I believe the CSA sexually discriminates against men

March 3, 2013

Does anyone know if the CSA has been taken to court over sexual discrimination against men or is it a waste of time? If it was the other way round there would be a right commotion I’m sure.

The reason I ask is I’m a devoted dad and have my children an equal amount of time to my ex.

My ex has a similar income to myself yet I have to pay maintenance. I have them the same amount of time and therefore the same outlays that she has. Food, clothes, extra classes, dads taxi etc …. I feel like I’m paying twice for my children. I struggle to live because I have to pay maintenance and don’t have a social life yet she does, no doubt because of the extra income from me. I don’t begrudge my fantastic kids a penny but the money doesn’t get spent on them. Familiar story to most I’m sure.

I agree in principle that Dads that don’t care and expect to pay nothing should be made to pay, same goes for the women who can also be the same way inclined. Kids ultimately are the priority and should be taken care of but the way the CSA goes about it just stinks.

If I have them equally then neither of us should have to pay any maintenance surely??? The only way the CSA distinguish as the NRP is the child benefit, which my ex cleverly changed over to her name from mine during the divorce, the courts conveniently overlooked this though.

The CSA should look at the whole picture of incomes etc.. and not see each case as black & white using a calculator each time and not just some common sense. It’s morally wrong, is discriminating against men and some fantastic Dads out there who deserve better consideration.

I guess the response will be negative but we live in hope.


  • Alice says:

    can’t answer your question about whether the agency have ever been sued for sex discrimination
    but I can offer a suggestion regarding the situation of you paying maintenance whilst having 50/50 shared care … as you have more than one child and they stay with both parents equal amounts of time, and as csa assign NPR as being the person who is not in receipt of child benefit and assess accordingly – why not both have chb payable, if you have 2 children each one of you could claim chb for 1 and you can both have csa cases open

  • Lisa says:

    Whats the point in having CB paid to both parents!! The CSA would take what they wanted then from both parents regardless, its a horrible system that so many people are fighting against, its very one sided, its all about the PWC which is usually a woman going against the NRP (dad), i know this personally, i have been told alsorts off staff at various offices as a PWC how i can get the money and how long it takes etc, then i ring as NRPP and get spoken to like shit because of who im ringing for, yet the PWC on my hubbys case was told he WOULDT pay not COULDT pay, the CSA caused my hubby and his daughter to fall apart because of there lies, dispicable, where is the fairness in that.
    Fairness for all my arse

  • Alice says:

    the point being that if each parent has CHB each can have their own case – as the couple in this case have similar salaries each would be assessed at similar levels and the current NRP would not be providing equal care but still paying CM for all the children

  • Sally says:

    However, the fact of the matter is that if the PWC who currently gets CB doesnt want to do that Alice, then the NRP is stuck with the arrangements and if the PWC disputes they have 50/50 care (by lying), the CSA will believe her and it will be up to the NRP to move heaven and earth to prove she is lying….

    The CSA is 100% bias for the PWC..

  • browned off says:

    You will find Alice that many PWC will fight tooth and nail through the courts to ensure that there is not an equal 50/50 division of child care. In principle, many are not opposed to equal parenting, but they need to ensure that they remain in receipt of the child benefit and as much maintenance as they can get from the NRP. That the NRP is sharing care of the children and that he is paying twice is of no consequence to some of these greedy ex. wives.

  • Sally says:

    @ Amanda, we went to court, access rights were agreed/set and the PWC did not follow the agreement!! PWC’s are not penalised for preventing his/her child from seeing the NRP!!! the court order serves no purpose at all!

    We gave in… we were fighting a losing battled with his ex and the CSA so, my partner sees his kids less and his ex got more money (the only person who is happy about this is the PWC, the kids miss their Dad and he misses them).

    However, it has a happy ending because we sold our property and bought new property in my name and all money is in my name only… I earn enough to give us (and the kids) a good lifestyle, my partner is going back to college and will be paying his ex the minumum… we have followed the CSA rules to the letter, have notified them etc and have been advised that he will pay £5 per week… 🙂 🙂

    The kids will get more and we will pay less…. 🙂

  • lisa says:

    Jesus i have heard it all now, PWC being male, yeah some of them are but i will tell you this, bet they dont run to csa for cash because there children and spending time with them and not dealing with the csa is probably far more important, yes women cant wait to jump on that phone for cash as soon as the man is out of the picture,
    The above poster should not be paying maintainance at all, infact if anything the case should be closed on the court order showing its 50/50 care,

  • Brian Powell says:

    Thank you all for your comments but alas no real hope has emereged from your emails although they make good reading.

