The CSA is just a weapon for scorned women

September 9, 2012

SO this makes interesting reading. I applied to the court for contact with my child whom i have not seen for seven years due to my ex-wife evasive actions. ON the same evening following the hearing, i got a call from CSA saying i owed £17500.00 in arrears. Yes i do owe arrears but by golly, not that amount. Following week i received a letter reinforcing the earlier telephone call.

I responded asking them to furnish the information that they used to calculate the figure and they sent me what the said is my average wages over the last 7 years. I on the other hand responded by firstly stating that i disagree with the figure and they should utilize their resource to come up with an accurate figure. They promptly responded affirming that the figure is correct – even though its an average – and if i fail to make arrangement to pay they will commence recoverable actions.

I am now in the process of responding and letting them know that their is now a dispute between them and myself and i am expecting the figure to be revised downwards based on the research that they are supposed to undertake. my calculations indicate that the correct figure is more like a third of what they claim i owe.

They have not even asked me why i disagree with the figure but if they persist, its straight to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for this one. it is already a stressful situation and their incredulous pursuit of me does not help especially after raising doubts about the figure.

What i think of the CSA. i think it is a Scorned woman’s weapon. simply


30 Responses to “The CSA is just a weapon for scorned women”

  1. Carol on September 9th, 2012 5:24 pm

    Are you in agreement with the income figures they have used? You could approach HMRC and get your income figures from them for the past 7 years if you do not have all wages info.

    Although you are in disagreement with the CSA they will still try to get the money out of you. If you are in employment they will place a DEO on your salary to get the money. My partner (now ex, because of the frustrations with this Agency) has been fighting for 20 months using their complaint service, MP involved etc. and is only now at Tribunal but in the meantime CSA see fit to take 40% of his salary.

    You have to exhaust the CSA own complaints procedure then the Independent Case Examiner before the Ombudsman would look at your complaint.

  2. karen bedford on September 10th, 2012 7:07 am

    I think your title is very wrong as I didnt want to go to the CSA my ex suggested it because he wouldnt pay, and he ended up paying very little for his children – while he lived a luxury lifestyle, so you are wrong, many woman suffer financially and have no choice but to go to the CSA – IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE TO MAKE THOSE CHILDREN AND SO TWO PEOPLE SHOULD PAY AND SUPPORT THEM! FACT!

  3. chall on September 10th, 2012 7:29 am

    Quote John Reid; What i think of the CSA. i think it is a Scorned woman’s weapon. simply

    ~ That’s simply a narrow minded, sweeping generalisation.

    YOU will need to provide the relevant info, if you dispute the arrears amount and intend getting such corrected.

    Your post gives very little info. To enable correct advice it would be helpful if you confirmed the following…

    Did you initially supply the CSA with income figures to enable a correct maintenance calculation?

    Have you paid any maintenance to the CSA for your child/ren?

    Have you paid any maintenance to the PWC for your child/ren?

    Was the PWC in receipt of benefits when the CSA became involved?

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  4. Sally on September 10th, 2012 8:42 am

    @ Chall – just out of curiousity, do you happen to know what percentage of female/male claim child maintentance through CSA?

    The reason I ask is that (in my opinion) most people see it as sexist (for the female) becasue its usually the mother who is PWC and as PWC raise the claim…

    I certainlty the don’t think the CSA are bias towards anyone in particular but I do think that most of the cases could be avoided if some of the PWC (the greedy ones who are currently getting money from NRP) were not using the system to hurt their ex….

    @ John… I wish you all the best… the CSA will do what they want to get the money regardless of whether is fair/legal or not….

  5. j on September 10th, 2012 9:42 pm

    Have lots of sympathy and still fighting myself but the first comment is pretty good advice I guess. Be warned though the csa is a part of the DWP right, the ‘independent’ case examiner is also part of the DWP so i’m a bit dubious about the ‘independence’ of this part of the process. The politicians are pretty much “all in it together” according to cameron so not much joy there either. The parliamentry and health service ombudsman is a bit more independent but probably has better things to do than worry about us mere mortals but they are worth a try and you do have to exhaust all options before you get there. The courts cant look at the facts of a case and are there to rubber stamp csa decisions but you can apply to have a judgment set aside and a judge then does look at the facts so worth a try. In my case I was advised by magistrates to try for judicial review – again all other options have to be exhausted first and cant look at facts just points of law – interesting point of law is that court of first instance cant look at the facts? Ultimately you cant charge people for money they dont owe so keep fighting. ps does chall ~ afairercsaforall work for the csa or are they just a fan?

