working male with no criminal convictions or addictions, you’re on your own.

  4. Karl Garrett on July 22nd, 2010 10:04 am

    Karen, I can see your point. He would be classed as a shirker, so I fully understand your frustration. The point Michael made is correct. The CSA are out for themselves, guided by political motivation, buy “screwing the little guy”. Generally if your a male, employed, divorced & have kids…your screwed…death is cheaper.

Got something to say?