These figures seem to have been plucked out of the air

May 16, 2014

Hi, I have ran into a bit of a problem with the csa not for the first time.I left my job in january this year to start anotjer position, which meant I had to be reassesed by the child support agency.

I recived an assesment from them sometime in febuary,according too their assesment my ex partner did not work so contributed nothing towards the claim, somerhing I knew too be untrue.

I contacted the agency to make them aware of this,which they answered with, they would have to reasses my case again and got in touch with my ex partner also so she could be re assesed,my ex partner failed to do this for reasin I can only guess, which has resulted in my case now being closed.

However I am still due the csa money in arerres from the period in january up until march based on what i paid before which was 288.98 a month.I recived a letter today from them stating that I had over paid 569.04 between 3/3/14 to 27/04/14 and as a result of this they have knocked this off my debt and now due them 912.52.

I am finding it hard to work out exactly how they have arrived at this figure surly it should be a lot less if charged at my old amount of 288.98 a month and I am only due 3 months?

I tried calling them which as usual done nothing for me whats so ever as their attitude is much like we’re the csa we can do what we want.

I was also threatend with a doa of 40% too reclaim the money due.pleasebe aware I have no problem paying my due but these figures appear too be plucked out of the air.

Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Comments

  • derek miller says:

    hi. Join the group child support agency – rip offs on facebook. we will then be able to give advice. sounds to me like once again the agency doesn’t know what its doing?

  • jo says:

    If you have all the paperwork to hand see your mp and write a letter of complaint to the csa demanding to know where they have got their figures from. Give up ringing them as it’s costing you. With getting the mp involved you only deal with one person. Best of luck.

  • >