Lost my employer’s trust because of CSA mistake

April 23, 2010

Recently my CSA payment went from £40 per week to £189 per week. Without my earnings going up by this much. Unfortunately I am on the old system so the 15% rule doesn’t apply to me.

I queries many of the calculations on this with the CSA. Travel to work allowances for over 150 miles per week have been declined – I travel 120 miles per DAY. So reluctantly I gave in and changed my standing order to the new value. Yes it does mean my house it at risk as I may miss mortgage payments etc but the CSA are not bothered by that.

After about a month of paying the new amounts I received a call from my employer. They had received a DEO from the CSA. Fortunately my employer contacted me first rather than deduct the amounts.

Immediately I contacted the CSA. They admitted it was a computer error and my employer shouldn’t have been contacted. However, I took them over a week to tell my employer this. Since this I have been asked by my employer to explain why? I have worked in this job for over 2 months and to be honest my employer no longer “trusts” me.

Were the CSA permitted to do this without contacting me first. The CSA refuse to assist in this matter only stating it was a computer error. I could understand if I wasn’t paying the correct amounts – but they already had 4 payments of the new amount before contacting my employer.

Thanks

Comments

  • chall says:

    Hi IronPaddy,

    As you are on CSCS (CS1), your housing costs should be taken into consideration.

    Click on my user name and join us in the forum at afairercsaforall.

  • charlie says:

    how comes the CSA dont take your houseing costs into consideration anymore?
    surely its every persons ‘human right’ to have a rooof over their head?

    is there no way you could arrange a private agreement with your ex through child maintainence options?

    it would be so much easier then your both in control?

    my ex said she would do it, then changed her mind. it seems a much more simple option though. …

  • >