CSA sent us six letters which arrived on the same day

January 28, 2013

A year after mine and my husbands first child was born we found out he could have another child with his ex (there was 5 possible fathers). we went through csa for a dna test it came back positive. so my husband took responsibilty for his daughter and saw her brought her nappys etc.

Then it turned into us having her every weekend and pretty much all the time it all got a bit too much like being babysitters. in the end my husbands ex did a moonlight flit up north to live with her new partner and did not tell us. my husband continued to try to pay csa and agreed for them to take payments out of his wages which they failed to do. yesturday we got six letters all come through at once the earliest dated 26/01/2010!. explaining how much he had to pay.

My husband calls them all the time to sort things out but gets told he has to speak to his case worker who suprise suprise is never there when he rings. he gets told she will ring him back then nothing!. hes not allowed contact with her as the mother wont allow it he dosnt know where she lives nothing!, and because she stops him seeing her she gets more money as he dosnt have her overnight i think there system is great if it worked on cases as individuals not just in general!.

We cant afford 140 a month we pay full rent no benefits i stay at home and look after our two children and my husband works but seems we would be better off him not working.

Comments

  • chall says:

    carrie,

    When did your OH case commence after 03/03/03?

    Are the CSA aware that there are children residing with you and do you receive a reduction for such?

    If there a a number of changes to be carried on an account the CSA, for some reason, carry them all out on the same day – Alice may be able to confirm this.

    Have you had a look at the calculator below, to see you can get any assistance?
    http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx

    Your OH would need the forms below if he wished to apply for contact via the courts;
    Form C4 ~ Application for an order for disclosure of a child’s whereabouts.
    Form C100 ~ Application for contact.

  • Alice says:

    If the case is on CS2 – opened after 03/03/03, and there are multiple changes to be completed then under Sprig Regulations which came into force in July 2011 all changes must be completed on the same day. This is to allow 2nd and subsequent changes to be taken on as schedule 1 para 15 changes and the effective date for S115 changes to be set in accordance with the date the change occurred as opposed to the date that the agency was notified, unless the change occurred prior to the date of the 1st notified change, S115.

    1st change will be effective as per date the agency was notified (with the exception of NRP starting or ceasing benefit claim)

    1st change – NRP changed employer with hihger/lower income – NRP started new job on 01/06/2012 – NRP notifies CSA on 21/06/2012. change will be effective back to the maintenance day of the week (the MD is set as per the day in the week that they case was opened). If MD is Tuesday and notified date is Friday the new MC will be the Tuesday prior to 21/06/2012. This will be progressed as a Supersession due to an NRP notified change. If NRP iincome is higher the new higher MC rate will only be effective in accordance with the notified date, if NRP income is lower, again the lower MC will only be effective as per the date the NRP informed the agency of the lower income.

    Change 2 – In the same call as the employment change was notified NRP states that his child has been staying overnight with him for about 6 months – he has not previously notified the agency of this. The PWC confirms the same level of shared care as the NRP. This change will be taken on as S115 but as neither NRP or PWC had informed the agency prior to 21/06/2012 that there was shared care in place the effective date can only be set in accordance with the 1st notified change – the new MC will be in accordance with the income from new employment less 1/7th reduction for shared care.

    Change 3 – 28/07/2012 NRP notifies the agency that his new partner and her 2 children moved in with him on 23/06/2012, NRp has not previously told the agency that he has 2 children living with him – as the date the change occurred is after the date of the 1st notified change and the previous 2 changes have not been progressed (still waiting on wage slips to show new income) this is will a S115 change and the effective date will be set as per the date the change occurred. The new MC will mean that the NRP is allocated a ROC (relevant other child) allowance back to when the children moved into his house and not from when he told the agency about it.