  6. j on September 10th, 2012 9:46 pm

    ps probably a bit unfair to say its a ‘weapon for scorned women’ as many working mums who dont have their kids also suffer at the hands of this horrid part of the DWP, probably closer to the mark to suggest that its just a job for low grade civil servants who would otherwise be unemployed.

  7. chall on September 10th, 2012 9:55 pm

    Quote Sally; ‘just out of curiousity, do you happen to know what percentage of female/male claim child maintentance through CSA?’

    ‘The reason I ask is that (in my opinion) most people see it as sexist (for the female) becasue its usually the mother who is PWC and as PWC raise the claim…’

    I haven’t got a clue Sally…

    Some times it appears people are unable to see past their own situation, which can result in unfounded sweeping generalisations.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

  8. j on September 10th, 2012 10:27 pm

    Some times it appears people are unable to see past their own situation, which can result in unfounded sweeping generalisations.

    chall ~ afairercsaforall

    Seems like all of us who have suffered at the hands of this disgusting organisation ‘cant see past’ our own situations. Maybe all the incorrect maintenance assessments were our fault, not the csa? Maybe all the payments people made and were lost were our fault not the csa? Maybe those male pwc that tried to make a claim against an ex wife and got nowhere couldnt ‘see past’ their own situations? Perhaps those people who killed themselves following the intervention of the csa into their lives couldnt ‘see past’ their own situations?
    I’m with you on this one sally, it does seem a bit sexist. Perhaps a Freedom of Information request in this regard would help.

  9. chall on September 11th, 2012 8:28 am

    j, perhaps lay off the playground point scoring and afford those you expect to work with you a little more respect and intelligence.


  10. jenna on September 11th, 2012 9:46 am

    Over 7 years that amounts to £208 per month which would never feed, clothe and put a roof over your child’s head. Maybe you should have thought about paying up earlier or better still not scorning the mother of your child! Paying for your child is not linked to access either. You should have done something about the access situation earlier. You could have saved the money that should have went to your child rather than spending it on yourself – that way you’d have some money to put towards the £17,500!

  11. j on September 11th, 2012 10:50 am

    chall on September 11th, 2012 8:28 am

    j, perhaps lay off the playground point scoring and afford those you expect to work with you a little more respect and intelligence.


    I really have no idea what on earth you are talking about but you seem to be getting a little irked, if you dont like it you can always just go away? You seem to be the only person on here defending an organisation that everyone else is complaining about and when someone says something you dont agree with you resort to petty insults. Are you sure you dont work for the csa? Who asked you to work with anyone? Once again I agree with the points made by sally john and others, we are all on here not because of our inability to see past our own situations but because of the abuses we have faced at the hands of this disgusting organisation. But its an open forum so please feel free to carry on defending them if you like.

  12. John on September 11th, 2012 11:11 am

    Yes! My ex is scorned, but I have dealt with her and she no longer dictates to me or has any control over me.

    However, what I do object to is the CSA attempting to control any part of my life (including finances) as it is f–k all to do with them.

    What happens between me, my ex and OUR children is for us to deal with, so why have our corrupt politicians devised a system to throw out benefits, on which the nrp has no control, and chase then nrp in order to recover those benefits!

    There will come a time when government require my input, may be by voting for Councillors, M.P.’s or Police Commissioners… I will be spoiling all of my ballot papers, and should any of them be unfortunate to knock on my door canvassing, I will be calling the police to make a complaint of harassment!

    They can give it out…………can they take it?

  13. chall on September 11th, 2012 11:18 am

    j, you really are proving yourself pathetic, in my opinion…

    You appear to have an inability to read the posts correctly. Lucky it’s still there for all to see.

    I’ve defended an unfounded attempt to tar all PWC with the same brush (based on the OP personal experience).
    I’ve also asked the OP to confirm some details to enable correct advice to be given re their case.
    I can’t actually locate the anything that ‘defends’ the CSA – perhaps you would like expand and qualify?

    I note you accusation are stuck at suggesting I work for the CSA. It’s slightly disappointing that your unable to be a little more inventive 🙂


  14. Excityboy on September 11th, 2012 11:38 am

    On the 6th of July this year I finally escaped the clutches of these arrogant arse holes. But and there is a “But”, I cooperated and had no real problem except my ex extending her entitlement by not informing Child Benefit of my son leaving school. Believe me, I’m definitely not defending the CSA but there are a lot of people on here who seem to make it worse for themselves. If you have a child, why would you not support it? Even if you totally walk away or the child doesn’t see you for what ever reason. ” My ex wont let me see my kid so I’ll respond by not supporting it”. Guess what, you deserve to get screwed.

