They’re taking money without any DNA evidence?
December 2, 2013
Some years ago I was made aware of a 15 year old boy who may have been mine.the mother who I have no recollection of has told the CSA the child is mine. apparently I am on the birth certificate. the
CSA are taking monies off me for this child without having any DNA proof, solely on this woman’s word. how are they allowed to do this? I have since asked for a DNA test to be carried out through the CSA but they have said that the case has been ongoing for to long for this to be made possible.is this true?
Related
Written by John Cooper · 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
4 years, 1 month ago -
csa arrears after case closed confused?
by
jimgsd
4 years, 9 months ago -
Pay Your Way – Avoid The CSA
by
arealman
5 years, 3 months ago -
Can the CSA find me?
by
amc123
5 years, 6 months ago -
CSA to CMS
by
markburtonmark
5 years, 10 months ago
-
what impact of media for children
by
-
Recent Posts
- Two years battling with CSA!
- CSA: absolute sharks!
- The other side of the argument!
- How can I get help?
- Five months of incompetence!
- Press need multiple complaints to run a story!
- CMS pushing me into a corner – what can I do?
- I’ve had to leave my property – what now?
- CSA rejecting our claim – help!
- Is your latest tax calculation evidence of earnings?
- Court order vs CSA!
- Is there any point carrying on?
- CSA: total rubbish!
- Please read to stop CMS corruption!
- This institution needs looking at!
Categories
- Child Support Agency (111)
- CSA Advice (2,238)
- CSA Complaints (3,200)
- CSA Help (1,018)
- CSA Mistakes (392)
- CSA News (148)
- Events & Protests (8)
- General (1)
- Guest Posts (1)
- Website Updates (9)
CSA Comments
- Single Mam on What happens with CSA now I’m unemployed?
- Guest on CSA Self Employed
- Ayodeji Ayodele on What if I can’t afford to pay the CSA?
- Lorraine on My CSA Nightmare
- Ste on What will the CSA do if you are on a zero hours contract?
- Donna on What is the maximum amount the CSA can take from me?
- Julie on How to beat the CSA
- CT on Why should i pay csa if i was tricked?
CSA Websites
-
Popular CSA posts today
- CSA case worker says R... 4 views | 0 comments
- Ex tries hard not to pay 4 views | 0 comments
- Always record your interv... 3 views | 0 comments
- HMRC confirmed my ex̵... 3 views | 0 comments
- Just Search SEO CSAHell 3 views | 0 comments
- CSA is sexist and always... 3 views | 0 comments
- What will the CSA do if y... 3 views | 0 comments
- What happens when another... 3 views | 0 comments
- CSA say I owe arrears fro... 3 views | 0 comments
- Ex gone contracted to esc... 2 views | 0 comments
Archives
- 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)
I’m afraid that they will presume that you are the father until you can prove DNA evidence to say you are not.
You need to push for this DNA test and then, if the child comes back as not being yours, make sure you take the necessary steps to recover the money you’ve already paid.
Even though the case has been ongoing for a while you are entitled to a DNA test, you need to get through to the Falkirk office, they are the team that deal with paternity issues, if you were not married to the mother or haven’t gone with her to register your name on the birth cert the chances are your name isn’t on it, the CSA do take the mothers word for it that you are the father and you have to really push them to get this DNA test done, we have a group on Facebook called child support agency ripoffs join us we can show you how this done, when your case first opened years ago they will have written to you to ask if you are the father, even if the mother have a “confident address” regardless of you living there because you didn’t reply they will have assumed paternity, but it’s still possible to get this done, you also need to apply for your data file this will show what addresses they have held for you and details of the mother n child etc, never take no for answer, if your adamant this child isn’t yours you need to prove it and quickly before they rob you off any more money
■Then the next thing you must do is order your data prints, you need to send the agency a £10 postal order made out to the Child Support Agency. Then you will send that with the pre written letter and address below. Please remember to add your details too.
The Child Support Agency Data Protection Unit
Room BP6002
DWP Benton Park View
Longbenton
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE98 1YX.
Date NI number
CSA Case Ref
I am requesting you to send me the information to which I am entitled to under Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
I request ALL computer and clerical records and recordings of telephone calls emails etc to which I am entitled, and would ask that the notepad sections of the computer files are dated.
