I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me
I am embroiled in an ongoing battle with the CSA which has been going on for over 10 years. I have 6 children and when my husband and I split 4 of them were school age. Most of the time my eldest son lived with his father and I was assessed and had to pay maintenance for him.
All fair you would say except that I had the other 3 with me and as my ex husband was self employed!! has managed to evade having to pay any maintenance at all to me for the last 10 years. Currently I still pay support for my youngest two, who are now aged 18 and 16 and living with their father. Both have left school and my ex husband is now living on benefits.
As a result, even though he owes me money for back child support the CSA will not collect it until his circumstances change. In addition, the ex is also claiming child benefit on the basis that the children are in full time education when in fact one of them has been working full time since September and the other one has attended college for even a day. Ive reported this to the child benefit agency and to the CSA but what do I get – nothing.
The only time they contact me is to chase a payment. In dealing with the agency over the years I have in fact managed to obtain compensation for their failures on my case – hooray you say – £75 was my compensation for them not obtatining child benfit payments. Not bad to bring 3 children up for 10 years!
I am increasing frustrated by the manner in which the CSA operate, it is so geared towards the parent with care, even if that parent is lying throught its teeth to claim benefits. Im not sure how loud I have to shout to get my voice heard but it seems that the ex has a louder one so he gets heard first. I now have another complaint ongoing. Has anyone ever taken their case to tribunal??? Is it worth me proceeding that far?
15 thoughts on “I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me”
Leave a Reply
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
RT @CSAHell: I paid ex for one child while ex paid nothing for three who lived with me: I am embroiled in an ongoing … http://t.co/tkP …
It is called the child support agency, by definition the child is with the parent with care. Who else should the agency be “geared” to?
@ wilf – CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY by defenition should be geared towards the best interests of the CHILD!!!!!
Not the PWC… both parents love their child equally!!!! The CSA is 100% bias towards the PWC…
Sally:- Does it not depend on whose care the child is in where their best interest lie?
In regards to the original post in this thread I have to stated that the CSA are legally obliged to continue a case where CB is in payment – if you as the NRP have proof that the children for whom CB is in payment for do not qualify under the CB criteria this needs to be dealt with by the CB Office – if and when they find the claim to be fraudulent they will cease CB and you can get the CSA case closed.
In respect of CSA being 100% biased towards PWC, I can personally say (and I can only give my word) that I have ruled in favour of NRPs on 2 cases today alone, both were issues where the PWC was claiming NRP was providing false earnings (1 case overtime undeclared and 1 case PWC claimed NRP had 2nd income from a business he owned) – in both cases the NRP was asked for evidence of income and provided sufficient info to satisfy me that the income they had declared was true and accurate. In the past I have also dealt with the difficult issue of shared care where PWC and NRP are stating different number of nights – again the decision is made on ‘best available evidence’, sometimes the decision is in favour of the PWC and others it is the NRP.
@ wilf – in an ideal world where emotions and feelings (jealousy and greed) are not involved then it would be correct to assume that the person the child lives with (CSA = PWC) puts the welfare of the child first, but as we have seen by the complaints on this (and many more) websites …. it’s not the child that comes first, its money and this is dictated by the CSA i.e. minimal overnight stays with the NRP = more money!! Lying to the CSA about NRP income results in potential DEO…. both of those affect the welfare of the child significantly!
minimal overnight stays/access to the children is detrimental to the relationship between NRP and child!!! CSA believe the word of the PWC and CONSISTENTLY ‘LOSE’ correspondence that proves the PWC is lying and as a result the NRP pays more money and the child misses out on days out/treats from the NRP!!
@ Alice – I appreciate that you feel that you are fair in the decisions you make in job but by the amount of complaints about the CSA staff that are sent, it’s quite clear that for 1 of you there is approximately 100 of the other (unfair, ignorant, opinionated and arrogant) staff who make matters worse!!
I realise how negative I am coming across but the CSA is not interested in the ‘welfare of the child’ it’s a money collection service…. children and families are being torn apart because of the CSA…. decent PWCs and NRPs are being victimised while the lying/cheating PWC’s and NRP’s get away with murder!!
There are a number of comments made on this, and other websites, regarding PWC’s who claim Child Maintenance from NRP’s when financially they are able to support the child(ren) without claiming CM – this is often put down to greed, spite or whatever on the PWC’s behalf. I have read many times, and have heard many times in my working day, ‘The PWC does not need the money, his/her job pays more than the NRP’s’ … and yes, I have seen cases where the PWC does no NEED the money to cover the day to day expenses incurred in bringing up the child(ren) due to them having a decent job with a decent salary. On the face of it it could be assumed that they are just doing it out of greed – however, Child Support is not simply about covering the basic costs of supporting a child, it is about giving the child the best possible lifestyle by both parents contributing. An NRP should want to give their child the best that they can in life, whether they remain in a relationship with the other partner or not. There will always be kids who’s parents are able to provide them with more in life than others – some kids get a caravan holiday, some get to go to Florida and see Mickey Mouse, others get to go nowhere – this is the case regardless of whether their parents stay together or live apart.
Yes, some PWCs (men and women) will claim their child support and spend it on things other than the welfare of their child – unfortunately the CSA are not in a position to dictate what the PWC spends the money on once it is paid out to them.
Until the ideal world of everyone having the same level of morals and no-one having emotions then child support is going to be a difficult issue for everyone – it’s not easy to work out who’s to pay what to whom and how it will be paid and all payments being made correct and on time … if ti were then there would be no disgruntled NRPs, no disgruntled PWCs and no CSA.
To address the point of PWC’s lying to the CSA about NRP’s earnings – the agency request evidence of income from the NRP in the first instance, if this is not supplied they will then approach the employer – it’s not based on what the PWC says.