Women who stop access should have no right to money

151 thoughts on “Women who stop access should have no right to money”

1. @CSAHell. where do the csa get the powers from please tweet back

2. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

3. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

4. child maintenance and access are not linked, the child remains his child regardless of whether he sees her or not. In many cases, and I am not saying that this is the situation with your partner, there is a valid reason for no access, this is a matter for the courts to consider and make a decision as to what it best for the child in each individual case. It does not mean that the child does not need to be supported financially.

   A parent should not think that they can be absolved from paying for their child just because their ex now has a new partner – children are not like second hand cars where ownership and upkeep can be passed on along the line

5. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

6. Hi Lucy, so sorry to hear you are in exactly the same position as myself and my husband. It is really unfair that denied access & money are not related! Am pretty sure if the PWC had to toe the line and be reasonable in order for ongoing payment to be made by NRP that there would be far fewer problems. Infact, if the two are to be unrelated in the eyes of the law, then no reduction should be made for any reason whatsoever – ie when QC spends time at NRPs house etc. This scenario further contributes to the greed of the PWC that with-hold contact on purpose to receive more money in CM. The law is all stacked against the Dad from the offset, with the PWC being taken at their word and the NRP having to prove he is worthy to have the scraps of access he is given at the PWC’s discretion and or mood swings, but at the same time being fair game for a chunk of his wallet wether hes being prevented from seeing the child or not. In our case the PWC has been using PAS techniques for years, and the child is now psycologically affected by this and has serious psycho/medical conditions manifesting itself in him not functioning normally (just one of the repercussions is he is 6 and still in nappies for 1 example) but the PWC is in total denial and either blames his Dad for the problems or doesnt acknowledge at all how serious the situation is. Anyhow, she pulled contact in Aug 11 for a petty reason and we didnt see the child for a year, we are now having to pursue in court and shes still playing games. Oh the joys, just wish she would put the kid first instead of herself and maybe grow up a bit, its all a bit Jeremy Kyle for my liking but i am involved like it or not! Good luck my friend!

7. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

8. “Alice on January 25th, 2013 5:57 pm

   child maintenance and access are not linked, the child remains his child regardless of whether he sees her or not.”

   … I think thats the point that Lucy is trying to make. The argument that the ‘child remains his…’ for the purpose of financial gain or consideration is disengenuous and reflects everything that is wrong with the system. I’m pretty horrified to note the correlation in the number of women and (especially) children that have been killed since the csa started operating. (there is a growth in this so check it out)
   All too often the divorced (or divorcing) ex wife treat men as a ‘cash cow’ with the csa as their milkers.
   Perhaps if financial payments were linked to contact issues (where contact is possible) then there would be less of a rush to the divorce courts, more amicable settlements, and better adjusted children who benefit from both parents, resulting in a better society al around.
   Mind you there would be little need for the csa then which means a whole bunch of low grade civil servants trying to find work in the private sector.

9. Here we go again Alice… “Child maintenance and access ARE NOT LINKED” (dictating CSA ‘rules’), however, the reality of the situation is that the CSA instigated the link by the criteria that the sets the ‘rules’ I.e overnight stays being reduced so that the PWC gets more money!!! Minimise the time the NRP spends with the child so that the PWC can optimise her/his income…… No consideration for the fact that the child is missing the other parent….

   And then you proceed to compare a child to a second hand car?????…. If people’s lives were not being destroyed by CSA advice, your comments might actually be laughable….

10. CSA do not decide whether a person gets access to a child, they will award a reduction in the CM payable if the child stays overnight with the NRP, they do not ‘give’ the PWC extra money if there is no overnight care.

    If you read the original post and then my subsequent comment you will perhaps see that the comment about ownership and upkeep was in reference to the comment :

    New dad her husband so if thats the case my partner should not have to pay

    on reflection I should have used the word ‘responsibility’

11. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

12. to J
    You are morally 100% right as far as im concerned.we are the cash cows and the csa are the milkers.

    sally
    FANTASTIC responce to Alice comments,as usual she/he is just dictating an unfair law and offering jack shit in help.

    Alice
    You really are a case aint ya…go away CSA EMPLOYEE You are biased towards the hand that feeds you.Cant remember who it was now that liked you to the nazi death camps….they knew what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway because it was the law…pmsl, if you had any morals then you would go find another job and stop spouting the csa rules of engagement on here.And another thing..which I know i will never get a straight answer to like Chall….you think its fair that a father gets kicked out of his childs life and is then forced by a government who knows fuck all about him or his family but dictates to him about what he WILL pay to the mother…(.i mean treasury) despite she having a new partner whos stinking rich….you think any of that is fair or even means tested for both parents for a fair and equal amount afterall it took 2 to make that child.Another thing..NO ONE SUGGEST THAT A FATHER THINKS THEY SHOULD BE ABSOLVED FROM PAYING FOR HIS KIDS JUST BECAUSE THE EX MEETS A NEW PARTNER. But HELL its got to be fair..What about when HE meets a new partner…seems to me the csa dont consider his new life after his past one..seems to me that dont matter..hes not entitled to one…hes just milked and milked by this scum called the csa…..running away with myself here now because the likes of you fuck me right off!!