  15. Bill on September 11th, 2012 12:43 pm

    I’m new to all this, I’m an NRP and can someone please explain to me that if I have my children 7 out of 14 nights, earn less than my ex and get no benefits unlike her who gets WTC and CB I still have to pay maintenance?? Explain that one CSA fanboys on here.

    It’s costing me thousands to gain access to my children, she’s taking a third my wage due to the FUBAR rules, has the house, it’s contents so I’m deeply in debt already having kitted out a new place from scratch to enable me to have equal and fair access to my kids and in a whim, she tells the CSA I don’t have them and they believe her!! On what planet does it take £172 a week to raise kids? Bear in mind my wife earns more than I do yet that figure pays the mortgage, the school dinners, all the clubs and soem towards food. What does she pay for? Nights out 3 times a week and baby sitters!!!

  16. j on September 11th, 2012 2:15 pm

    chall on September 11th, 2012 11:18 am

    j, you really are proving yourself pathetic, in my opinion…

    Not really interested in your opinion. You really are a very horrid little person aren’t you, you dont like it when somebody disagrees with you so you call them names, how very sad, what a sad little loser you must be, you sound just like some of the people who work for the csa, please keep responding though if it helps you feel adequate.

  17. chall on September 11th, 2012 3:21 pm

    Doh, grow up j.


  18. j on September 11th, 2012 3:39 pm

    chall on September 11th, 2012 3:21 pm

    Doh, grow up j.


    keep going

  19. Sally on September 12th, 2012 10:02 am

    @ Jenna, it’s people like you who give decent females a bad name…. You don’t know the personal circumstances surrounding him not paying for 7 years!!! Some mothers move and CHOOSE not to tell the father thus lose of contact!! some mothers lie and confuse the CSA who in turn, don’t contact the father! There are a lot of reasons this man didn’t pay for his child for 7 years but that is not for YOU to judge or make stupid comments on.

    I also think he has every right to scorn the mother of his child if she is behaving as he says she is…. there are two sides to every story and this is his…. his ex may say something different but it’s NOT your place to judge!!!

    The one FACT here is that the CSA mess up on an hourly basis and this could well be one of those mess-ups!!!

  20. jenna on September 12th, 2012 10:35 am

    Sally, there’s more than one fact here. It takes more than £208 per month to provide what a child requires – fact! The above man could have saved the money to give to his child at a later date – fact! Nrp’s should morally and do legally have to provide financially for their children – fact! There’s no mention in the above story that this man has paid towards his childs upkeep and that his ex has not declared this. It’s actually irrelevant whether he or she scorned either party, the child still needs financial provision from both parents – fact! None of these are judgements! I’m not saying the CSA are perfect but the attitude that we don’t need a law to make nrp’s of either sex pay for their children is laughable. Many people on this site seem to think that the money will go to fund the pwc’s luxury lifestyle. After divorce, nrp’s wealth increases while the pwc’s income decreases. Google dad’s richer after divorce!

  21. Sally on September 12th, 2012 11:07 am

    @ Jenna – The point YOU seem to deluding yourself about that it’s not the monetary value attached to the provision of child care it’s the fact that most NRP’s cannot afford it!!!!! £208 does not seem like a lot of money (in value) but the REALITY is that NRP’s have ESSENTIAL bills to pay before anything else and unfortunately that includes their children!!! 99% of the NRP’s who come on this site are looking for advice because they cannot afford to pay what the CSA dictate….

    I am not disputing any of your ‘facts’ but seem to be avoiding the ‘fact’ that a lot of PWCs deprive the NRP’s of their ‘moral and legal responsibilities’ to CARE for their children when it suits them!!!

    With regards to your statement “Many people on this site seem to think that the money will go to fund the pwc’s luxury lifestyle”… the ‘fact’ is that in most of our cases it’s TRUE!!! Not all PWC’s are ‘morally or legally’ decent!! a lot of them USE THEIR CHILDREN to hurt their ex and get more money and use the CSA/legal system to do so!!!

    As for your last statement “ater divorce, nrp’s wealth increases while the pwc’s income decreases” – that might be the case for some people but the majority of NRP’s have to pay more or the same as the money they previously spent on a joint house now has to be paid alone (when they live elsewhere)…. and they have to pay for child maintenance that was previously part of a ‘joint’ outgoings….

    It’s quite clear you are anti NRP but the FACT is that neither win when the CSA are involved!!! People come onto this site to share their experiences and get advice/help… can I suggest you stick to goodling ‘dad’s richer after divorce’??

