Categories
If the CSA are asking for more than you owe, it’s fraud
Hi, If the amounts are wrong and they are asking for more than the amount you owe is then simply its fraud. Fraud is a crime in the uk so ring your local police with the evidence and they will get procesuted.
I am in the middle of doing the same. The Law: In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent, and verb is defraud. Fraud is a crime and a civil law violation, though the specific criminal law definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud. Go straight to the police.
Good Luck
6 thoughts on “If the CSA are asking for more than you owe, it’s fraud”
Leave a Reply
Hello how can you work out for yourself what you owe? What is the sum you use. Thank you
It’s a pitti I can not do that the other was round with the amount my ex ows and I still having to pay his bills off lol
is this true? has it been done before?
Please keep us aware of your progress and result.
I’m sure the CSA will play the long game ie drag things out so you loose interest and baffle you with legal jargon.
Best of luck!
The level of fraud is now quiet frightening and you are correct obtaining money through alledged arrears is illegal without the evidence to back up the claim, Every company whom you pay a bill to, will provide an itemised statement so you know what you have to pay and can challenge any errors, The CSA for some reason avoid this at all costs, You will recieve a letter stating,
You have not paid enough child maintenance in the past.
Hmmm no evidence no explanations? Totally immoral and illegal tactics.
Hi, Yes this is true. You can take it to the police as it is illegal? The CSA have to ask for the correct amount or will face procescution. If you can prove that the amount is wrong they will be procescuted. Cases are being squased in court on the human rights to a fair trial as they have to get the amounts right first not allegations. Here is the write up from the telegraph
Home»News»UK News»Law and OrderChild maintenance powers ’emasculated’ after court ruling
Absent parents who fail to support their children may no longer be threatened with jail after a court ruling against a Government body set up to pursue them.
Photo: ALAMY
By John-Paul Ford Rojas
6:00AM GMT 31 Oct 2012
Senior judges said that the loss of powers would leave the chid maintenance enforcement regime “almost completely emasculated”.
The Court of Appeal ruled that “muddled” procedures used by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in the separate test cases of two fathers had breached their human rights and said it should take urgent steps to correct them.
Lord Justice Ward said the ruling, which lifted the threat of jail from two men who were said to owe almost £13,000 in arrears, was made with “considerable reluctance”.
He acknowledged that it threatened to “draw the teeth” from the powers which can be used to threaten imprisonment or driving bans as a “last resort” to make recalcitrant parents pay.
“Without the carrot – or the stick – of commitment (to prison) the chances of recovering arrears of child support are very significantly reduced, if not almost completely emasculated,” said the judge.
Related Articles
Absent fathers to be fined up to £500 for missing child support
13 Jul 2012
Spanish doctor ordered to pay child monthly maintenance after botched abortion
24 May 2012
Child benefit cuts could prevent people working overtime, experts warn
30 Oct 2012
“This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.”
But the judge, sitting with Lords Justice Richard and Patten, said the “muddled” methods used by the commission had wrongly given the impression that it was for absentee parents to prove their innocence.
Ruling that the fathers’ rights to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached, they concluded: “The procedures adopted do not comply with the rights to a fair trial and were flawed accordingly.”
One of the cases involved 44-year-old Kambiz Karoonian, from Ormskirk.
In February last year, Mr Karoonian was handed a 42-day suspended jail term by magistrates. He was ordered to pay £1,000 a month of the almost £11,000 arrears he was found to owe or go to prison.
Mr Karoonian, the father of two sons aged under ten, insists that he does not owe any arrears, and that he is a responsible father who is also in regular contact with his three teenage daughters from two previous relationships.
Lord Justice Ward said that the wording of court summonses issued to him and to a second father in a linked case had wrongly implied that they bore the burden of proving that they did not owe the arrears claimed.
The failure to provide material evidence against them and the “muddling up” of issues relating to their means also contributed to the conclusion that they had not been given a fair hearing.
Mr Karoonian’s barrister, Richard Gordon QC, said absentee parents were being dealt with by magistrates by the hundred in cases brought by the commission, without being given a fair hearing and on the basis of flawed calculations of their arrears.
The court heard that between 2005 and 2011, the number of suspended jail terms imposed for non-payment of child maintenance rose by 449%, from 225 to more than 1,000, while there was an 800% increase in parents actually going behind bars.
The Department for Work and Pensions said 30 were jailed last year.
Following today’s judgment, a spokesman said: “It is extremely disappointing that parents who have flouted their legal responsibility to financially support their children have invoked the Human Rights Act to seek to continue to do so.
“Regrettably, we need every enforcement measure at our disposal to ensure the minority of irresponsible parents pay for their children.
“It is important to stress that this judgement does not question the legality of bringing parents who repeatedly refuse to pay for their children to the attention of magistrates, who can then decide whether to send them to prison. We will of course consider any other implications of this judgement carefully and take the appropriate action.”
The work of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was taken over by the Department for Work and Pensions earlier this year.
It had previously succeeded the failed Child Support Agency, which struggled to calculate how much money it should claim from absent parents, and with computer problems.
Hahaha. Justice at last. The funny part is it is fraud but they won so who’s complaining? By the way have you noticed that it is almost all of us with the csa who have wrong amounts asked for. Strange how its all changed since this case.