    “child maintenance and access are not linked, the child remains his child regardless of whether he sees her or not”……yes very convenient Alice because the csa can rob rob rob without any worry since the 2 are not linked…easy money…you make me puke cause all you gonna come back with is “its the law” tosser.

    Lucy
    dont listen or at least take whatevev Alice says with a pinch of salt….She/he WORKS FOR THE CSA.

13. trayme75
    Forgive for not mentioning your great comments on this as well
    gonk

14. Joanne Brown liked this on Facebook.

15. Alice on January 25th, 2013 9:53 pm

    CSA do not decide whether a person gets access to a child, they will award a reduction in the CM payable if the child stays overnight with the NRP, they do not ‘give’ the PWC extra money if there is no overnight care.

    lol “award” a reduction if the child stays overnight…pmsl…yer right and the nrp has a up hill battle trying to prove it since the pwc lies through their back teeth saying he does not…and guess what…the csa believes ????? yes yes yes….THE PWC.And this bit is laughable “they do not give the pwc extra money if there is no overnight” no they dont ??? ok lets word it another way..” the pwc gets the “max” money the csa robs from the nrp…theres the incentive for the mother to lie

16. theres a fundamental flaw with this shit outfit called the csa. Its biased and weighted in favour of the pwc and for good reason..its the pwc that it works for ,they are the client
    The pwc needs to prove nothing and the nrp has to prove everything.
    pwc can lie through its back teeth about overnight stays and the csa believes them.
    nrp has to resort to video evidence in cases to prove the overnight actually took place.
    how can a system be sooo unfair for one parent theres no balance.It took two to bring that child into the world..so why when parents split up for whatever reason does this agency put the full burden of cost to support that child on the shoulders of the nrp ? and the pwc moves on to start another life with perhaps a wealthy partner but the ex is bled dry…surely…morally each case at least should be means tested for his ability to pay a fair amount,what he can afford and her needs depending on her circumstances..but as we know,she only has to lie about those and the csa believes her..god knows why the nrp hates this agency.

17. A few mothers stop access,
    Many make access difficult if not impossible in practice.

    Maybe the answer is not in pay them money but vouchers for food, clothes school uniforms etc.

18. Lucy,

    Did your OH have an arrangement with his ex, to pay CS for his daughter, prior to the CSA becoming involved?

    Was his ex in benefits at anytime?

    Is your OH’s CSA calculated under old or current rules?

    The circumstances appear complex, especially as your OH’s child was put on the at risk registar.

    Did your OH try and get child access via the courts during the periods when his ex denied such?

    chall
    ________________________

    Quote Gonk January 26th, 2013 4:30 am; NO ONE SUGGEST THAT A FATHER THINKS THEY SHOULD BE ABSOLVED FROM PAYING FOR HIS KIDS JUST BECAUSE THE EX MEETS A NEW PARTNER

    Lucy henderson 1982 January 25, 2013; I think if the woman stops the man seeing the child they should have no right in the ex money. As she has told him she has. New dad her husband so if thats the case my partner should not have to pay.

    Did I read that wrong ?

    Gonk ‘ …I know i will never get a straight answer to like Chall… ‘
    You get replies, you simply to don’t bother to read them!

    Seeing as your a stickler for straight answers, perhaps you wouldn’t mind giving us one –
    Re; your comment; ‘…go away CSA EMPLOYEE’ – How exactly do YOU propose to assist with other parents, if ‘Alice’ goes away , with rectifying their case, which may be disadvantage because they need to prove the CSA have not followed their own procedure ?
    IF, you are unable to offer the such help, where do you suggest the other parent go to get the info from?

19. contrary to what you think Gonk, the CSA do not always find in favour of the PWC, I myself have recently ‘applied’ a shared care allowance on a case purely on the information and written evidence (no video footage) of 2 NRPs.

    My reason for informing of the CSA legislation on here is that perhaps someone will gt constructive advice or information and be able to use that to resolve the problem they are having – if it were me I would prefer someone to tell me how things work, even if it’s not going to be in my favour, rather than just a lot of angry words from people who don’t like the system. Angry bitter words do not change the situation and they don’t necessarily help people.

20. to KMcQ80 on January 26th, 2013 9:19 am

    A few mothers stop access,
    Many make access difficult if not impossible in practice.

    Maybe the answer is not in pay them money but vouchers for food, clothes school uniforms etc

    This is a brilliant idea but would never happen because it would not benefit the treasury and the pwc would not be able to spend the money on herself and new partner.

    Alice
    you seem to be in a minority in your statement regarding csa legislation and how its intended to give constructive advise,it does not…it only spouts on as usual about this unfair,unjust law.your so called advise will never help anyone,neither will my angry bitter words along with thousands of others anger and frustration due to a shit system that works purely for the treasury,but it makes me feel better venting it along side many others.believe me if I hear of a mass rally and rebellion against this scum..id be right at the front marching to number 10
    honest hard working parents with morals DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT DICTATING TO THEM ABOUT HOW TO SUPPORT THERE KIDS. Let the the courts deal with the idiots that dont or avoid paying for their kids.If you had any morals ? then put them to to good use and find a different job. my voice is simple and I speak my mind and dont give a damm who I piss off.