  22. jenna on September 12th, 2012 8:38 pm

    Sally, I’m guessing you are a man, an nrp or the partner of an nrp who does not want to pay for his child because it scorns you! Either way you sound quite bitter! I wonder who should pay for this mans child – his ex alone, the tax-payer or his exes new partner? BTW there are other sites with regards to supporting nrp’s with access issues. This site is about CSA issues which would be there whether his ex was scorned or not! By putting the word fact in inverted commas you’ve disputed all my facts (which are staring you in the face obvious facts). Have you anything to support your ‘facts’ or is it based on personal experience and gossip?

  23. Sally on September 13th, 2012 8:57 am

    @ Jenna lol lol lol you are partially correct… I am the partner of an NRP who has paid MORE than the CSA dictated since the moment he split up from his ex (2.5 years before I met him lol) but due to her JEALOUSY AND GREED has used the CSA to make our lives hell….

    I hate to admit it (at least I am honest) but I am bitter towards the CSA because this woman has used the CSA rules and the CHILDREN to cause trouble and upset everyone…. why, because the lazy good-for-nothing expected ME to contribute to her income. She has lied to the CSA (to get more money), lied to her kids (telling them their father doesn’t love them and that I have lots of money that I don’t want to spend on them!!), reduced overnight stays to get more money!!! The list is endless… her daughter was a nervous wreck for almost a year because of her mothers behaviour!!!

    It wasn’t enough that I was contributing to family holidays, days out with the kids, subsidising my ex to make sure the kids got what they needed. She didn’t like the fact that her kids loved me (their words, not mine) and while we were on holiday (with the kids) she went on holiday with her friends…. after telling her kids that she was too skint to afford their school trip (which we paid for).

    So in answer to your comments…. MY experiece of a PWC who has used the CSA is FACT…. so before you come out with any more crap “who pays for this mans child – his ex alone, the tax payer, or his exes’ new partner” might I suggest that you take a good look around you and accept the fact that not all PWC are fair, honest, have morals or, most of all….. put their kids first! 3 years on and she is still the same…. it does get tiring…. my partner is a brilliant father and has always been their for the kids (financially and emotionally – we both have!)

    The reason I put ‘fact’ in inverted commas is that you chose to hightlight each fact from YOUR point of view…. we could go round in circles here but I’ll say it again…. DUE TO THE FARCE THAT IS CALLED THE CSA, BOTH THE NRPs AND PWC are VICTIMS….. there are a lot of decent PWC and NRP’s out there, likewise there are a lot of selfish/greedy PWC and NRP’s…. in MY situation the PWC is in the wrong!!!

    I left the best bit until last…. “Sally, i’m guessing you are a man”… aha ha ha ha how small minded are you….. I am in fact a woman, who has worked hard and rightly feels annoyed that another female can have children and expect me to pay for their upbringing…. while she sits on her lazy backside…. 🙂 lol lol

    So Jenna, I am going to leave it there… i’d appreciate if you’d do the same because we are never going to agree and this conversation is not about you or I, it’s about a man who is trying to deal with the CSA and an ex who has not acted fairly (his words – evasive actions!).

    Thanks – Sally (a female)

  24. brett on September 13th, 2012 6:51 pm

    Love it !!!!

  25. jenna on September 13th, 2012 9:37 pm

    Sally, your situation would make me bitter too so we agree on that. It is however the polar opposite of the above father who has paid nothing so I’ll go back to the question which you feel is crap – if the father has not helped to support his child then who has? It’s either his ex alone, the tax payer or her new partner unless I’m missing something! The CSA has been around for a while and everyone knows that they catch up with you eventually so why not put some money aside for your child if not out of a sense of moral duty then because the CSA will want it at some point. To all nrp’s out there who only pay what the CSA ask and not a penny more, you should be laughing all the way to the bank because the amount does not cover the cost of raising children and someone else is footing the bill whether you believe it or not!!!! If anyone knows how to raise a child on £208 per month then you could write a book about it and make your millions!

  26. brett on September 13th, 2012 10:22 pm

    Jenna… Ive got to come in on this. Sadly the CSA do not catch up with everyone. The people who own their own companies, the self employed, the unemployed and the scum of society either ignore CSA letters until they go away or “cook” their figures on what they earn, with them under paying.The CSA target the easy PAYE nrp’s.
    Im under the CSA 1 and pay what the CSA ask, which is an extortionate amount and Im certainly not laughing all the way to the bank. Ive also been stitched up with over £11.000 of ficticious arrears to a low life that has never worked !