    Change 4 – 28/12/2012 NRP has not supplied his wage slips, NRP employer is contacted and they inform the agency that the NRP left their employment on 01/09/2012 and they fax over the wages information needed to complete change 1.. NRP has not contacted the agency at any point and told them that he is no longer working. NRP does not respond to calls from agency – NRP and PWC are both sent letters on 28/12/2012 asking them about a CoC’s for NRP – NRP phones the agency on 05/01/2013 and confirms that he left his job a few months back but forgot to tell the agency. He states that he is not entitled to benefits and is being supported by his new partner who works. The date the change occurred is after the date of the 1st change so this is a S115 change – the effective date is the Tuesday prior to teh date the NRp left his employment -the assessment will be nil as nrp has no income.

    The agency have all the details required to progress all 4 changes, the case worker applies the 4 changes to the case on 15/01/2013 and the system will generate 4 letters to the NRP and 4 letters to the PWC. All letters will be dated 16/01/2013 (system always dates them the following day)

    In the body of the letters it will state what the MC is and when it is effective from. If you put the letters in date order according to the effective dates you will see the MCs going up or down accordingly.

    The most I have seen on 1 case is 17 changes.

  • Alice says:

    Carrie – if your husband has told the agency at any point that you have 2 children he has 2 children you need to check if he has been given the correct allowance for these children in the 6 calculations. If he has told the agency and there is no allowance for them then you should inform the agency within 28 days so that the calculations can be revised under appeal

    The agency should also have advised on the total arrears on the case – they are obliged to collect these within 104 weeks (2 years), your husband should contact the agency asap to discuss this and see if the arrears can be collected at a lower rate. The agency can take a maximum of 40% of an NRP’s income for regular maintenance and arrears. Has your husband made any payments by debit or credit card to the agency in the time since the case was opened? If he has asked for the maintenance to be taken from his wages in the past and has followed this request up when no DEO was issued then this should go in his favour when negotiating arrears payments.

  • j says:

    Hi

    You are not alone although your case does seem a bit extreme. I got two letters on the same day condtradicting what was said in each. (oops does that make sense? You know what I mean I hope)

    Anyway, your comment “We cant afford 140 a month we pay full rent no benefits i stay at home and look after our two children and my husband works but seems we would be better off him not working.” is a bit extreme but exactly what I did so again, you are not alone. Some people would have a go at you about that but I understand and I just wasn’t prepared to work for less money than I would have got on benefits.

    ‘Alice’ may tell you what should/shouldn’t happen but obviously it isnt happening or you wouldn’t be on here.

    Still if you want to complain –

    This isnt the csa its an open forum so don’t give names/details etc especially of children.

    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, parliamentry and health service ombudsman through your mp for maladministration.

  • Alice says:

    as per the details in the original post there were several changes of circumstances reported on the case – as the NRP has received 6 letters this would indicate that there were 6 changes reported over a period of time and as such 6 MC’s were done on the case.

    If the agency are awaiting information for 1 change to be provided to allow the change to be progressed and a further change is reported meanwhile both changes must be done on the same day under Schedule 1 Para 15 of Spring Regulations. If pending information being confirmed for the 2nd change a 3rd change is reported again the agency has to all 3 changes on the same day and so on and so forth . Each new change may require evidence to be gathered or confirmation from the other party – wage slips will be required form NPR if they are reporting an increase or decrease in wages (2 months worth if paid monthly, 5 weeks worth if paid weekly) or confirmation of shared care changes from PWC if change in s/care is reported by NRP or vice versa.

    Each change can cause a delay in the case being brought up to date as none of the outstanding changes can be progressed on the system until all required information/evidence has been gathered to progress all changes. Each change has the potential to increase or decrease the maintenance calculation, each calculation done will produce an individual MC letter sent to both clients – hence 6 letters for 6 changes.