21. Alice is just a mouth piece,a public relations officer to big up the csa to try and convince people that it does some good..it does not. it neither helps the pwc,nrp or the kids.Do you think I would waste my poor typo skills on this site if this agency was seen to be working hard at resolving parent issues regarding financial help for the kids instead of destroying thousands of life with the misery they cause.
    I want to see a system that actually works and is fair and balanced for all involved.Ideally id love to see the csa gone and all the staff held to account for the misery and destruction they caused.If it were a private company actually earning its keep,it would be sacking staff on a daily basis before finally going out of business for such a shamble of service it provided.
    I am not angry and bitter because I have to pay for my child,that goes without saying and would lovingly give my kids anything their hearts desired if i could afford it.I am angry and bitter because of the csa and how it operates and dictates to me that I will pay and seems to believe anything the pwc tells them.Hell why shouldnt I have a right to know where and how my money is being spent..is it not my right to insist and see proof that the money im forced to pay every month is actually spent on my kids ? No its not my right as far as the csa is concerned..thats what makes me angry and bitter and damm well resentful in paying…cause I know like many other cases that only a small percent of that money is spent on the kids..the rest is beer,fags,new clothes etc for the pwc and their partner..and the csa dont give a shit..so dont dare tell me you exist for the welfare of the kids..thats bollocks…its the treasury.

22. Dolphin Jon liked this on Facebook.

23. @ Gonk – I can assure you that I am not a public relations officer – I am a day to day case officer working in one of the many debt enforcement departments where I work daily with NRPs and PWCs. You do not piss me off, but I certainly seem to ruffle your feathers. I am not denying that the CSA have problems, like any other organisation that works within legislation there will be people who consider that they are getitng a good deal, and others who feel they are being penalised.

    To address your comment regarding taking maintenance back to the courts – this was done prior to the CSA, the problem with that was if the NRP was issued with a court order and failed to comply with it and make the payments it meant the PWC had to drag the case back to court, they had to spend time and money on solicitors and often had the stress of having to be there in court. Equally so for the NRP – they would need to do the whole solicitor bit, this could cost them thousands depending on what they were earning as they may not be entitled to legal aid. Again time off work etc. Chuck in the issue of the courts awarding spousal maintenance and that opens a whole new can of worms.

    I divorced many years back prior to the CSA, went to court initially to sort out access and maintenance money, even the courts stated that access and maintenance was not linked – there were reasons immediately after the split which meant access was not a good idea (this was later resolved and I encouraged access).

24. “Alice on January 26th, 2013 9:10 pm

    @ Gonk – I can assure you that I am not a public relations officer – I am a day to day case officer working in one of the many debt enforcement departments where I work daily with NRPs and PWCs. You do not piss me off, but I certainly seem to ruffle your feathers. I am not denying that the CSA have problems, like any other organisation that works within legislation there will be people who consider that they are getitng a good deal, and others who feel they are being penalised.”

    Hang on a minute, no matter what you say the csa have had problems from day dot, since then the problems have not just continued but have got worse, thats why you, me, Gonk and others are on this forum. Its 2013 or didn’t you know that, plenty of time to sort out any ‘teething’ troubles. Lets face it, the problems are usually the same.

    The court system wasn’t perfect but it did work, the real problem lay with the inabilty of family court judges to do much about enforcement. The whole system was designed to keep solicitors in work by keeping people arguing about trivial issues. Wasnt it section 11 of the children act that suggested joint residence as a standard order? Even Butler Sloss was going to go for it at one point, would have sorted out so many problems but put lots of family lawyers out of work.
    Instead the whole issue became political, new labours attempt at ‘massaging’ unemployment figures by creating ‘non’ jobs for low grade civil servants in areas of high unemployment, nothing to do with child welfare.
    Tell me ‘alice’, not asking for you to think or anything but how on earth does the financial ruination of one parent through an arbitary assesment that takes no account of reality and real life living costs help a child whose parent can no longer take it and commits suicide?
    We’ve all been divorced/separated etc, your personal situation means nothing to me just like mine doesn’t to you. If you had any self respect you would ‘blow the whistle’ on the whole scam.
    By the way, contact is the right of the child, if there were reasons to withold it for their safety then fair enough but if it was for your safety then not good enough as thats what contact centres are for. Still if contact was later re established then good, the best parent is both parents. (in most cases, though not all)
    The csa is a scam, when the politicians (or rather their senior civil service masters) are fed up with it they will shut it down, actually its started with the handing over to direct DWP management so any info you have get it out now, nothing to lose and lives to save.
    ps why are you ‘having a go’ at Gonk? Do you know what they have been through at the hands of this disgusting organisation? Listen up, whatever ‘good’ you think you are doing coming on here with your advice is welcome so keep it up, but do you really think it excuses what you do and the lives you ruin in your day job? Is this your way of clearing your conscience? Big it up ‘alice’, ‘blow the whistle’ YOU could save a life, thats a really good feeling, trust me on that one.

25. I was not aware that I was ‘having a go’ at Gonk – I have made no derogatory comment about him as far as I can recall.

    I acknowledge that the agency have problems, and I have stated previously that the system is not perfect, as with any other system which is governed by legislation there are people it works for and people who it does not work for.

