in thinking the CSA have really outdone themselves this time?

[RalphGnu]

I've posted before re our problems with the CSA but they've excelled themselves in terms of utter twattery this time.

DF has a maintenance agreement where he pays a set amount through his salary each month, including arrears which will be paid off in eighteen months time.

DF has been working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for the last month so that we will have the money to buy a car. This month, instead of taking out the agreed amount from his salary, the CSA have taken £997. Leaving us with £50 left over after rent/bills.

Cue a long and frustrating call to them resulting in. "Oops, don't know why that happened. No, you can't have it back. We'll knock it off the arrears you owe. Not our problem you can't afford to eat." Phone gets put down.

I guess this is more of a rant, if anything. First time in forever we would actually have money to spend on ourselves and it's gone. DF has worked all those hours and missed time with me and DS for nothing. DF and I have both cried. We know there's absolutely no point in taking it any further. Feel utterly defeated. Trying to keep it together for DS today but struggling.

sardine I agree that 9 years arrears is a lot but I don't really see whether it matters in respect of the actual sum owed whether the child was known about or not, the fact is the child is his and through a payment plan he is able to pay for the support of that child. As it should be.

The monthly payment plan will have been agreed on the basis of what the DF was earning at the time it was put in place. If he does significant overtime (which appears to be the case in the OP) then it seems to me only right that those financial rewards are split between all his DC.

Obviously the CSA have gone about it the wrong way but I find it really hard to argue against extra money going to all DC's.

What utter bollocks diddl, why shouldnt you be able to claim?

The 11 years (or however many) is usually because the CSA cant "find" the absent parent or because the absent parent is doing everything in their power to hide / not pay / lie about their income.

Women all over the country are struggling because useless men wont pay for thier own children. If I find the father of my child in 11 years I will take his damn car off him never mind the savings for a new one!!!

Also have to point out on the figures it seems like your DF is paying an extraordinarily low amount of support towards his child based on the fact that after rent/bills he has £1047 left over at the end of the month

My understanding was that they had taken a huge amount unrelated to overtime - that they had simply made a mistake.

If the amount was in proportion to the overtime done it would not have left them short. They would still have more money than usual, and the other family would also have more money than usual. That's not what has happened.

People seem to forget - as a mother, if you decided you were not going to feed your DC, or put clothes on their backs, for a month because you needed a new car or a weekend away, you would have social services at your door sharpish.

If a woman has a child with a man and then meets another man, she is still expected to fully support her first child - why is it different for men?

I cant say "Well I need 2 grand a month to live off, so sorry DD, but you can only cost £100 this month no matter what".

Where does the OP actually say what the amount is? The overpayment month was £997 but have I missed where she says what the normal amount is?

QueenofDenial you don't know how much they usually take. Your figures do not make sense.

If they usually take say £600 that would leave £400 for op to live on/

If they unexpectedly took £1000 instead of £600 OP would have nothing left (ie the situation she is in).

You have taken it that they have taken £1000 more than usual, not £1000 in total.

People are understandably getting caught up in their own circs.

On the face of it, from what the OP has said, her DH has done nothing wrong - no lying or cheating or evading.

The CPS appear to have made an error and left them skint, and will not reverse their error. That is shit. No commercial company would be able to get away with that - it would be illegal.

"People seem to forget - as a mother, if you decided you were not going to feed your DC, or put clothes on their backs, for a month because you needed a new car or a weekend away, you would have social services at your door sharpish."

Yes but as a resident parent, no-one is going to force you to, say, pay double one month what you paid towards the children last month, on a whim. You are able to budget based on what you can afford for your children. Social services aren't going to deduct £997 from your salary as and when they like

sardine yes I agree my reading was that it was simply a mistake and I agree any extra overtime should be split proportionally - I am not saying the CSA were in the right I just think it is wrong in principle that men are able to earn significantly more than they have notified the CSA about (either through overtime or other means) and they get to keep it all with no regard to the fact they owe their child significant sums of money.

allnew She doesn't say what the actual figure is but if your work on the basis of 11 years of maintenance arrears which are being paid over a 3.5 yr period + the current maintenace payment coming in at significantly less than the £997 that was actually taken then it can't be a very big figure.