    If changes have resulted in an increase in the MC there will be arrears on the case as the increase will be effective from the date the change occurred – if the NRP was up to date with payments and has continued to pay at the rate of the last MC prior to the 6 changes being processed and the MC(s) have increased the NRP will be in arrears. If the NRP has not made payments whilst the changes were being progressed their arrears will be higher. If the NRP has failed to pay any maintenance and has previously been issued with a CSF745 (a/b or c) advising that they have arrears and the NRP has not made arrangements to pay these arrears the agency will impose a DEO, most likely at the maximum 40% of NRP’s income. If DEO has been imposed at 40% and NRP contacts the agency the agency may lower the amount being collected for arrears depending on the amount of arrears outstanding and how complaint the NRP has been in supplying information/evidence when asked to by the agency. If the NRP has not communicated with the agency and has failed to supply information/evidence when requested to do so the agency will be less inclined to lower the rate that the arrears are being collected at. If the arrears will not be cleared in a period of 24 months the agency will not lower the rate that the arrears are collected at. If the arrears will not be cleared in a period of 24 months, even being collected at 40% the agency may consider applying for a Liability Order.

    Carrie – I am not implying that your husband failed to comply in supplying information etc – the answer above is general based on a multiple change case – the only point relating to your husbands case specifically is the 6 changes

  • Sally says:

    @ Alice – don’t the CSA realise how overwhelming it is to recieve numerous letters at the one time from them. In this instance 6 letters were recieved in one day!!! Couldn’t the case worker collated all the information together and explained it on one letter??

    I may be speaking for myself but most of us dread any communication from the CSA because we assume it’s going to be bad news. In this instance Carrie received 6 letters, one of which was 2010!! Isn’t that a flaw in the software (surely it didn’t take 2 years to get to Carries address!?!) or could it be fraud in which the CSA staff are changing dates on documents to make it look like they have been continually communicating the the NRP?? (this has been a common complaint about the CSA staff).

    Sincerely – what would you do in this situation… given the fact the CSA caseworker never calls Carrie back?

    Throughout this whole process the children are being deprived of time with their Dad because the PWC wants more money… it’s sad and I hope you manage to get it sorted out Carrie!

    Thanks

  • j says:

    Hi

    I think ‘alice’ is just confirming a flaw in the system. The information is no doubt correct but it seems to be geared toward making life easier for the person posting the letters rather than having any consideration for the person receiving them. Its how the civil service works isnt it?

    Funny you should mention “…it be fraud in which the CSA staff are changing dates on documents to make it look like they have been continually communicating the the NRP?? (this has been a common complaint about the CSA staff).”

    This happened to me, exactly the same. (then they went for the DEO) When given the choice between conspiracy and cxck up I tend to choose the 2nd one as I don’t think they are clever enough (or evil enough) to do the first.

    Someone forgets to do something, fails to follow procedure then tries to cover for themselves with no care about the devastating effect it has on the recepient, just so long as they meet their targets.

    I say ‘funny’ as another ‘regular’ commentator on here posted something on another thread which caught my eye, it refers to the ‘fraud’ situation you mention. (which is so hard to prove without the aid of ‘whistleblowers’ who film their corrupt/incompetent co workers)

    It said –

    “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)”

    It may even have been a thread on here.

    There you go, see how much nicer it is when we all work together? I’m learning something new all the time.

    Toodle pip.

  • Sally says:

    lol J. things are so much better when we all work together… 🙂

    I know we (the common people) will never make the government see the error of their ways with the CSA system J. but I genuinely believe that the CSA staff could and should do so much more than they are… yes, they are limited to the decisions they make because the are governed by CSA rules but it’s been proven time and time again that CSA staff don’t follow or understand those rules and as a result we (the victims) are left to pay for their mistakes and suffer all the stress associated with the CSA…

    Internal audits of the system should be done regularly to ensure the integrity of the software but also to verify that the staff are not ‘doctoring’ files….