    Equally I have posted responses to NRPs which may be of help in sorting out their problems – I was slated for suggesting that an NRP did not make direct payments to the PWC who was refusing to declare these to the agency and as such the agency was continuing to collect arrears from him. I have suggested to NRPs who’s PWCs continue to claim CHB when a child is no longer in full time education that they provide the evidence of the fraudulent CHB claim to the CHB office and as such take the first steps to having the child removed from the CSA case. But I am considered by some on here to be an NRP hating Nazi

    I do not intend to be drawn into a slagging match on here with anyone and I will continue to post information on how the CSA system works if I think it may be of use to the person who posts about their problem. If someone knows the facts or the actions the agency may take on a case then perhaps someone will be better informed and their situation may be improved

26. “Alice on January 27th, 2013 12:40 am

    I was not aware that I was ‘having a go’ at Gonk – I have made no derogatory comment about him as far as I can recall. ”

    I didnt say you had made ‘derogatory comments, you dont need to do that to ‘have a go’ at someone. I’m glad you dont want to have a ‘slagging’ match either. Please note that while I have my own ‘axe to grind’ at times I try to do so in a polite way where I can. (I’m not perfect either)

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say you were an ‘nrp hating nazi’, just that the nazi’s also used the excuse that they were only doing their job, didnt make it right though did it? They were so well indoctrinated they actually thought that they were the ‘good guys’, well they were not, and neither is the csa.

    As for the chb argument dont you think when an nrp makes an accusation you have a duty to follow it up, after all what do you get paid for, we both know you have a duty to act on info received from another government department and the situation is surely improved for you now that DWP have direct management control? Perhaps a review of internal procedures in light of the many similar cases like the one you mention?

    Just read another post you put on to Molly, not quite advice really, just an explanation of how it should work when you know full well it isnt working. What a waste of time.

    You sleep at night and thats good. I wish you well. My sympathy though lies with the families of the people that have committed suicide as a result of what people like you do for your thirty pieces of silver each day. My sympathy lies with those nrp’s who have been financially ruined by your ‘good work’ as you collect money for pwc’s. (like Molly who still has not been paid by the way, you have her name from her blog, go on alice’, look up her case tomorrow, sort out her money) My sympathy ls with all the children who’s dad’s (or mums) have been emotionally destroyed by the disgusting organisation you seem so ‘proud’ of.
    I’m not being two faced, I seriously mean you no harm personally, I dont know who you are and dont particularly care but I do think you should learn shame.
    As for me, well like I said I’m not perfect, far from it and I have enough problems in my sad pathetic little life to care anymore but let me state for the record, given the choice, I would rather face the firing squad then work for the nazis.

27. Sorry to go back to Alice’s response to my comment above..

    @Alice… You are correct when you say that the CSA do not decide on access but the incentive for the PWC to get more money is to REDUCE overnight stays (as per the CSA assessment criteria) and prevent the NRP seeing their child as a form of blackmail to get more money!!!! what part of my initial comment and this comment don’t you understand…. the CSA rules enforce frustration and heartache to thousands of families…. Because the incentive for the PWC is money…. Not quality time between the child and BOTH parents…. As I have said in previous posts…. If the CSA staff had any interest in doing their job fairly (or had a conscience) they could easily put payments on hold to the PWC until disputes are resolved but the CSA staff believe all that the PWC tells them!!

    @ gonk, j. I completely agree with your points but it feels as though we are flogging a dead horse…. Alice is just a puppet on a string justifying CSAs existence… He/she will never see the reality of any of our situations…

28. we are not paid to investigate benefit fraud, that is the remit of the benefits agency, same as tax evasion investigation is the remit of the HMRC fraud dept. If you think about it logically the NRP will have more information which they can provide to the relevant office in respect if a fraudulent claim, they have the right to speak the the school that their child is/was registered with, they can provide details of where they believe the child is living if not with the PWC – if the CSA called up a school and asked to be told if John Smith is still attending the school would not give them the information.

    further more, the CSA takes a major slagging for the time they take doing what they are supposed to do, ie process maintenance calculations and collect and pay out the money, if PWC, NRP or NRPEmp decides not to comply when asked to provide information there will be delays, this will involve the case worker spending time chasing the relevant party for the information which takes up more time in their working day – yes this is what we are paid for, and we do it as fast as we can, to ask us to investigate benefit fraud as well is unrealistic.

    CSA may well have been incorporated into DPW, it does not mean that we have direct access to CHB information or Tax Credit info either – there are service level agreements between departments which limit the information we are allowed access to, these have to be drawn up in accordance with Data Protection which dictates that only information required for the purpose of the task is allowed to be accessed. A Tax Credit file will contain information on a NRP’s partner and possibly children who are not named in the CSA case, we have no right to know what an NRP’s partner earns in a year or names of children living in their house (in most cases these children will be named as ROCs – relevant other children – on the csa case so that the NRP gets the correct allowance awarded but not all NRPs wish to claim this)

    If you are happy to think that ‘ but let me state for the record, given the choice, I would rather face the firing squad then work for the nazis’ is not ‘having a god – allbeit doing it politely then I am happy to let it go

29. @ Alice…. Was the CSA set up to make sure ‘absent parents’ were found so that their children would get their financial support??? Yes…. Is that what has happened since the CSA was established …. NO!

    PWC who need money because they receive NO financial support from the NRP are ignored and/or lied to by the CSA staff (hence the high level of complaints from PWC)… Because the CSA staff hide behind the data protection act stating that they cannot disclose personal information about the NRP (while we all know that there have been thousands of ‘mistakes’ made by CSA staff who have given private and confidential information to the other parent!!)…. So the PWC the system was set up to help is in fact not getting any help at all from the CSA because it does not investigate the PWC claims….

