Categories
Why should I have to pay another £3800?
Like so many people I am seeing on here, I have been counting the months down until my son’s 19th birthday so as I can get back to the reality of paying off bills and enjoying a reasonable life; only to have a letter through the door to say I am still to carry on paying.
When I speak to the CSA and they keep me on hold for nearly 29 mins, they tell me legislation has changed, we are too busy to advise you, but if your son is still at college, you are to pay until he is 20, therefore another £3800 for what?
12 thoughts on “Why should I have to pay another £3800?”
Leave a Reply
They just raised the cut off age to 20 years of age!! They move goalposts all the time!!
I’m in disbelief, of this I have over 4 years to go as daughter has just turned 14, I have that menta date of when I stop paying, also start the fight to get the 35% of 100% of the marital home that I paid off. Hope you get it sorted
Tell them to get stuffed, it’s legislation not law, child support is legislation not law, you have rights use them
Child support is not law, it’s legislation so there for if its not law don’t pay, tell them to prove its law then you will pay it, they can’t prove it so therefore your not breaking the law
Having done thorough research which we had backed up by two leading solicitors it can now be confirmed that no employer can be fined by the CSA or the Courts. Giving out your employees details to such corporations such as the CSA, Councils and the courts could lead to you being prosecuted by your employee for giving out their personal information without their consent. If any employer receives a Deduction of Earnings Order you should refrain from paying out any monies unless the employee consents to it or the CSA have provided you with hardened evidence that the employee is the liable person. This should be by way of proof by DNA test results or by written confirmation by your employee that he agrees they are the parent. Employers should note that a copy of a birth certificate is NOT proof that anybody is the parent of any child, as the Birth Certificate cannot prove identity of anybody, and it clearly states on birth certificates that they are not to be used for identification purposes. The Birth certificate is a Legal Fiction only, it is Not and we repeat NOT the human being. This is how the government trick the human being into being linked to the Birth Certificate so that the powers to be can then control that human, far fetched it may sound, but it is true, why do you think when you go to court or you are stopped by the police, one of the first things they ask you to do is confirm who you are. We are not names we are human flesh and blood beings that were born freely into this land to come and go as we please, so long as we cause no loss or harm to anybody, do not take another life or commit fraud within a contract, then the powers to be, or corporations as we now know them, have no lawful jurisdiction over us what so ever, we have only been conned over the decades to think they have. If you get a jobsworth at the CSA/CMEC contacting you demanding names of employees and how much their income is, or wanting you to fax over information to them, just ask them to prove the Child Support Act is a law. Do inform them that it is only Statutory Legislation, as is any other act of Parliament, it is an act only, or a game as some of look at it now. If it was a law do you not think they would call it Child Support law, or Road Traffic Law or any other law, we can confirm it is legislation only. If you want to confirm what we are saying is true then take a look at the Blacks Law Dictionary edition 8, you will see it states “Stautory Legislation; a legislative rule of society given the force of a law by consent of the governed” In other words it means they have to have our consent in order for them to be able to control us. Lets take a look at some examples of their statutes in the Child Support Act 1 The duty to maintain (1) For the purposes of this Act, each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him. (2) For the purposes of this Act, an absent parent shall be taken to have met his responsibility to maintain any qualifying child of his by making periodical payments of maintenance with respect to the child of such amount, and at such intervals, as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (3) Where a maintenance assessment made under this Act requires the making of periodical payments, it shall be the duty of the absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made to make those payments. SO next time they demand information and start threatening you the employer with prosecution, just ask the CSA/CMEC to show you the proof that it is a law and not Statutory Legislation. You have no lawful duty to pass on personal details about anybody to a third party company trading as the CSA/CMEC, this is now being proven in courts as more and more employers are now fighting back and protecting their staff. The CSA are informing payroll departments that it is law that Employers must pass on employees income details, and if they don’t then employers can be fined up to £1000. We cannot stress this enough that this is NOT a law, it is only Statutory Legislation which only becomes a law if you consent to it. Having done thorough research which we had backed up by two leading solicitors it can now be confirmed that no employer can be fined by the CSA or the Courts. Giving out your employees details to such corporations such as the CSA, Councils and the courts could lead to you being prosecuted by your employee for giving out their personal information without their consent. If any employer receives a Deduction of Earnings Order you should refrain from paying out any monies unless the employee consents to it or the CSA have provided you with hardened evidence that the employee is the liable person. This should be by way of proof by DNA test results or by written confirmation by your employee that he agrees they are the parent. Employers should note that a copy of a birth certificate is NOT proof that anybody is the parent of any child, as the Birth Certificate cannot prove identity of anybody, and