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?
Written by jc · Filed Under CSA Advice
Related CSA Posts
Comments
Tell us your CSA story
Do you want to be heard?
Tell us your story of how the CSA has treated you. We might be able to help, and could publish your tale on the website to make sure everyone knows about the problems you've had.
Forum Login
Child Support Agency Poll
Loading ...CSAhell.com on Facebook
Search CSAhell.com
Child Support Agency (CSA) Advice
CSAhell.com has been set up to help you with your child support agency problems. If you're having difficulty getting the CSA to listen you can tell your story here. Get advice on dealing with the CSA at CSAhell.com.Subscribe
Enter your email address to receive child support agency advice and news direct to your inbox.
Recent Forum Replies
Recent Forum Topics
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
5 years, 10 months ago
-
csa arrears after case closed confused?
by jimgsd
6 years, 6 months ago
-
Pay Your Way – Avoid The CSA
by arealman
7 years ago
-
Can the CSA find me?
by amc123
7 years, 3 months ago
-
CSA to CMS
by markburtonmark
7 years, 7 months ago
-
what impact of media for children
by aliceshaun
-
Recent Posts
Categories
- Child Support Agency (112)
- CSA Advice (2,239)
- CSA Complaints (3,218)
- CSA Help (1,019)
- CSA Mistakes (392)
- CSA News (148)
- Events & Protests (8)
- General (1)
- Guest Posts (1)
- Website Updates (9)
CSA Comments
- Jayne on HMRC confirmed my ex’s lies to CSA
- Clair on CSA Self Employed
- Dontbeajudge on My ex won’t even give money for birthday presents
- kostakis Kleanthous on What is the maximum amount the CSA can take from me?
- Dave on My ex is lying to the CSA – what can I do?
- Ts on Will the CSA take my new partner’s earnings into account?
- Kate on How to beat the CSA
- unfair on How to beat the CSA
CSA Websites
-
Popular CSA posts today
- Do the CSA have to leave... 12 views | 0 comments
- Child left college but CS... 9 views | 0 comments
- Not allowed to see my Kid... 9 views | 0 comments
- What will the CSA do if y... 7 views | 0 comments
- How do the CSA know if I&... 7 views | 0 comments
- Can child maintenance dis... 7 views | 0 comments
- I hired a private detecti... 6 views | 0 comments
- CSA payments for child on... 6 views | 0 comments
- Ex works cash in hand so... 6 views | 0 comments
- How can I reopen my case... 6 views | 0 comments
Archives
- February 2024 (1)
- January 2024 (4)
- December 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- July 2023 (1)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (1)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (1)
- December 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- May 2022 (1)
- April 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (1)
- January 2022 (4)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (4)
- October 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (5)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (7)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (2)
- June 2020 (2)
- March 2020 (3)
- February 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (3)
- September 2019 (6)
- August 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (7)
- March 2019 (1)
- February 2019 (8)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (7)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (5)
- May 2018 (9)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (6)
- February 2018 (32)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (20)
- October 2017 (15)
- September 2017 (14)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (10)
- June 2017 (19)
- May 2017 (20)
- April 2017 (16)
- March 2017 (19)
- February 2017 (14)
- January 2017 (15)
- December 2016 (15)
- November 2016 (35)
- October 2016 (26)
- September 2016 (13)
- August 2016 (23)
- July 2016 (22)
- June 2016 (16)
- May 2016 (21)
- April 2016 (20)
- March 2016 (27)
- February 2016 (29)
- January 2016 (23)
- December 2015 (25)
- November 2015 (30)
- October 2015 (31)
- September 2015 (29)
- August 2015 (30)
- July 2015 (70)
- June 2015 (91)
- May 2015 (93)
- April 2015 (90)
- March 2015 (93)
- February 2015 (84)
- January 2015 (83)
- December 2014 (77)
- November 2014 (86)
- October 2014 (94)
- September 2014 (89)
- August 2014 (94)
- July 2014 (93)
- June 2014 (91)
- May 2014 (93)
- April 2014 (82)
- March 2014 (83)
- February 2014 (83)
- January 2014 (97)
- December 2013 (100)
- November 2013 (122)
- October 2013 (124)
- September 2013 (120)
- August 2013 (126)
- July 2013 (124)
- June 2013 (122)
- May 2013 (124)
- April 2013 (120)
- March 2013 (117)
- February 2013 (63)
- January 2013 (96)
- December 2012 (93)
- November 2012 (92)
- October 2012 (95)
- September 2012 (91)
- August 2012 (93)
- July 2012 (93)
- June 2012 (103)
- May 2012 (93)
- April 2012 (66)
- March 2012 (65)
- February 2012 (64)
- January 2012 (73)
- December 2011 (75)
- November 2011 (75)
- October 2011 (99)
- September 2011 (60)
- August 2011 (62)
- July 2011 (68)
- June 2011 (61)
- May 2011 (75)
- April 2011 (66)
- March 2011 (68)
- February 2011 (62)
- January 2011 (68)
- December 2010 (64)
- November 2010 (60)
- October 2010 (62)
- September 2010 (61)
- August 2010 (66)
- July 2010 (65)
- June 2010 (61)
- May 2010 (65)
- April 2010 (60)
- March 2010 (64)
- February 2010 (46)
- January 2010 (23)
- December 2009 (26)
- November 2009 (44)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (8)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (30)
- May 2009 (14)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (5)
- January 2009 (5)
- December 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (8)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (20)
- April 2008 (28)
- March 2008 (11)
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.
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
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?
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.
~ 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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
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.