  • carrie says:

    i just feel that no matter what we try to do to let csa know of any changes etc it takes forever to get through to someone who can deal with the case. my husband told csa of our two children and yet the last time they spoke to us they said that they havnt taken them into account because they didnt have my ni number to check to see if i got child benefit for them yet no one mentioned this to us previously, for a system that is about childs welfare etc i think the staff should be trained fully and everyone should understand the procedures that they have. numerous times my husband has agrred to them taking the money direct from his wages and yet they dont which then backs up an we owe more money.

  • Alice says:

    When an MC is progressed on the system the system automatically generates a letter, so each calculation will result in an individual letter.

    The system produced letters contain the information direct from the system to this removes the margin for error that would be there would be if a case worker was typing the letters – information contained in the letters will include the income figure that the MC is based on, how many children maintenance is being paid for (and how many relevant other children are in the calculation in the letter to the NRP), what the weekly liability is and the date the maintenance calculation is effective from. The system also automatically dates the letters so this means a case officer is unable to change the date.

    A case worker will attempt to contact both the NRP and the PWC by phone to explain the order of the MCs and confirm that the current MC is etc

  • Alice says:

    the letters Carrie received would all show the same date as the date the letter was produced, the 2010 date would have been in the body of the letter as an effective date for the MC

  • Sally says:

    Thanks Alice that helps, the system sounds like a nightmare (it must cost a fortune generating all those letters), and based on your response how would the system be able to send letters with historical dates on them to an address the person wasn’t living in at the time the letter was dated?? does that makes sense??

    There are a lot of complaints from PWC and NRPs that they have recieved copies of letters from the CSA with dates on them that were prior to the person living there… i.e. PWC/NRP dispute communication was made and CSA send out a copy of the letter they say was sent but the address on the copy they sent it to is not the address they were living at, at the time the letter was sent….

  • j says:

    Hi all,

    “Alice on January 31st, 2013 10:58 am

    …When an MC is progressed on the system the system automatically generates a letter, so each calculation will result in an individual letter.

    …The system also automatically dates the letters so this means a case officer is unable to change the date.”

    Really ‘alice’, is that really the case, is that all you have to offer the person making the original post? Hmmm, ok but there is some ‘evidence’ that your statement is incorrect. I appreciate you work for the csa and are ‘programmed’ to respond in a particular way but we have a different experience than you.

    I wonder if you read the post –

    “chall on January 30th, 2013 7:43 am –

    …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).- does everything tally on yours ?….”

    Any thoughts on how that got through the failsafe computer system you just mentioned?

  • Sally says:

    I haven’t explained that very well Alice… i’ll try again lol

    I currently live at 123 hope street and dispute the fact that the CSA communicated chages/re-assessment to me and as a result don’t agree with the arrears that have accumulated. I ask the CSA staff member to provide me with a copy of the letter that they say was sent to me (in 2009) and when it arrives the letter has the date of 21 August 2009 but has my current address, I was living at 666 Nightmare Ave in August 2009….

    How does that happen?

    Thanks – I really appreciate your answers as it’s helping me to understand the CSA system a bit better…

  • j says:

    “Sally on January 31st, 2013 11:35 am

    I haven’t explained that very well Alice… i’ll try again lol”

    hahahahahahahahahahaha – really good that post – hahaha

    nice one

    x

  • Sally says:

    I’m trying to keep my sense of humour J. 🙂

    but it was real question to Alice as it happens all the time…… :-/

    🙂 x

  • Alice says:

    @ J – some letters are system generated – MC letters and client statements certainly are – and yes it is more expensive that the system sends out several MC letters rather than having a function to have them all sent in 1 envelope. We do have the facility to re-issue system generated letters to a client if they report that they did not receive it or if they need a copy at a later date. To be honest I do not know what address would be shown on a system generated letter if the address had been updated in the period between the letter being issued 1st time round and it being re-issued. I have always assumed that the ‘re-issue’ button would simply re-issue an exact copy of the original letter – I had a client who asked for a copy of an MC letter from a couple of years previous but as i knew they had recently moved house I copied and pasted the letter (with the old address on it) and after printing it posted it in a non-window envelope to the new address. The system holds 2 addresses – 1 being the clients permanent address and the other being the correspondence address (if the client does not have a separate corr address this is will have the client’s permanent address in it) letters will always be sent to the correspondence address – if the client has a 3rd party representative (partner/parent/solicitor etc) on the file correspondence will be sent to the rep.