Queenofdenial - the extra overtime will, eventually, benefit all the children ..... but the CSA payment doesn't vary from one month to the next. This would be a logistical nightmare to administer. Instead, the absent parent is supposed to advise the CSA of changes in circumstances (such as payrises, new child, child left home etc), and/or, the parent with care can request a reassessment periodically (can't remember how frequently, but obviously not every month) whereupon the absent parent will (usually) be asked to provide a number of payslips, plus maybe their P60, and this information may or may not be confirmed by writing to the absent parent's employer.

At that point, a new assessment will be made which will include the overtime and the regular monthly payments will increase if necessary. However, this wouldn't automatically mean the previously agreed arrears sum would also increase. So far as I know this would be negotiated.

In this case, it'd seem that most, if not all, of his overtime has been taken (no matter by who) and that his second child hasn't benefitted from it AT ALL. Therefore, as of now, the ONLY child to have benefitted is the older child. In any case, the CSA are supposed to take a percentage of pay increases/bonuses/overtime - not all of it.

KilledBill - this man did NOT know he had a son for 11 years. He has NOT been hiding from either his son or the CSA during that time as he was ignorant of the fact. Indeed, the mother of his son has made no attempt to facilitate a relationship between the father and child and the OP's DP doesn't know where they live. It'd seem she's only interested in him as a cashpoint, not as a father. To my mind, that makes her just as bad as any absent parent who tries to avoid paying for their child.

why is it different for men?

KilledBill, the CSA rules are the same for men and women and in my experience women are no better than men at paying child support when they are the NRP.

"The 11 years (or however many) is usually because the CSA cant "find" the absent parent or because the absent parent is doing everything in their power to hide / not pay / lie about their income."

If that´s the case, fair enough.

But if the mother decided not to claim for 11yrs, I don´t see why there should be a back payment tbh.

As I have said don't have any dealings with the CSA. DH and I have DC together and with no one else so I think I am quite impartial.

Presumably if DF had received his extra cash as expected there was no question of him giving any money to his other child ( indeed it was already earmarked for a car and to pay off a holiday) That just seems wrong to me

It just gets up my nose when companies that are supposed to be professional, and follow the rules, and perform accurate calculations, fuck up like this. I worked in financial services for years and I can't bear this type of inaccuracy, and the fact they have basically told the OP to get stuffed, rather then apologising and refunding the incorrect amount is astounding.

TheQueenofDenial - indeed, but things are rarey so simple in the real world. As a couple, you can jointly decide financial priorities and what is left over and what to do with that. When a 3rd party organisation intervenes and tells you one minute you owe one amount, the next minute you owe something else, then reneges on pre-existing agreements, it all gets a whole lot more complicated

The maintenance agreement is an attachment of earnings, not a standing order or direct debit unfortunately. The CSA have admitted it's their fault and this isn't the first time they've made a mistake.

When DF asked why it had taken 11 years for them to 'find' him, considering he's never moved out of the area and has always been in employment (thereby easily traceable through his NI number) they said someone had been to his house in 2005 in Scarborough for a pre-arranged visit but his wife had said he wasn't home. He has never lived in Scarborough or been married. We've also had letters to us that were meant for someone else with the same surname as DF. DF speaks to a different person each time he calls. Each person he speaks to promises they will sort out the mistakes but they never do. It's like talking to a brick wall.

As mentioned previously we don't know where the child is living and the CSA will not give us any information for obvious reasons. We don't have any hard feelings towards the child's mother as we don't know her situation and agree that both parents are responsible for a child, regardless of the circumstances.

TheQueenOfDenial I've explained about the car. The weekend away was to a cousin's wedding and is the first time we've actually been away for nearly three years so I'm not going to feel guilty about that.

Definitely going to speak to our MP, she holds an open office on Thursday so will be going to see her then.

At not least because, if the NRP had extra money one month and voluntarily paid that to the PWC to pay off arrears quicker, outside what was formally requested by the CSA, the PWC (and it appears a hostile PWC in this case) could deny this and it wouldn't be taken off arrears at all.

catsmother I appreciate the CSA cannot change amounts they take each month.