    Then we we have the NRPs who have ALWAYS been compliant and have willingly and happily paid for their child(ren) for years without complaint, who end up in arrears through no fault of their own but because the CSA have made mistakes, are left destitute and can’t afford to pay their own essential bills… They too are not getting the service from the CSA they would expect given the fact they have followed the CSA ‘advice’…

    How could you and staff like you help the PWC and NRPs?? Quite simply by listening to the facts from both parents (not assume or ignore them because they are too lazy to research what they are being told) and initiating an investigation until the problem is resolved and when it’s been found that the mistake was made by the CSA then the CSA should pay for it…. Not the PWC or the NRP…..

    How do you think it feels, as a decent parent, to be lied to, passed from pillar to post without your questions being answered, ignored and worst of all be spoken to like a piece of crap when all you are trying to do is ensure your child is getting all he/ she needs!??? Teach the CSA staff some manners and educate them on how to treat another human being with dignity and respect…. It would be a start….

30. Hi folks

    “Alice on January 27th, 2013 12:52 pm

    we are not paid to investigate benefit fraud, that is the remit of the benefits agency, same as tax evasion investigation is the remit of the HMRC fraud dept. ”

    You are still doing it, any ‘excuse’ to justify what you do, thats what I mean about no different from the nazis who were ‘just doing their job’, you are not wrong in your above statement so I’m not ‘having a go’ at you, but it is incomplete as you are under an obligation to act on info received from other departments, and as you are all part of the same civil service getting access to that info should be much easier for you than for us, in fact I met a man once who worked on the computer system that allowed government departments to share info to prevent fraud, so when an nrp passes info to you it should be fairly easy for you to verify that info shouldn’t it?

    Again, a quick check on internal processes?

    You are right Sally and Gonk, the ‘world is flat’ brigade still exist. ‘Alice’ is right, we are wrong, nrp’s are liars, pwc’s tell the truth etc etc blah blah. Ho hum.

31. I would state that the CSA do not ‘hide behind’ the DPA – they abide by it – not disclosing information on the whereabouts of an NRP, PWC or QC is the lawful thing to do, if the CSA disclosed this sort of information and someone came to harm I am sure there would be many many complaints – let me ask you this, if you had a brother who was an NRP, the PWC was hacked off cos they split up (everyone has emotions) the CSA tell the PWC where the NRP is living or working, the PWCs 3 brothers went around and beat 7 shades of crap out of the NRP – would you be hapyp with the CSA for giving out his whereabouts. Alternatively, an NRP tells the CSA about his nasty ex refuses to let him see his daughter, he sounds like a lovely bloke, and all he wants is to be able to stand outside the kids school and see that she is ok, happy and healthy – CSA case worker gives the name of the town where the PWC stays and by using this information the NRP checks out the schools in the area, he takes time off work and hangs about the school gates, eventually he strikes it lucky and find the school the daughter is going to – he takes his chance and manages to snatch the child when she is coming out of school. He then goes on to kill both himself and the child – result (quite rightly so) would be the whole country is up in arms. DP is there for a reason, it is not just personal data that it protects, in cases dealt with by the CSA a breach of DP could literally endanger someone’s life. Personally I am happy that we ‘hide behind’ the DPA regardless of how much a client feels they are entitled to the information.

    The whole reason for the CSA is to assess and collect child maintenance payments where couples who are no longer together are unable to do so themselves – this can be for a whole host of reasons, it can be due to the PWC not being willing to sit down with the NRP or vice versa, it can be because they have tried and one side does not think the other is being totally honest, it can be that they have no idea what a ‘reasonable’ figure for CM is – it can be the introduction of a new partner for either NRP or PWC who does not want them to have anything to do with ‘HIM/HER’
    If child support was easy then the CSA would not exist, we are expected to do what a lot of couples are unable to do themselves. Yes there are cases where mistakes are made, some are glaring and in favour of the NRP – error with the income figure for example, the MC letter is issued to the NRP and he notices that the income figure is less than it should be, theNRP does 1 of 2 things, either they contact the agency and inform them that he is in fact earning £500 more per month than is stated in the letter and they CSA rectify the error, or he considers his luck and says nothing, 6 months down the line the error is uncovered when a case officer is doing another assessment and the error is then corrected, the last MC is revised and is now £20 per week higher and the NRP is now liable for arrears going back 6 months. In your statement you say the agency should pay these as it was their error, thus costing the tax payer more money – the agency’s stance is that the NPR is provided with the information on which the MC is based, they know it is incorrect, they have a responsibility to inform the agency that the income details used are lower than they should be but the NRP has decided not to point this out.