    Some letters are not system generated, letters advising an NRP of arrears or asking an NRP/PWCfor information, or letters to NRP employers are not system generated – for these we use template letters and have to enter references, dates, addresses etc in the <> bits of the template.

    When the system is generating the letters it will of course use the address held on the system at the time – the system also auto updates with other Govt systems , so if a client updates their address with another dept (or their employer does on their behalf) the CSA system will automatically be updated as well (this is done electronically and not by case workers) – if a case worker is sending out a ‘template’ letter they will take use the correspondence address held on the system, they may also send letters to addresses that the agency have been supplied as possible addresses for a client as well – all letters sent will be addressed to the client and all envelopes are marker Private and Confidential.

  • Sally says:

    @Alice- just to ensure I completely understand what you have said to j. The system allows CSA staff to produce and issue letters that have templates which allow them to enter dates, references and ADRESSES?? So, in answer to my original point, CSA staff could (if they wanted to) insert whatever address they wanted without any real interest or understanding of their actions?? I.e. the person recieving it is made out to be lying about where they lived at the time the original letter was sent informing the NRP of re-assessment?

    also, the CSA holds 2 addresses as standard even though only one has been given to the CSA??? How can that work?

    I appreciate that when letters are generated the use the current address on the system, however, the NRP is asking for a COPY of the letter that was sent 3 years previous ???

    If you are sincerely saying that letters are sent to “possible” addresses, is acceptable then god help this country because all it makes me think of is the old phrase from One flew over the cuckoos nest…. ” the lunatics are running the asylum”

  • j says:

    No no no lol thats enough of the ‘Indoctrinated’ csa double speak now.

    Stop trying to escuse the inexcusable.

    The post I refered to (courtesy of u no hoo) was quite specific. The data prints, which is meant to be an accurate chronlogical record of events, had a letter that it was (wrongly) claimed had been sent to an nrp, at an address the nrp didn’t live at.
    I mean the nrp moved there subsequently but either you lot have a psychic department OR someone tried to cover themselves by claiming a letter had been sent (when it clearly hadn’t) and inserting something into the data prints OR in other words fraud, a criminal offence, maladministration in public office, (can go to prison for that) this should be ringing HUGE alarm bells for you ‘alice’.

    Meantime, you go on to say someyhing about the communication between government departments thanks to your wonderful computer system (didnt I tell you I knew someeone who worked on it?) and I’m pretty sure in another thread you seemed to state to an nrp that that didnt happen when you were explaining why a particular action hadnt happened, yes I’m pretty sure I’m right on this because I remember mentioning that I met someone who worked on the system. (wait I just said that…)

    Now then, sending a letter to an address an nrp has not moved to yet is one thing, using that to then access an nrp bank account on the strength the nrp is not co operating is a bit more serious.

    Might not be your pay grade ‘alice’ but I seriously smell an Article 8 ECHR breach coming on.

    Hi Sally.

  • j says:

    NB
    ESCUSE? Really must check my spelinig!