it clearly states on birth certificates that they are not to be used for identification purposes. The Birth certificate is a Legal Fiction only, it is Not and we repeat NOT the human being. This is how the government trick the human being into being linked to the Birth Certificate so that the powers to be can then control that human, far fetched it may sound, but it is true, why do you think when you go to court or you are stopped by the police, one of the first things they ask you to do is confirm who you are. We are not names we are human flesh and blood beings that were born freely into this land to come and go as we please, so long as we cause no loss or harm to anybody, do not take another life or commit fraud within a contract, then the powers to be, or corporations as we now know them, have no lawful jurisdiction over us what so ever, we have only been conned over the decades to think they have. If you get a jobsworth at the CSA/CMEC contacting you demanding names of employees and how much their income is, or wanting you to fax over information to them, just ask them to prove the Child Support Act is a law. Do inform them that it is only Statutory Legislation, as is any other act of Parliament, it is an act only, or a game as some of look at it now. If it was a law do you not think they would call it Child Support law, or Road Traffic Law or any other law, we can confirm it is legislation only. If you want to confirm what we are saying is true then take a look at the Blacks Law Dictionary edition 8, you will see it states “Stautory Legislation; a legislative rule of society given the force of a law by consent of the governed” In other words it means they have to have our consent in order for them to be able to control us. Lets take a look at some examples of their statutes in the Child Support Act 1 The duty to maintain (1) For the purposes of this Act, each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him. (2) For the purposes of this Act, an absent parent shall be taken to have met his responsibility to maintain any qualifying child of his by making periodical payments of maintenance with respect to the child of such amount, and at such intervals, as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (3) Where a maintenance assessment made under this Act requires the making of periodical payments, it shall be the duty of the absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made to make those payments. SO next time they demand information and start threatening you the employer with prosecution, just ask the CSA/CMEC to show you the proof that it is a law and not Statutory Legislation. You have no lawful duty to pass on personal details about anybody to a third party company trading as the CSA/CMEC, this is now being proven in courts as more and more employers are now fighting back and protecting their staff.
Yes moved the goalposts from 19 to 20 years old it took the Csa one day to do this but people are still on Csa 1 and Csa 2 has been on the go for over 10 years this stinks of self preservation from the Csa to extract as much money as possible from there victims !
Child Maintenance age was raised to age 20 years on 10/12/2012. A child at 20 !!!!
Yes it’s the governments way of keeping unemployment figures down, keeps CSA staff in a job so they can hit their bonuses/targets. It also ensures the decent hard working NRP’s have their lives ruined for another year and the lazy something for nothing PWC’s out there, can claim more CM and all the benefits going. ( I do not tarnish all PWC’s with the same brush. Many have been poorly treated by the CSA, with their ex’s pulling all the tricks in the book to avoid paying CM).
I retired and it took the CSA months to reassess me on my pension. I then get a part time job and it takes two days to reassess me.
Wouldn’t surprise me if CM was raised to 30, 40 or even 50 years, in order to keep this vile, odious corrupt organisation going.
Follow the advice given.
Good luck with your case.
I am in the process of telling this lot to f–k off, I am not paying until 20.
Question? Has any non resident parent been given proof of what type of educational course that their paid for ‘child’ is on. No! because the CSA don’t want you to have written proof, in case the course that they are on does not conform to the prescribed course that enables the PWC to claim child benefit.
I have raised this with my M.P. as I am demanding evidence of the educational status, because I believe that I am about to be told lies, defrauded and scammed by the liars at the CSA. Non resident parents should be informed and given verifiable evidence by the DWP, in order that the educational course is valid and the educational status is true!
If I have to I am heading for the courts regarding this. I will decide if I want to continue to support my child, not an a–eh–e at the CSA!
Very good point John.
Brain has been ticking and I have thought of another point overnight that may invalidate payment of Child Benefit from 19 to 20 years.
If a student aged 19 to 20 years attends University, they obtain a student loan, which is paid back by the student if they earn over a certain income, at sometime in the future.
Why, is it different for a student aged over 19, who does not attend university? Why can’t they apply for a student loan and pay it back themselves as an adult?
Why, have the government/CSA brought statute legislation in, that non resident parents have not prescribed to or agreed with, to pay Child benefit (instead of giving a student loan) to an adult?
This variation in standards has to stand up in any legal challenge as discrimination. 1) To the university student whose PWC does not get child benefit, and 2) Against the NRP who would not pay maintenance for a university student.
Has anybody got any other thoughts on this?
John you are correct same as people on CS1 and CS2 are treated differently. the whole scheme is a contradiction and mess.
@ ~ Stuart ~ I have been on CSA 1 for 13 years and have been paying 30% more than those on CSA2 and CSA3.
I have just asked for £8,000 back from the CSA as overpayments. That is 30% of the total that I have paid since 2000.
Squeaky bum time for this lot at the CSA!