Have you ever given the CSA a lower wage because you couldn’t afford the full amount?

December 1, 2013


After being told we’d be left alone on a default maintenance payment (DMP), surprise surprise they’re badgering asking for wage details/salary. A complaint went in (July 2013) re arrears they have conjured up despite paying everything we were asked to pay…dating back 3 yrs!

So we agreed to a DMP to be put in place until they sorted out the complaint and arrears we contest. Well NOW they’re saying they can’t deal with the complaint until they have salary details!!

They have contradicted themselves over and over but it’s now getting nasty. Today I was threatened with legal action if I didn’t give salary details, I complained and asked to be put through to a Team Leader/Manager. The Manager told me we can give a salary figure over the phone without wage slips, is this true???

PLEASE anybody have you given a salary amount lower than you actually get (cos you can’t afford the massive amount they would say you have to pay if they got hold of the actual salary!!) and if so what happened??


  • Bill says:

    They would have left the default maintaince decision in place had not a complaint been received.
    Less trouble that way.

    You can try giving ficitous wage details but if there is a request for a revision or a further complaint and verification is requested what will you do then?
    They might request wage slips, a P60 or contact the employer or even consult the HMRC.

    If the NRP refuses to supply correct information they will be deemed non complaint and a DOE imposed then you have lost control!

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Hi Bill, it’s the PWC pushing the CSA as the PWC is greedy and although wiping the NRP, my partner (I am NRP partner) out of his kids lives by poisoning them against him..he hasn’t seen them for over 3 yrs, no contact at all…..so the PWC is happy to have him vanish from the kids lives, yet wants to use him as a salary!!

    Who in these days of penny pinching, struggling to pay for bills etc, can honestly afford to have 20% (for 2 kids) lopped off their salary??

    There should be a fairer calculation, taking into account the PWC and the NRP income, after all if both parents are 50% financially responsible for the kids, then why assess one parent and not the other?? Not very human rights friendly. And as for a DOE, well that’s in breach of the employment law act. Yet the CSA seem to go unchallenged and are seemingly a law unto themselves.

    incidentally, we now have a DOE as a result of not paying the full amount, as they went to his employer for wage details, despite him writing to his employer stating he does NOT give his permission for them to tell the CSA anything!

  • Corryn says:

    They use information direct from HMRC (if your non compliant) and can see exactly what tax and national insurance you pay hence they will know you are lieing if they check and you will be in big trouble, i wouldnt if i were you, its not worth the risk. They dont need to ask you your income details – they already know them so its a bit of waste of time asking, nice of them to be courteous though eh!

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Hi Corryn, yes I gathered they go straight to HMRC. So much for data protection huh!! So the CSA are above the law with the Human Rights, Employment Law and Data Protection….great.
    All the time my partner has had no contact AT ALL for over 3 years, and his kids poisoned against him as she (PWC) wants him eliminated from her life and the kids lives..YET she (PWC) is happy to use him as an ATM…..funny that huh??

    The CSA %’s are unfair and the majority of NRP’s cannot afford 15/20 or 25% taken from their salary AND pay their own essential living costs, I am not talking anything other that basics, food/housing/heating!
    I am NOT saying they shouldn’t contribute financially, just that the current %’s are unfair and unjust, seeing as the PWC doesn’t get assessed. BOTH parents are equally financially responsible for their kids, so BOTH should be assessed not just the NRP.

  • Marcus Lasance says:

    ” So much for data protection huh!! ” It’s called joined up government! Should someone be on housing benefit if they owned and rented out properties in another town? I don’t think so! Anyway the DWP may ( and should have) access to HMRC data But they don’t use it to good effect. The NRP in our case was on a £5 a week payment schedule of arrears of £12,000. I would love to get a loan on those rates. We calculated we would be 143 years old by the time of my wife’s last payment.

    Meanwhile we had to find out on http://www.linkedin.com that the NRP was is a well paid managerial job and had been since July 2012. After alerting the CSA of his ‘change of circumstance’is is now paying a more reasonable £ 450 a month to pay back the arrears built up over 15 years of ducking and diving.

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Marcus, I don’t understand your reference in your opening remark above. I haven’t said people should get HB if they owned multiple properties as a business. In fact I haven’t mentioned anything about HB.
    I disagree that data protection laws apply to some things and not to others.
    I think the issue is that the CSA’s policies and procedures are completely unfair and unjust. The experience you had with the CSA dealing with a NRP just as wrong as our experience – how my partner as a NRP has been treated!

    Maybe if the CSA calculations took into account the NRP essential living costs and then made a fairer assessment, then there would be less NRP’s trying to do all they can to avoid paying it!!

    Most people could not survive having 15 – 25% of their wages lopped off to pay maintenance (and in a lot of cases up to 40% of their wages!). What good does it do the children to have a destitute parent? A homeless parent, or a parent who had to give up his/her job because the CSA payments mean they don’t have enough money to even get to work!

  • Marcus Lasance says:

    Sorry Victoria if I did not make myself clear. The housing benefit was an example, an analogy. CSA is part of Department of Works and Pensions. It would be silly if they could not have access to NRPs tax records. Its part of the same organisation so Data Protection laws do not apply in the sense there do not have to be chinese walls between them. Otherwise a certain type of deadbeat parent would just lie and lie. We had one like that on another CSAhell post asking if it was OK to lie about his earnings, just to get a lower assessment. That’s looking for a solution in the wrong corner. The rules have to be made more fair. Not NRPs resorting to lying. As always two wrongs can never make a right!

  • Marcus Lasance says:

    Oopss.. not on another post. On this post and by you!!! You are usually more sensible 😉

  • Mrs Beckham 2 says:

    Hi Marcus,
    Thanks for clearing that up about HB, I thought I had missed something!

    I understand all that about DWP/HMRC being able to access information.

    I can totally understand a NRP asking about lying about earnings, knowing that by giving the correct amount would see him/her homeless. Like the example I gave to the DWP (Caxton House dept responsible for the CSA policies and procedures) if the NRP gets £400 net weekly income and after taking all basic essential living costs off (rent/mortgage, council tax, heating, food), is left with under the CSA’s maintenance assessment figure, then that’s just not right, or fair! It’s actually in breach of the NRP’s human rights ‘the right to an adequate standard of living’.
    Hence my post asking have you ever given a lower wage (yes a lie) to the CSA because you know if you give the correct wage you won’t be able to pay your bills! And I don’t mean debts or holidays!

    Two wrongs do not make a right….whilst I agree, there is also the needs must argument, and if you know you will end up repossessed because the CSA have left you without enough to live on and refuse to allow for this in the calculations…..then what are your options??

  • Roy Austin says:

    I would like to know how the csa can justify the method of calculation it uses as its inherently unfair. My partner and i have a child each. Now Child benefit is given at x amount per week. no variation 1 child gets x amount 2 children gets x amount. Now out situation may not be the norm eg a child each but here is the quirk. i earn about 3 times what my ex earns. both our kids are around the same age mid teens. So i have to pay her %?? of may wages and she has to pay the same % out of hers but i get less!! or looking at it another way i have to pay her more. How is that fair.

  • anon says:

    By providing your income evidence verbally there is always the temptation to give an inaccurate figure. However, if it is found that the information given was knowingly misrepresented, then the case itself can be revised back to the original effective date using the correct information. This can be done 1 month, 1 year or 10 years down the line as there is no timescale for a revision of this kind.

    This could then result in a huge arrears amount being calculated due to backdated rise in your assessment.

  • >