  27. Sally on September 14th, 2012 9:10 am

    @ Jenna – I appologise sincerely as I thought you were referring to my partner in your response when you said ….

    “I’m guessing you are a man, an nrp or the partner of an nrp who does not want to pay for his child because it scorns you! Either way you sound quite bitter! I wonder who should pay for this mans child – his ex alone, the tax-payer or his exes new partner?”

    In the situation regarding the man who wrote the blog, the point I was trying to make was that there was possibly a reason why he didn’t pay for 7 years…. especially when he said he had not seen his child for 7 years due to his ex’s evasive action…. she may have told him she didn’t want any money, moved away and he (rightly or wrongly) accepted that.

    In our situation, his ex did (and still does) all that she can to alienate my partner from his kids and there has been times he has been tempted to walk away (because of the effect it has had on the kids)… and even withhold money (again, I am not saying it’s right, but it was a possibility at one point because things had got so bad…. it was the only thing that would have made her stop what she was doing). So to me, it’s not the polar opposite of this mans situation…. his ex has behaved in a certain way and he responded…. rightly or wrongly….

    The one thing I have learned from all of this Jenna is that PWC (male or female) generally get a lot of support through benefits (rent paid, no council tax, free meals for kids etc) or if they work then are supported by ctc, wtc, cb and child maintenance so it’s not really as though the child has only £208…. it would be £208 on top of all the other benefits the PWC gets??

    How would the PWC survive without all the benefits? if you take away all the benefits that I have mentioned and only took account of the income that was earned through work and then paid a mortgage or rent/food/transport to and from work/council tax (core essentials)….. how much are you left with?? NRP’s get absolutely no help at all…. and only have the money they earn to to survivie on.

    The whole system is unfair and it’s completely neglecting the needs of the children….

    @ Brett – you have it in a nutshell…. the CSA target the sitting ducks, the NRP’s on PAYE and the people with 2nd families …. they produce ficticious arears to make up for the real absent NRP’s who don’t take responsibility for their kids….

    i’ll shut up now….. lol 🙂

  28. jenna on September 14th, 2012 10:41 pm

    Brett, I had a look at CSA 1 as I didn’t know it existed so sorry for my ignorance – it looks like the riddle to find the treasure at the start of an Indianna Jones film or something so I’m not surprised the CSA are screwing up on that one 🙁 I get 20% of my exes take home pay and not one penny more. I’ve outlined below why I feel nrp’s on this rate should be laughing all the way to the bank and the more they earn the louder they should laugh. Obviously, massive errors with the CSA are a different story.

    Sally, apology accepted 🙂 Your situation sounds like a living nightmare. I really came on to challenge the above story for all the reasons already stated. You never know, maybe the above man has a new partner that’s not too happy about subsidising his child. I’m a pwc of 8 month old twins – last month I kept the receipts for food, formula, nappies, 2 ikea basic high chairs, 2 seats and 2 bath seats, basic items of clothing, batteries for toys and it came to £600. That’s before I put a roof over our heads or take them on cheap days out. I’m on mat leave and will be going back to work. I get £533 statutory maternity pay, £650 working tax credit (which I only recently claimed, as contrary to popular belief, I am not clued up on benefits having previously worked 6 days a week), £130 child benefit and no council tax discount or housing benefit. This amounts to £1313 before child maintenance of £300 which is 20% of his take home pay. This means after buying baby essentials I have £1013 per month to look after myself and put a roof over three heads (2 of which need the heating on +++). He has £1200 for himself. Despite this he thinks I am trying to fleece him based on the fact that he feels skint and therefore it must be my fault!! Further to this, I’ll have some child care costs when i go back to work and as i’m going back part time I’ll lose some of my pension contributions.

    Both your stories sound awful and are hopefully not the norm however I would still stand by the fact that when relationships breakdown nrp’s (more often than not dads) usually end up coming off better than pwc (more often than not mums). In my case, prior to my mat leave I earned almost £10,000 a year more than him but I’m now worse off.

    I might shut up now too Sally 🙂

  29. jenna on September 14th, 2012 10:43 pm

    I meant to say the above mans ex might have a new partner that’s subsidising his child!

  30. Brett on September 15th, 2012 9:42 am

    Jenna and Sally… Your comments have made a fasinating read and its good to see youve both made up.
    Were all in this CSA hell together and we should be on here helping/advising where possible, but due to the way the CSA operates it can turn people against each other.
    Best of luck in your respective battles against the CSA.

Got something to say?