‘You cannot be the parent in care if you do not claim child benefit’ says CSA

June 11, 2011

I am just going through CSA hell and my ex wife abusing the system to extract as much money from me as she can – including huge great fraudulent lies – which unfortunately the CSA have no interest to investigate. As an example, I “cannot have been looking after my son because I was not claiming child benefit” explanation below :-

My ex-wife drove my son out of her house just before christmas. I work out of the country so I arranged that he could live at my UK house (he is 18) and paid him a living allowance while he was there. Unfortunately her emotional blackmail got to him and he moved back to hers after three months. Now get this :-

I sent a letter to the CSA explaining the situation so I could get back the maintenance I had paid to her during the three months, so they phoned her and asked if it was true – she said there had just been a misunderstanding for a couple of weeks but he had been under her care for all that time. The CSA took her statement as fact and never replied to my letter – instead they re-assesed me again without getting in contact with me at all!

When I phoned in and complained they said that the most they would do is ask if she was claiming child benefit, if she said that was true then that was proof enough. Even worse I could not counter her claim unless I could PROVE I was claiming child benefit for that period.

Well great I work hard and dont take from the state what I don’t need – so I hadn’t bothered claiming child benefit.

Is it me or does the CSA discriminate against non-resident parents – particulary those who are working hard and not draining the state?

The burden of proof is for the non-resident parent to provide – where as the resident parent can get away with fraud and be backed by the CSA!


  • geovanni smith says:

    yes – the CSA discriminates against NRPs. I am now a PWC but still remember the feeling of being treated as runaway father.

    CSA staff do seem to have to work to a set of rules that allow good NRPs to suffer as the price of being tough of the reckless

  • Danny says:

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that the CSA discriminate against NRP’s It’s just that they are manned by temporary staff who don’t give a stuff whether they do the job right or not and as the CSA’s line is “We don’t make mistakes” there is no incentive for them to do so.

    Quite frankly I think it’s fair to say that the CSA are the most incompetent organisation that have ever existed anywhere in the world and it’s just unfortunate that NRP’s are the ones being made to suffer.

  • Kathy says:

    I fully agree, my hubby finished paying for his 2nd daughter last June, when she left school at 18, his ex then got in touch with thecsa again, to complain, they sent us a bill to say we owed the remainder until she turned 19 in the October, we paid the ex some in cash and the remaining amount to the csa. Jubilant and stupidly on our behalves, we got rid of everything that resembled proof, thinking we were free of payments, to return home from holiday to a bill of £2000, which they say we owe and we now have to proove she has been paid, not her who is lying about the fact – no wonder people actually kill themselves over this organisation, the law protects the guilty in these circs and nobody seems to want to listen!!

  • the real resident parent says:

    I am in a similar situation (ish). I have my sone and my step son 4 nights per week. dispite providing the csa with all the evidence they ask for im still assumed as the nrp dispite having the kids more nights per year than her.
    They gave me a great line when i pointed out its fraud they said . we dont get involved in proving anything we are just here to collect the money on behalf of the parent with the cb . get that in your name and we will leave you alone.

  • Sarah says:

    I’m assuming your son is in college? for his mum to claim
    Cb for him. if she never stopped her cb claim for the 3 months he was living at yours then tbh there is nothing you can do.

  • Ben says:

    Can anyone explain how the CSA can make a policy that contradicts the Child Support Act 1991 insofar as if a child normally lives with a parent, that parent is a parent with care. If residence is 50/50 then the act allows for both parents to be parents with care. It does not state that receipt of child benefit has any bearing on this legal definition.
    How then can the CSA state that a parent who is defined by an Act of English Law as a PWC, is a non-resident parent because they are not receiving CB?

  • Carol says:

    Tribunal Judge has told me that Section 3 of the Child Support Act does not include Child Benefit in its definition of person with care. He said that the csa cannot force me to pay on those grounds if the child does not live there.
    Judge Brewer also said that unfortunately there are Csa operatives that insist in Child Benefit being the deciding factor when looking at who is parent/person with care. The CSA official that was there also agreed that this was the case.
    The Judge has given me a copy of Section 3.
    How am I now to make the csa read it and FOLLOW THE LAW
    My 18 year old has left her fathers house after violence. She now lives with a friends family who do not want to get involved in child benefit claiming but would appreciate some payment towards her keep.
    Csa continue to chase me to pay the father as he is on the child benefit. Now they want to reassess me!

  • >