  • Sally says:

    J. We really need to stop meeting like this lol lol

    On a more serious not, I’ll follow this thread and let you and Alice discuss as you are saying what I’m thinking 🙂

  • Alice says:

    no – the system generated letters do not allow the user to input anything – the system will take the information that is held in the system and will use that when producing a system generated letter – this will be address, the income and names of NRP/pwc/qc(s) etc

    the templates are separate to the system – they are used when the case worker needs to ask the NRP or the PWC or the employers etc for information – CSF377a for example is a letter that is sent to an nrp if the case worker needs to know what the nrp’s circumstances are since he left his last known employment. There is a CSF377a template which has <> for names, addresses, reference numbers etc.

    the system allows for 2 addresses 1 being permanent address (the address the NRP or PWC lives at) and a the other being a correspondence address where the NRP or the PWC want their csa correspondence to be sent – some NRP’s ask for their correspondence to be sent to a different address as their new partner’s do not know they have a case with CSA, some people want their correspondence sent to their solicitor, a lot of armed forces ask for it to be sent to a named person (parent, sibling etc) as they may be away on training exercises or active duty and do not receive their post. Some people are of no fixed abode (I have a client who works abroad and/or offshore and does not have a fixed residence in the UK, he spend his ‘off’ time either in hotels abroad, staying with friends or family or renting holiday cottages for a week at a time. If a client does not have a separate correspondence address they wish their mail to go to the same details as their permanent address will be entered into the correspondence address section.

    If a client was to ask for a copy of a system generated letter that was sent 3 years ago the options are to tick the ‘re-send’ button on the system- that will literally do as is suggests and the system will re-issue it. If the client has since moved house I would view the letter on the system, copy it, paste it into a word document, print the word document and send it in a non-envelope with the client’s current address hand written on it.

    It is perfectly acceptable to send a letter to an address that has been supplied from reasonable source – NRP employer, PWC, an address that the NRP has been using to to gain credit, address that has been supplied by Local Authority where NRP is registered as being on the council tax register. All envelopes used by the CSA have PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL printed on them, as it is a criminal offence for anyone to open mail addressed to another person if the letter is delivered to an address that the NRP no longer lives at then it will be returned via DLO (marked ‘not at this address’ or ‘gone away’ etc). CSA clients also have a responsibility to inform the agency of their current address, if they do not do so and mail is returned via DLO from the address currently held on the system the agency are permitted to trace the client using various tracing tools available to them. If a current address is not traced for the NRP the agency have the option to send correspondence (in a sealed envelope marked PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL) to the NRP’s employer along with a covering letter instructing the employer to pass this on to the NRP – the covering letter will not disclose details of the case, there will be a reply slip for the employer to complete and return to the agency to confirm that the sealed letter has been passed on to the NRP.

  • Alice says:

    csa system will be updated with an NRP or PWCs permanent address if they change it with certain other govt departments – Job Centre Plus being the main other dept. So if an NRP gave an address as 123 ABC Street, Sometown to the CSA and a month later they sign on and tell the Jobentre they are staying at 17 XYS Road, Anothertown, the JSP system will update the CSA system with the permanent address supplied by the NRP when they signed on.

    If the NRP has stated that he wants his correspondence sent to his mother’s address of 99 The High Street, Anytown, this will remain in the system as the correspondence address and as such this is where mail will be sent to.

  • Vogue78 says:

    My husband had an affair which has resulted in him allegedly being the father of her child. We have a solicitor involved as she was harassing him direct and were in the process of arranging DNA. Unfortunately getting quotes and advice from solicitor has been a slow process and she has become impatient and contacted csa.
    They contacted him with 3/4 calls a day before he was able to return their call and were very surprised to hear he is disputing parentage.
    Surely she should have told them that.
    He has now been sent a letter demanding he takes a DNA test as if he was saying he wouldn’t but had he not told them about the dispute they wouldn’t know.
    The letter is so rude. Csa clearly take the side of the mother from the onset.
    He is happy to take DNA but wanted to then have a family based agreement and not involve the csa. When informed of that the guy from csa just said she wants to go through the agency. I thought the csa was changing and would only get involved if other arrangements didn’t work?