As you are aware you have 40 consecutive days upon receipt of my request to furnish me with the information I require.
If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer or another appropriate official.
Yours sincerely
Paternity – New Application
PWC contacts agency asking to open case – details are taken accordingly
NRP is contacted – initial attempts are by phone if number available, if no answer or no number available NRP will be send MEF (Maintenance Enquiry Form) along with covering letter stating name of PWC and name of QC(s). NRp will be asked if they accept paternity of QC(s) named in the PWC’s application
1. If NRP accepts of child(ren) case is opened.
2. If NRP denies paternity on initial MEF on MEF call or MEF form NRP will be offered DNA testing for QC(s) – this can be only, all or some (exceptions to this is where QC(s) are adopted. New App team will refer case to Complex Case Worker and DNA test(s) will be referred to Cellmark – Cellmark will contact NRP and PWC to make arrangements for tests to be carried out. NRP will be required to attend a specified medical facility (may be their own GP) and must present photographic ID. Tests are taken and sent to Cellmark lab. Results are supplied to CSA.
If NRP is proven to be the biological parent the case will be opened and an assessment for CM will be progressed and the NRP will be held liable for regular maintenance back to the Initial Effective Date (the date the NRP was first contacted by the CSA).
If the NRP is proven not to be the biological parent of the only QC named in the application the case will be closed, the PWC cannot re-apply for this child and this NRP at any point.
If the NRP is proven not to be the biological parent of 1 or some of the QCs in the application the child(ren) who are proven not to be the biological children of the NRP will be removed the case will remain open to include QC(s) who have been proven to be the biological child(ren) of the NRP, NRP will be liable for RM of any QC proven to be the biological child(ren) of the NRP. The NPR will be held liable for the cost of DNA test(s) that prove the NRP to be the biological parent of child(ren), the CSA will pay the cost of the DNA test(s) that prove the NRP not to be the biological parent of child(ren).
If PWC refuses to allow a DNA test the case will be closed (if there is only 1 QC named) or the appropriate child(ren) will be removed from the application if there are multiple children. The PWC can re-apply naming QC(s) at a later date and the NRP will be asked again if they accept paternity of QC(s), if paternity is accepted the case will be opened and assessed, if paternity is denied DNA testing will be re-offered.
3. If NRP accepts paternity on initial MEF call and later questions paternity NRP must advise CSA and will be advised that they are required to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage via the courts. The CSA will not pay the costs of obtaining a Declaration of Non-parentage.
If a Declaration of Non-parentage is obtained the case will be closed – or the appropriate QC will be removed from the case.
If a Declaration of Non-parentage is not supplied to the CSA the case will remain open. Liability for CM for a QC for whom NRP has obtained a Declaration of Non-parentage will cease from the date the paternity dispute is reported to the CSA, if however the NRP reports a dispute and does not take action to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage within a reasonable time the case worker can decide to issue a refuse to review – example of which would be NRP calls CSA 1st March 2010 and states they dispute paternity of QC A, is advised to apply to court for Declaration of Non-parentage but fails to apply until 20th Nov 2010 a case officer may decide to issue a Refuse to Review letter on 30th June (these timescales are not specific). If NRP does not provide the Declaration of Non-parentage within a reasonable time but contacts the CSA to report that there are delays due to PWC not complying with the court the dispute can remain open.
Paternity of QC(s) can be presumed on any application where the NRP does not respond to MEF calls and fails to return the MEF form. If paternity is presumed and NRP later disputes this NRP will be required to obtain a Declaration of Non-parentage via the courts.
Paternity – re-applications
If a PWC closes a case where paternity was previously accepted by the NRP and at a later date the PWC submits a re-application the NRP will be contacted – again initially by phone and if no response MEF form and covering letter – NRP will be asked if they accept paternity of QC(s) – paternity of a QC accepted in a previous case can be denied in a re-application.
Paternity of QC(s) previously denied and proven via DNA testing cannot be denied on a re-app. If paternity is disputed for QC(s) on a re-application DNA testing will be offered on the same basis as paternity denied for QC(s) on a new application
Never ever ring them, they cannot help but lie, the best thing is emailing these people, title your email official complaint, this should hopefully get dealt with, here is a small list of email address that you might need,
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
no it not true . u can get a DNA at anytime might just be better going to see a lawyer