    The reason I said similar income is because my ex earns less salary than i do but the courts got me to sign over all rights to claim cb, tax credits etc and with my maintenance she now has a higher income than me.

    I did fight long and hard through the courts for my children, it took almost 2 years with the decision to award equal time only being made because my eldest was old enough to be interviewed by CAFCASS. The courts however can not take away the right for someone to claim CSA I was told by the judge who also agreed the CSA was a waste of time and would be better if we both settled between ourselves. However my ex is greedy and therefore went to the CSA to get her pound of flesh.

    The money we lost in solicitors fees she will never get back for as long as she claims CSA from me so it backfired on her in that sense at least anyway.

  • Liyanne says:

    My husband is in the exact same position and is pretty much paying for his ex to go on holidays with her new husband and go drinking down the pub (which she drags the boys to on the weekends they’re at hers and they hate it). It would be ideal if we could get CB each and so pay towards each other for one kid, but it’s a different amount for the first child, and there is no way that she would take any cut in money by doing that and accepting a vast decrease in maintenance unless she was made to by laws being on our side to back us up.

    The semi-good news is that CSA 3, which is currently in force for people with 4+ children with the same 2 separated parents, states that no maintenance needs to be paid in 50:50 splits. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/deleg6/120911/120911s01.htm “Parents who share the care of their children to exactly the same extent—a 50:50 split—will no longer be required to pay maintenance through the statutory scheme, resulting in both parents being treated fairly.”
    Information is hard to come by about it, many of the agencies are ignorant about it, but it started rolling out in December 2012 for new cases with 4+ kids. Once all of the bugs are out of the system then it will be rolled out to new cases with 2+ kids from what I have read. The final people to go over will be old cases being transferred from CSA1 in about 2017, though things often take a lot longer with CSA than anticipated.
    Of course, this will then lead to problems with PWC cutting back contact time in order to ensure they don’t lose out on maintenance with 50:50. It’s sad that so many PWC make NRP have to consider money issues so much with their kids and are in such a strong position to do so. I hope this is a step in the right direction but the whole thing is ludicrous that because the state is supporting one parent, usually the mother, then they should also get given money by the other parent no matter of other circumstances.
    Good luck with everything.

  • Daimien says:


    There is a case going to the supreme court, the CSA were found guilty of breaching Human Rights this was won at a European court. They are appealing to the supreme court to try and over turn this. As this is what I thought when they recently came after me. I separated from my partner, as I could not take the mood swings, being a career, parent, provider etc. We had a meeting and I agreed to pay which I have done every week since.

    I wanted to get a family agreement in play but the first chance she got it was off to the CSA after thinking she would get to keep all the money. She was surprised to find out this is not the case.

    When they spoke to me, I was treated like some dead beat. I did not like how I was being spoken to so set them straight on a few facts. When I found out paying from Sky TV and her mobile did not count I cut these off. I have also ensured I pay electronically so there is a record of the transaction. NEVER give over cash unless you get a receipt.

    Now onto some more facts. The CSA assume automatic guilt, no dna test = guilty, no reply = guilty the list goes on. Nothing like innocent until proven otherwise. This is guilty and must pay until proven otherwise. I want to challenge this!! So I have started doing my home work. First off I want to say I will pay for the child in question and have been doing so:

    Everyone thinks this agency has God like powers and can do what they want. They can if you consent to it however everyone reading this blog needs to be aware of a few things firstly this:


    All of the people how answer to Mr, Miss, Mrs are answering to a legal work of fiction designed to allow “debt collection agencies” such as the CSA to claim from you. As a HUMAN BEING this work of fiction is not you.

    Second all the”Acts” such as the Section 26 92) CASE A3 of the Child Support Act 1991 are not Lawful for the Human Being they are OPTIONAL. They only apply to the legal work of Fiction/ Strawman.

    I do not want to open a loop whole so people don’t pay when they should however I do think its unfair and unjust that you can be found guilty of something on another persons say so. are we going to start burning witches at the stake again?

  • >