  • Alice says:

    Vogue78 – if the PWC has contacted the CSA and use them then they are legally obliged to open the case. As you husband is disputing paternity the CSA will offer the DNA tests – if he declines the test via the agency then this will be seen as him accepting paternity, if however he goes ahead with the test and is proven not to be the father then the case is closed and he will not be held liable for the test. If he was to do the test privately he would have to pay for it – they are not cheap (CSA use Cellmark and they charge about £300 I think). If he is proven to be the father and he & the PWC work out a private agreement between them the PWC can close the case, if however she wishes to keep it open then your ex will be liable to pay CM through them. If he takes the test and is proven to be the father the CM will be due back to the date they contacted him – might be an idea to play it safe, use the calculator on the csa site and work out what he will be liable to pay weekly if the case remains open and start putting something aside so that he can pay arrears if and when a positive dna is shown.

  • j says:

    “Alice on February 10th, 2013 7:17 pm – if he declines the test via the agency then this will be seen as him accepting paternity, if however he goes ahead with the test and is proven not to be the father then the case is closed and he will not be held liable for the test. ”

    Keep going vogue 78, at some point this type of legal interpretation will be challenged in ECHR, smells a bit like a presumption of guilt, contrary to article 6 and 8 ECHR.

    ‘Anyway, ‘alice’ works for the csa so is obviously right on the point, all I’m saying is that at some point someone will challenge the rule and win, its so obvious, Not having the test means you are guilty??? I plead the fifth! WAKE UP UK JUDGES, ARE YOU ALL ASLEEP?

  • vogue78 says:

    thank you Alice and J
    it is so stressful, she should have to prove he is the father not the other way round. afterall she is also married.
    the CSA shouldnt automatically take her word.
    he is not denying he wont have the dna test but was already making his own arrangements so in my opinion the csa shouldnt take on the case in the meantime.
    its also quite clear from her going ahead and contacting them that she will be difficult with regards to access, something she has never mentioned only been very keen to get his name on the birth certificate for obvious financial reasons.
    his name is not on the certificate for obvious reasons and the child does not have his surname. the child also does not have her married name.
    we have children of our own and i do not want them suffering because of his mistake.

  • carol says:

    Indeed j, using manipulation to rail road someone into doing something they are not obliged to do. Rather like when days of old, if you looked the wrong way, you were accused of being a witch, so were tied up and thrown into deep water. If you came back up to the surface through your panicked writhing, you were indeed a witch and were burnt at the stake. If you didnt, and drowned, then ok, you werent a witch. Too bad.

    If this other woman is accusing someone of being a father, and has opened a case…SHE should foot the dna test bill.

    Takes two to make a baby, and both are responsible, so why is it underhandedly veered towards making the nrp as some scrote who needs to be hauled in and dealt with?

    vogue…you should copy and paste letter leaving out personal details, so the world wide web can see what the csa really are.

    I send you love, this is clearly a raw time for you, I hope standing by your husband is appreciated by him, dont think I could do what you are doing tbh. Also hope he is not the father. All the best.

  • vogue78 says:

    http://www.csa.gov.uk
    child support agency
    If you get in touch
    with us, tell us this
    reference number

    Dear XXXXXXX

    You need to take a DNA test
    We have looked carefully at your case and decided that we have not been given enough
    evidence to prove that you are not the parent of:

