Operation of a Deductions from Earnings Order?

December 8, 2012

I’ve recently been told that when a DEO is in place there is a requirement for the NRP to tell the CMEC in writing within 7 days if they leave their job and that its a criminal offence not to do so. Also that the CMEC must be informed in writing if you get a new job.

I’m told this has been the position since April 2008. Is that correct, is it a criminal offence not to tell them you have left your job, even if they find out from the jobcentre?

Also

What was the position prior to April 2008?

Comments

  • stuart mitchell says:

    Even if you do tell them, they lose the letter and wait for arrears to accrue as a result, then they can ensure a DEO is issued with no concern for the NRP. you then have no way to challenge the amount set. Why are no media reporting this human rights issue it all stinks.

  • chall says:

    Quote jc; I’m told this has been the position since April 2008. Is that correct,

    No!

    It’s been the position since 1992.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  • j says:

    Interesting. I have an ICE report that appears to claim in the annex that – “Since 6 April 2008, where a Deduction from earnings order is in force, the non-resident parent must notify the agency in writing within seven days if they leave their employment.” This is a direct quote of a report I’m questioning for a number of other errors. It suggests to me that A. the compulsion to report the change only came into force in 2008, or B. the criminal sanction only came into force in 2008? Any comments?
    In addition – I found this website (might interest you stuart?), its www.http://www.dwp.gov.uk/resourcecentre/ria.asp which suggests that the ‘rule’, (whatever it is, only came into force in 2008, ” On what date will the policy be implemented? 6th April 2008″, although it isnt clear if this is the rule about reporting or the rule about getting information from banks? What is clear is that the csa recognise the potential breach of Article 8 of ECHR – “Human Rights
    There is a small risk of challenge under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
    (right to private and family life). However, we believe that the policy is justifiable in the wider
    public interest and the interests of the parent with care and qualifying children in ensuring that
    non-resident parents meet their financial obligations to their children.”
    This concern is due to the intrusive nature of compelling banks to give out private information when no crime has been committed, this would tie in with the recently acknowledged breach of Article 6 ECHR where Court of Appeal clearly stated that there is NO onus on an NRP to prove they dont owe maintenance, the onus rests with the csa to prove their case. Any comments please?

  • j says:

    PS Notwithstanding my previous comment it should be noted that legal precedent – Kerr [2004], clearly states that the csa should act on information received from another government department even if the NRP does not notify them of the change.

  • chall says:

    ~ Section 15 (2) A liable person in respect of whom a deduction from earnings order is in force shall notify the Secretary of State in writing within 7 days of every occasion on which he leaves employment or becomes employed or re-employed.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1989/part/III/made

  • j says:

    Saw the section but where does it say about the sanction power for failure to comply?
    I am trying to find out why the ICE said 6 April 2008?
    Again legal precedent in Kerr [2004] covers my position, is accepted, no argument there.
    Its the ICE report I’m trying to unpick.
    Again – did the ‘criminal’ sanction come into effect before 2008 (becuse I didnt get a fine of £1000) or after?
    As for regulation in section 15 (2) – remember there is NO ‘onus’ on NRP to prove they dont owe any maintenance according to Court of Appeal, so if section 15 is relied upon and rule in Kerr ignored then its an ‘official error’ as the csa are under a duty to act on information received from another government agency. In my case they were informed by local jobcentre that I made a claim, they were also informed by employer with P45, but failed to send the appropriate enquiry form.

  • tomy says:

    Your required to inform the csa of any change of address by giving at least
    seven days notice .You are not legally required inform them that you are leaving
    your employment.If you don’t inform them the csa wont change your circumstances.
    if you loose your job its a good idea to inform them in writhing if you are seeking
    employment and no longer in employment,they should then adjust your payments
    accordingly.

  • tomy says:

    just to add on my paper work from the csa it only states,It is a criminal offense
    for anyone paying child maintenance to fail to tell us of a change of address.
    and if you dont tell us within seven days you may be subject to criminal
    proceedings and a penalty of up to £1000.I have searched though all my
    paperwork and at no time have I read anything about being legally required
    to inform them about any change in employment.If there is then can someone
    let us know here.then a FAQ on those main points could be put in its own
    section on this site.