    As for being treated with dignity and respect – yes, every client has the right to that, the agency staff should not judge a person or speak to them in anything other than a polite manner and anyone who is not spoken to in an acceptable way should report the case worker to their team manager and request that the call recording be listened to – the same goes for clients, staff are paid to do the calculations and establish payments, we are not there to be shouted at, sworn at, abused and threatened. In my time with the agency the only time I have had a client complaint abut me is the client who f’ed and blinded at me down the phone, make personal remarks and called me every name under the sun, told me he would track me down and ‘sort me out’ – after repeatedly informing her that if she did not stop the abusive language and threats I would terminate the call, the call was terminated and she then called back and demanded to speak to my manager, she demanded that I be sacked on the spot and was told that the call would be listened to. The call was listened to by my manager who did speak to me and the reprimand I was given was for not terminating the call after the first request for the caller to stop shouting and swearing was ignored. That call was extremely but I quote it as an example of what case officers can be up against too

32. “Alice on January 27th, 2013 2:06 pm

    I would state that the CSA do not ‘hide behind’ the DPA – they abide by it – not disclosing information on the whereabouts of an NRP, PWC or QC is the lawful thing to do, if the CSA disclosed this sort of information and someone came to harm I am sure there would be many many complaints ”

    There is a difference between disclosing information and acting on information received.

33. @J

    refer to comment in previous post by sally

    Because the CSA staff hide behind the data protection act stating that they cannot disclose personal information about the NRP

34. once again..I read fantastic post from you guys.
    Sally and J….I read with such interest,I get so lost in your comments..they are awesome.I wish I was able to post such comments that make so much sense and indeed I learn so much from.If I could meet you id shake your hands.I read and say to myself “god she/he is so right..why didnt I think of that” my putting thoughts to keyboard are not very good.
    I thank you for understanding where I am coming from,it helps me deal with the frustration of being robbed by this filth each month and can do nothing about it.

    Alice…Sally is right…I just like many other are pissing in the wind trying to make you understand that we dont need you banging on about what you do and how you do it,why you do it and you do it because its the law.
    The law is rubbish and you will never convince anyone on this site whos screwed by this filth that you are here to help them…you are not..you just enforce what and why the csa exist…we know that already.THE CSA DOES NOT WORK,ITS UNJUST,UNFAIR AND IN AT LEAST 75% OF CASES IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED ON THE PWC’s SIDE.
    And yes I DO EXPECT this agency to investigate benefit fraud..afterall its because of this taking place on a daily basis and the csa doing jackshit about that means nrp’s being screwed even more because the mother lies and gets away with it.
    come on Alice..lets get real…why on earth would the csa care about investigating benefit fraud?? when it can just sit back and keep taking money from nrp’s knowing it can get away with it because its the law.Do you not think you have a moral duty to investigate if you are taking money from a nrp who has argued with you till he’s blue in the face that the child…..I mean adult, is in full time employment and no longer resident with the mother…but you listen to the mother who says the child…I mean adult is still in education and living with her,the nrp can prove he/she is not, but the mother cant prove he/she is,despite this,you still take his money.
    and another thing..why does a father have to pay cs until his son/daughter is 20??
    I thought a child became an adult once they reached 18?? afterall they can drive,get married,get a morgage and join the army.So wtf is that all about??
    tell me will the csa put the age up again lol..maybe 21,22…hey they can do what they want so who knows, we could be still paying cs when your kids are in their 40’s if the csa say so…its a f****ing shame,a scam.
    Alice…the csa has made me resent my kids because it forces me to pay for them, even though their mother only lets me see them on her terms.I see them as a financial ancle chain for the next 10 yrs..and you know why I only see this vision of them now ? because of the csa…The csa have stopped me being able to see my kids even if I could…why? because of the amount of money the csa robs from me.
    The mother knows if i see them little or not at all..she gets the maximum money out of me because the csa tells her she can.She is quite happy for me to see them but all at my expence on top of what you rob from me…you think thats fair? wheres the help for me Alice…dont start all this bollocks about I can do this and that and the csa take into consideration for overnights here and overnights there…because it never believes the nrp anyway..I read this kinda story every day, as usual the nrp has to prove he does…the pwc dont need to prove jack shit….all one sided and biased towards the pwc.
    And you will offer me what advise Alice ? tell me i can take her to court?…thats just laughable…whos gonna pay for that or even help with? You ? the csa…dont think so…I am robbed of so much disposable income each month I cant afford to see the kids let alone take the mother to court.the csa wont help me at all whilst im paying into the treasury with this scam as well as all the other taxes I pay…tell you what..id move to another country where you vultures couldnt touch me and never come back and when my kids ask me why I deserted them I can tell them it was because of the good old CSA

35. Gonk – as previously stated the CSA do not have the facility to investigate benefit fraud, they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files and they cannot confirm details of a QCs educational status or place of residency which would be needed to do so. Benefit fraud needs to be investigated by the correct departments within the benefit agency so your expectation of the CSA doing any investigation is not going to be fulfilled.

    The Govt raised the age of CHB entitlement and also CSA as per 10/12/2012. If a QC lives as an adult, ie leaves education, works full time, claims benefits or becomes a parent themselves etc they will no longer meet the criteria of a QC. Whether the Govt decide in the future to raise the age again I cannot predict.

36. “Alice on January 27th, 2013 4:23 pm

    Gonk – as previously stated the CSA do not have the facility to investigate benefit fraud, they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files”

    What a lot of tosh. I have my data prints which clearly show rehular communication with the csa and the benefits agency who were confirming details of my benefits claim to the agency, giving all details of dates, amounts, address etc.

    Your comments about investigating benefit fraud may be a moot point but the csa had plenty of access to benefit claim files.

