Does the CSA back date payments to the first time they make contact with NRP?

May 15, 2013

I have been with my husband since march 2004, we have been married 7 yrs this July. In October 2004 his former girlfriend gave birth to a boy. The CSA wrote to my husband in dec 2005 and asked if he was the parent, he replied no. The CSA claimed the letter didn’t arrive in good time, and made a deo, in April 2005 the mother contacted the CSA to withdraw her case, it took the CSA nie on a year to contact my husband, the CSA sent a cheque for payments after April 2005. In march 2012 the CSA again contacted my husband and said the same woman had resubmitted her claim.

My husband spoke to CSA and was granted the right to a DNA test. Upon hearing this the woman closed her case. In November 2012 she approached the CSA and reopened the case for a 3rd time. The CSA again agreed to a DNA test, this time she went through with it, the test result came back yesterday, and it is positive, my husband is the father. I’ve done some research and it looks like the CSA back date payments to the first time they make contact with NRP, in our case, December 2005. Is this correct, or do they take it from the date of the DNA result, the date the RP opened this case or another date.

Could somebody please advise as I’m now concerned we have a debt in excess of £30000 and are liable to lose our home


  • Lisa says:

    The CSA can only backdate from when the case was last opened, if the mother has rang and kept opening and closing it then that’s her loss, appeal all decisions though if your not happy with the outcome, good luck, sounds like your going to need it, assessment will come from the dna date, they can only asses from November 2012, make complaints if this isn’t the case, they cannot chase you back to 2005 because the case was closed by the PWC,

  • Sally says:

    I’m afraid it’s from the date the initial claim was made – yet ANOTHER failing with the CSA system…. the PWC can mess the ‘potential’ father and raise a claim as many times as she likes and it’s NEVER rejected by the CSA’!!! The idiots who work for the CSA will say “the PWC is entitled to make a claim as often as he/she likes”…. which is fine but if the PWC decides to cancel then the case should be CLOSED and a new one opened if she decides to claim again….. but that is not the case and NRP’s have been lied to by the idiots who work for the CSA and been told that a case is closed, when in fact, it’s on ‘hold’ which means potential arrears are accruing all the time….

    Greedy PWCs get away with murder and the decent NRP’s are left to pay the price… it’s wrong! wrong! wrong!

    I would suggest you speak with your MP too and try to make an appointment with a solicitor at your local citizens advice bureau…

  • Sally says:

    aha ha ha Lisa – great minds think alike….

    I hope your answer is correct because it seems fair but my understanding is that the claim is backdated to when it was initially opened which is why there have been so many complaints about it… If your answer is correct then i’ll take note for future… 🙂

  • Lisa says:

    @ Sally, that would have been the case had the PWC not rang and closed, there was no case to answer, this means they can only go off the last assessment date from when the case was last opened, x

  • Lisa says:

    It states above the PWC withdrew her claim and closed it, that would mean no case to answer, it also states they sent him chqs so that means he didt have to pay, so seriously I would fight this, I know for a fact that you cannot backdate a claim from a closed case, I have asked these questions for another woman before to prove a point, just hope this poor family don’t get screwed like so many others

  • wilf says:

    Lucy:- The claim can only be backdated to the time your partner received the last maintenance enquiry form (MEF).

  • Sally says:

    Cheers Lisa 🙂 🙂

    quick question, if the CSA put the case on hold instead of closing it (as you say, the PWC withdrew the claim) would this mean that the claim would be valid from from the initial date the claim was made.

    I don’t have any personal experience of this and i’m just curious as the CSA seem to do what is in THEIR best interest (regardless of NRP, PWC or child) and closing the case (even if instructed) is not in their best interest… does that make sense??

  • Macon says:

    There is no way the CSA will get this decision right they can’t get simple cases correct where I see a problem if your ex withdrew the claim and she was on benifits you will be due the Secretary of State the money so she wouldn’t be allowed to do this before 2010 , best thing to do is get your MP on board as it will speed thing up good luck .

  • Lisa says:

    Macon any monies owing would have been from.2008 when the law.changed, @sally, if the case was on hold and not closed then im assuming the rules would apply if an assesment was, if no assesment and cade on hold then there might just be fake arrears turning up on that case, you know what csa are like lol

  • Alice says:

    the change in the law was initially 2006, at which point a PWc in receipt of benefit would receive a set amount over and above their benefit, the 2nd change in the law was 2009, at which point a PWC claiming benefit would be given the full amount of any CM calculation in place at the time

    If the case was withdrawn by the PWC but there were arrears on the case then the case status would be ‘open but withdrawn’ – this means the case would stop charging from the date the PWC asked for the case to be closed, the new liability would be from the date the new application was made. As the first re-application resulted in the PWC withdrawing the application when paternity was disputed this application would be withdrawn. The new effective date would be set by the date the agency made contact with the NRP on the second re-application. Any arrears from the original case will stand and the agency will look to collect these unless the PWC states that she does not want them collected, any SoS debt would be collected by the agency

  • stuart says:

    But Alice the CSA will not tell the NRP that if the PWC does not want the arrears collected they need not be do they Alice.

    Why are the NRP’s in a case not informed of this option?

  • stuart says:

    In fact Alice you do not inform The PWC this is an option you just allow the two families to fall out and NRP to get in debt because you do not tell Parents this do you Alice? Its not your money so why make people suffer for no reason?

  • Sally says:

    @ Alice … So, given the FACT that CSA staff are liars, and thieves, would we all be fair to assume that CSA staff will lie and say that an NRP had arrears so that the case will remain ‘open’ so that another CSa member of staff will come along and lie and say that the previous arrears belong to the SoS so that the PWC cannot say he/she doesn’t want the money collected??….. The end result being that some decent hard working NRP who is a good mother/father finds out years later that he/she is in thousands and thousands of pounds of debt ….. And thinks their only way out is to kill themselves ??? Does this ring any bells… Or touch your conscience in any way???

    Innocent NRPs don’t stand a chance against people like you!!!

  • Sally says:

    @ Stuart – Alice is probably getting rich quick as she seems to know the rules and in a great position to abuse them… She has no standards or a conscience …. She (like all CSA staff) are in a win/win situation… Paid regardless and on to a bonus for lying and crooning NRPs out of money….

  • stuart says:

    Yes but it is quiet clear Sally that Alice does Know the rules and chooses which ones to apply,

    It takes a certain sort of person to do that to another human being in my opinion.

    You decide Alice, if you have the answer and withold it it maked YOU responsible.

    Think about that when you post going forward.

  • Lucy Cooper says:

    Thank you all for your comments, much appreciated. He has decided to make a subject access request (SAR) to the CSA to see exactly what is on file.

  • chaz says:

    It takes two consenting adults to make a child and then one is left holding the baby! What you are all saying is that the pwc is expected to struggle alone whilst the nrp goes off and creates a nice little life? I have been amicable and tried to help my ex have a good relationship with his child yet he refuses to put money in my pocket to feed her, cloth her or even pay for her tohave a life! Like most men when I got the csa involved and he begged me to settle it between us. Six years later I have no money am struggling so my claim has been reopened! It’s not theft, it’s giving pwc the right to help and giving there children a life! The csa do not take money and pocket it! They take money and pass it on! Am I a thief? No im fed up of single handedly raising a child that he sees 2 nights a week but doesn’t support her any other time! That is having your cake and eating it! So let’s not make out that all pwc are greedy! Let’s acknowledge the fact it takes two in the first place!

  • >