    – XXXXXXXXXXXXX

    This means that you need to take a DNA test to prove you are not their parent. Before you
    take the DNA test you must call us urgently. Alternatively please complete and sign the
    reply form sent with this letter, but only if you can not call us, and return it in the pre-paid
    envelope provided by XXXXXX
    When you have agreed to take the test we will pass your details on to a DNA testing
    company, who will organise the test. Please note that it may take up to a month for them to
    contact you. The DNA testing company will not divulge your personal details to anyone
    else.
    If you do not choose either option on the reply form and refuse to take a DNA test, the
    Child Support Agency can assume that you are the parent of the child or children named
    above, under Section 26 (2) CASE AS of the Child Support Act 1991. This legislation
    came into force on 31st January 2001, and these powers mean we can work out an
    amount of child maintenance that you will be legally required to pay.
    What you need to do now
    We need you to respond to us within 14 days. It’s very important that you tell us now if you
    won’t be able to do this, for example if you’re going away.
    If you contact the Child Support Agency after we’ve worked out your maintenance you may
    need to make your own arrangements to prove that you’re not the parent of the child/ren
    named above.
    What this means for you
    If we do not hear from you within 14 days of the date of this letter the Agency will
    assume parentage as indicated above. It is quicker to telephone us on the number on
    the previous page with your decision rather than posting back your response.
    You will need to pay for the test. It’s cheaper If you pay before it takes place. The cost of
    the test is £187.20 if you pay beforehand. If the test proves that you are not the parent then
    we will refund your test fee. Please tick the appropriate box on the reply form if you are
    paying for the test before it takes place.
    What happens next
    We will not give you another reminder of our powers to assume you are the parent of the
    qualifying child under Section 26.
    Also, we will not give you any further offer of DNA testing. If you decided not to take a DNA
    test now but wished to dispute paternity in the future, you would need to arrange your own
    DNA test. If the other parent was unwilling to undergo DNA testing you would then need to
    apply through the courts.
    If you fail to respond to the DNA testing company or if you fail to attend a sampling
    appointment you may need to make your own arrangements to prove that you’re not the
    parent.
    For more information on how we handle parentage disputes, including DNA test costs,
    please visit our website at http://www.csa.gov.uk or read our leaflet CSL304 What happens if
    someone denies they are the parent of a child?. You can download the leaflet from our ^
    website or telephone us to request a copy.
    Reply form – agreement to take DNA test
    Case reference: XXXXXX
    Please sign and date this form and return it to us in the pre-paid envelope provided.
    Please tick one box
    ‘Zl I will pay for the DNA test before it takes place. I wish to pay the fee of £187.20
    in advance. (Do not send payment, as you will be contacted in due course).
    I understand that any monies paid will be refunded to me in the event that I am
    proved not to be the father.
    Or
    I will not pay for the DNA test before it takes place. I declare that I am willing to
    have a DNA test paid for by the Child Support Agency, to find out if I am the parent.
    I understand that if the test shows that I am the parent of the children in the child
    maintenance application made by XXXXXX , I will repay the fee of £252.00 for
    the test to the Child Support Agency.
    Declaration
    I agree to take a DNA test in order to provide evidence for use in a child maintenance
    case.
    I am willing for my name, address and date-of-birth to be disclosed to the DNA
    testing company, if necessary.
    I understand that failure to complete the testing process could result in an
    assumption of parentage under child support law.
    Signature:
    Name (BLOCK CAPITALS):
    Date: / /

    we felt the letter was rude because it was him not her that informed them that dna test was required.i guess its a standard letter.also they havent asked for any evidence. the mother should provide evidence as to why she thinks he is the father.
    Most websites give advice about this sort of thing as though there had been a long ter relationship which had broken down not where there is an affair or one night stand. it is very frustrating.

  • vogue78 says:

    thank you for your compassion Carol

  • Alice says:

    by offering a DNA test to the Alledged NRP the CSA are offering that person the opportunity to prove – at no cost to themselves – that they are not the biological parent of the child. They are also making the PWC prove that this person is the father of the child as they must submit themselves and the child(ren) named in the CSA application for a DNA test to prove that the person they are naming is the biological parent of the child(ren). My mistake – I failed to mention that if the PWC refuses to submit themselves and the child(ren) for DNA testing the case will be closed – if this happens the PWC can re-apply at a later date and again DNA tests will be offered.

    Vogue78 – if it is proven that your husband is the father of this child he will be given an allowance for any children living in your household. I appreciate that this is of little comfort to you as he will still be liable to pay maintenance for the child and that will mean less money in your family budget each month. I hope you get the result you are hoping for

  • Vogue78 says:

    Thank you, does the csa have an email address?

  • >