    In fact the very contact between departments and the information sharing between the csa and benefits agency are key in my own case, again the rule in Kerr 2004, ‘the agency shall act on information gained from other government departments.’

37. @gonk – you explain your case very well … The system is frustrating because of the assessment criteria and the idiots who work for them…. Again Alice reminds us what the CSA can/ can’t do, and in this instance it’s investigate benefit fraud (child benefit being illegally claimed) and yet it (the CSA) uses child benefit as the key to determining if the NRP should pay child maintenance…. Regardless of what the facts are…. The PWC lies about child benefit and its up to the NRP to prove otherwise but the CSA will continue to expect money from the NRP…..

    CSA staff have the capability to tell the PWC that the NRP disputes the child benefit entitlement and until such time as he/she proves the the child still fits the CSA criteria to receive child benefit I.e. not working, then child maintenance will not be paid…. Put the ball back to the PWC court to prove they are being honest!! If they are it would be easier for them to prove they are telling the truth as they could have a letter from the school stating such instead of the NRP trying to prove they are lying!!

38. Hi all

    Alice on January 27th, 2013 2:06 pm

    “The whole reason for the CSA is to assess and collect child maintenance payments where couples who are no longer together are unable to do so themselves”

    Another crap statement Alice…and I will tell you why.
    The first time I ever had the misfortune to be involved with this filth was when I got a call from some arrogant jumped up sounding jobsworth.He announced he was calling from the csa and informed me he had rang to inform me I will be assessed for cs payments because my ex had opened a case.
    I then said..”well she did not come to me and speak to me about a private arrangement” I went onto thanking him for his call and advised that I dont need the csa’s involvment and now it has come to my attention I will get intouch with my ex.
    He then said that the case is opened and he demanded i gave him a way in which I was going to pay…ie bank details,direct debit etc.
    There was NO effort on his part in offering advise or suggesting I and my ex getting a private arrangement set in place to resolve the issue and suggesting if we did not then the csa will take over.
    I was not given any oppotuinity to make alternative arrangement…he never once mentioned “are you both unable to make your own arrangement” ? He was not interested. I told him to politely get lost in that case.He then demanded i tell him where I worked etc.At that point I hung up…then a few days later my company tell me they had the csa onto them..so how did they get that info ? from the ex…yer you can act on information given I know…but maybe the csa abused my DP.
    the point is the csa made no offer for or even remotely hinted about me and my ex sorting it out.
    and why…because the pwc gives them another nrp on the paye system thats easily robbed and thats a good days work for the csa
    I was given a DOE…and the reason…I was non compliant…non compliant because I argued with them about wanting to make my own arrangement.
    So theres the reality of your f****ing csa Alice…they dont give a shit…”thank you very much caller…we will nail him and make sure he pays heavily for years and years for having kids…oh and we will send you an information pack giving you good advise and tips on how you can maximise your income from your ex…for instance..did you know? if you let him have shared care..you wont get full payment from him so our advise is to go for little or no sharing at all..or just lie to us and we will accept that as well”.

39. Alice on January 27th, 2013 4:23 pm

    Gonk – as previously stated the CSA do not have the facility to investigate benefit fraud, they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files and they cannot confirm details of a QCs educational status or place of residency which would be needed to do so. Benefit fraud needs to be investigated by the correct departments within the benefit agency so your expectation of the CSA doing any investigation is not going to be fulfilled.

    And yes Alice
    As I said before…thats all so very convenient isnt…because it means the csa can legally turn a blind eye and keep taking money from the nrp that it is not entitled to.
    It WILL NOT investigate benefit fraud and neither will the law change to enable it to do so…because that would mean it not being able to remove money from the nrp or payback monies due whilst investigating poss fraud

    Gonk

40. j on January 27th, 2013 4:38 pm

    “Alice on January 27th, 2013 4:23 pm

    Gonk – as previously stated the CSA do not have the facility to investigate benefit fraud, they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files”

    What a lot of tosh. I have my data prints which clearly show rehular communication with the csa and the benefits agency who were confirming details of my benefits claim to the agency, giving all details of dates, amounts, address etc.

    Thanks for this interesting comment J
    I wander what reply/excuse Alice will have ready for this one?

    Gonk

41. another example of unfair play as far as the csa goes
    I applied for a variation on my assessment for cs.I had debt that was in the form of a loan that was taken out to pay for a wedding,honeymoon, wedding dress,rings new car for the ex,home improvements that she wanted..and so yes..debt as a direct result of my time with my ex.
    I told them all about this debt and could only provide a few receipts and loan statement etc.
    The csa are allowed to send copy of my application to the pwc where she could read my comments. They then returned a copy of her respnce to me,her comments said “his debt has nothing to do with me whilst I was with him”

    and guess what?……yes…thats right…my variation was REJECTED on the grounds I could not prove the debt was a direct result of us being together…even tho the dates on receipts and statesment were dated whilst we were together.

    and so to sum up…they believed her simple statement comment as the truth but not mine unless I gave them concrete proof

    about a yr later I got to see my kids and the ex was there and bragging about what a great wedding we had and said “I bet you are still paying for that..lol”
    and I swear on my kids life she said that
    so Alice the pwc does play the system and once again I give another example of a heavily biased system in favour of the pwc.