  • j says:

    You see folks this is what I mean, so many conflicting bits of info. The link given by chall states –
    Information to be provided by liable person

    15.—(1) The Secretary of State may, in relation to the making or operation of a deduction from earnings order, require the liable person to provide the following details—
    (a)the name and address of his employer; .
    (b)the amount of his earnings and anticipated earnings; .
    (c)his place of work, the nature of his work and any works or pay number; .
    and it shall be the duty of the liable person to comply with any such requirement within 7 days of being given written notice to that effect.
    (2) A liable person in respect of whom a deduction from earnings order is in force shall notify the Secretary of State in writing within 7 days of every occasion on which he leaves employment or becomes employed or re-employed.

    BUT I have an ICE report that appears to claim in the annex that – “Since 6 April 2008, where a Deduction from earnings order is in force, the non-resident parent must notify the agency in writing within seven days if they leave their employment.” This is a direct quote of a report I’m questioning for a number of other errors.

    I’m questioning this because I think it relates to the csa ability to investigate bank accounts. Now, ‘tomy’ says that “You are not legally required inform them that you are leaving
    your employment.” which contradicts the section 15 notice so who is right?

    This is important for me, already got the csa on the rule in Kerr [2004] but also taking the ICE to task.

    The csa are already reeling from the Article 6 ECHR Court of Appeal ruling, the DWP are worried about an Article 8 ECHR challenge because of the snooping into bank accounts. Work together and we can beat them. Please help.

  • tomy says:

    @ j

    I wrote according to what I am aware of,meaning whats written on my paper work
    sent to me in my case,it could well be the case that those with a DEO might
    be legally required inform of a change of employment circumstances,while
    those paying by other means are not,I would expect it to be written on
    the back of the letters if you had to inform of a change employment
    circumstances,

    It would make sense to put it under the section where they put It is a criminal offense for anyone paying child maintenance to fail to tell us of a change of address and if you don’t tell us within seven days you may be subject to criminal proceedings and a penalty of up to £1000.So why don’t they?Then again I
    suppose that would be to easy for them ,We all know there is no logic when
    the csa are involved .It would be a idea for a simple FAQ outlining those
    points on this site.

  • chall says:

    Quote j on December 8th, 2012 7:01 pm
    Saw the section but where does it say about the sanction power for failure to comply?

    It’s there, go through the legislation…

    The onus is placed on the NRP by the word “shall” which generally means, in statute, regulation, by-law, etc, is required by this rule to.

    – section 32 (8) CSA 1991!
    ‘If any person fails to comply with the requirements of a deduction from earnings order, or with any regulation under this section which is designated for the purposes of this subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence.’

    chall

  • j says:

    Just had another look at the legislation, found that section 32 (2) H puts an obligation on the employer to inform the csa if employee leaves and to do this within a specified time, but doesnt say the specified time. In my case the employer told the csa 2 and half months after I left, confirmed with csa stamped receipt notice even though csa told ICE that they only found out 4 months after I left.

    section 32 (3) (a) states employee has to let csa know within specified time but doesnt state the time (must be stated elswhere) and notably doesnt state how the csa should be informed. In my case a claim for jsa was made when I left, the jobcentre told the csa within a week.

    Just had it confirmed that under rule in Kerr this satisfies the criteria and in my case the csa are at fault for failing to act on that rule, which is legal precedent and places an obligation on them to act.

    Still cant find the bit about a fine but have found that if the csa want to take further action, ie commital proceedings they have to apply to magistrates, who are at liberty to refuse, and following the Court of appeal ruling re Article 6 breach, are less likely to go ahead with commital. Remember there is no ‘onus’ on an NRP to prove their innocence, ie no ‘onus’ on them to prove they dont owe the money.

    Notwithstanding that it still doesnt explain why in my case the ICE stated that “since 2008” except that the ICE made a mistake in interpretation, which is fine as it gives me an excuse to challenge the rest of the ICE report. Cheers.

  • >