42. CSA have access to a shared system which will confirm a benefit is being paid to an NPR, they do not have access to the full details of the claim – they are limited to the dates, type of benefit and amounts payable – same arrangement with Tax credits and CHB – this is limited by the Service Level of Agreement between the departments, we cannot see the full details of the claims and as such we cannot see for example when the PWC has last spoken to the CHB office or what she has stated in regards to the educational status of a child named in the CHB claim.

    @ J – if you read what you have posted you will see that I stated ‘… they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files’ – this ties in with your own words ‘ …. have my data prints which clearly show rehular communication with the csa and the benefits agency who were confirming details of my benefits claim to the agency’ – the key word being ‘commuication’ –

    Govt departments will communicate with each other and relevant information will be made available to a department if it is deemed appropriate. Equally the Benefits Agency may be aware that a benefit claimant is named as an interested party in a CSA case, they will not be able to see the details of the case as they have no reason to know that information.

43. debt for your wedding and honeymoon would not be counted as valid grounds for a variation – if it was debt for a car and your ex kept the car then it would have been valid but debt that was for an event and holiday attended by both of you is not

44. “Alice on January 27th, 2013 6:34 pm

    CSA have access to a shared system which will confirm a benefit is being paid to an NPR, they do not have access to the full details of the claim”

    What a lot of tosh. Oh wait I already said that. Still, what a load of tosh!

    “@ J – if you read what you have posted you will see that I stated ‘… they are not allowed sufficient access to benefit claim files’ – this ties in with your own words ‘ ”

    You then go on to state “Govt departments will communicate with each other and relevant information will be made available to a department if it is deemed appropriate. Equally the Benefits Agency may be aware that a benefit claimant is named as an interested party in a CSA case, they will not be able to see the details of the case as they have no reason to know that information.”

    Firstly you are confirming the communication between departments, secondly you are confirming the use of ‘relevant’ information being available if ‘appropriate’ and thirdly you are still (deliberately?) missing the point.

    So contrary to your previous post to Gonk, the csa and benefits agency DO commnubicate and share info. In addition, information is ‘relevant’ if it affects the amount of an assesment. Also it is ‘appropriate’ if the csa withold info to the benefits agency that a claimant may be ‘on the fiddle’, or they fail to act on info given to them by the BA, as per the rule in Kerr. As you know Kerr 2004 is case law, its not a moot point, you (the csa) have no say in it as it forms legal precedent which you are bound to follow, look it up.

    I’m not trying to ‘prove a point’ or ‘have a go’ or get on your wick in anyway but you are wrong (or at least incomplete) on this point.

    I may be reading it wrong but it seems you had info, could have checked that info with another government agency, and apparantly failed to follow legal precedent relating to co operation between government agencies.

    Oops.

45. Alice on January 27th, 2013 6:47 pm

    debt for your wedding and honeymoon would not be counted as valid grounds for a variation – if it was debt for a car and your ex kept the car then it would have been valid but debt that was for an event and holiday attended by both of you is not

    Alice..if the honeymoon/holiday was attended by both of us…why is it not relevant in a variation when both parties were on that holiday? why is it that the debt is purely on the shoulders of the nrp ?
    why does debt for my wedding not count? I didn’t marry myself…this is such a scam..lol
    Also I told the csa that the car was part of the debt I provided for the pwc and she took the car with her…..just another case of the csa on the pwc side in order to keep the max assessed for him to pay in place.

46. seems to me Alice from your comment that the pwc can walk away from a marriage with no care in the world with what shes left behind and the nrp is left to clean up the mess with the added bonus of being robbed to pay her for the priviledge…no wander you both work in harmony…and as for the nrp….he continues to pay of the debt left behind plus being screwed by this agency.
    this is the nuts n bolts of it Alice and why this agency is hated so much…its all on the side of pwc…whos put in a claim for this filth to rob and pay the treasury….f**k off we don’t need you and your agency
    Gonk

47. Alice
    if you cant see the moral issue in my last comment ? then you are a waste of space devoid of any emotion and programed as a robot to serve its master

48. Dolphin Jon liked this on Facebook.

49. the reason that the wedding/honeymoon costs are not valid is that you made the choice to pay for them and not ask your ex to contribute – same as you would not be able to apply for a variation based on the cost of taking the ex and kids on holiday. Variations cannot be awarded for mortgage or rent arrears, outstanding utility bills that the NRP has agreed to pay. They can be considered if the NRP has on going car finance for a vehicle the PWC has kept, paying mortgage on the house the PWC and QC(s) are living in after the separation, current gas/electric bills for the house the PWC and QC(s) live in and things like installing a new boiler, paying roof repair bill etc for the house the PWC and QC(s) live in. A variation order is not valid for mortgage on the marital home if the PWC has moved out and into another property. An NRP can also apply for a variation if the incur costs in order to have contact with the Qc(s) – air fares, train fares or petrol costs if they live over a certain distance from the QC(s) , hotel bills if NRP needs to stay overnight etc (if the NRP gets weekend access and needs accommodation for the Qv(s) this can also be applied for) these have to be realistic, NRP cannot claim towards the British Airway flight if Easyjet offer suitable flights, and hotels should be premier inn or travel lodge as opposed to high cost hotels. the variation would not be made for the whole cost of the travel costs and accommodation but an amount towards it. shared care and contact costs will not both be awarded,

50. my god…I read your first line and had enough…you are so full of shit Alice