Presumsably a decent father, when getting extra money thinks: "oh I owe £5k for little Jonny, perhaps I should give half of the overtime over to him"

I see that it is dreadful that the OP has been left without enough to live on - obviosuly that is wrong and as I sadi presumablky the bank can resolve - but I do think the other child should get more this month (esp when there is such a large amount oustanding) so I just can't buy into the outrage of the principle of the CSA taking more than they ought to have

And thanks everyone. I'm sad that so many other people have had problems with them too but I'm not surprised.

The bank can't resolve it queenofdenial as it has been deducted straight from his pay packet before even getting to the bank.

The "outrage" at the CSA taking more than they should have done is, I think, two-fold. First, as many of us have said, the principle of owing something doesn't give that creditor the right to deduct sums willy-nilly without notice whenever they fancy - whatever the cause. How on earth can people budget if this were common place ? Secondly, in this particular example, people are frustrated for RalphGnu because her DP has been plunged into this situation through no fault of his own as he didn't know he had another child until 2 years ago - 11 years after he was born ! In those intervening 11 years - without any suggestion he had another child - RG's DP would have made a whole heap of life decisions based on what he thought his life circumstances were .... quite obviously, most people wouldn't think to include the possibility of another child - especially when he hadn't seen or spoken to the mother for years and years. Therefore, he would have made various financial decisions which could, quite possibly (probably) been thrown into disarray by the subsequent revelation re: his older child. That's potentially a hugely stressful situation to be plunged into - for both him, his current partner and the child they have together. Despite this, at no point has RG suggested he shouldn't be paying for the child he's never met (and who the mother has kept from his father) ..... however, whatever the morals of this situation, they have undeniably been thrown a raw deal (both financially and emotionally - remember, he has been denied a relationship with his older child) and for the CSA to now stuff up their finances adds insult to injury when all along, HE has done NOTHING wrong. The same cannot be said of the mother IMO - her behaviour is disgusting. Every man (unless he is dangerous in some respect) should have the right to know he has a child out there.

As I explained before, "extra" earnings are eventually taken into account by the CSA. When his case is next reviewed, they will look at his P60 figure (or accumulated earnings on payslips) and this will obviously include overtime. At that point, his monthly payments going forward would increase accordingly by the appropriate percentage.

I agree that if the man in this case had deliberately hidden from the CSA then his extra earnings should be going to pay off the arrears, but these arrears only exist at all because the MOTHER went to the CSA belatedly (understatement). It's HER fault she's "owed" money and FWIW I agree with Diddl ..... the mother obviously decided to keep the child secret (which is wicked) for a very long time and it seems very off that when SHE decides she suddenly wants some money, this is backdated all those years. For whatever reason, she managed for 11 years ..... I can't help thinking maybe she was being supported by another man and then when that relationship broke up she started to cast round for another income source ..... who knows, but in light of her keeping this child secret, I personally think that RG's DP should only be liable from the date she first contacted the CSA and NOT all those years past.

Given that RG's DP could have been plunged into a right old financial mess by all this, I don't actually blame him for "keeping" the overtime at all. I'll say yet again that this will, eventually, be included in his CSA assessment anyway (i.e. his payments could well increase) but in the short term, is he really so very wrong to be saving for a car ? RG has said this'll make it easier for him to get to work ..... this could mean it'd be cheaper for him to get to work by car, thus freeing up more income which could arguably be saved towards the arrears.

QueenOfDenial we have that amount this month because DF has worked 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in order to buy a second hand runaround from his friend! The maintenance agreement is generous, it's a sizeable portion of his normal wage and is a hell of a lot more than we have to spend on our DS. He's never, not once, complained about the money he gives, even when we can't afford new clothes for DS or when we had to wait a month before buying a second-hand buggy when the wheel fell off the old one, or simple things like not being able to go on a night out or order takeaway.
Please don't think that he just chucks them £20 a week, because it's considerably more than that.

Thanks catsmother for the support, but just to point out, the mother did put a claim in when the boy was born; it took the CSA 11 years to 'find' DF and inform him of this, in which time the maintenance payments they'd decide he should pay had been building up week by week.

We'll never know why she didn't tell DF he had a son. At the time of their brief relationship he was living with his parents who still live at the same house so it's not that she couldn't get in touch with him. Maybe she found someone else and wanted to bring up the baby as his? What upsets DF is that all this time the child has had a loving family he was denied.

'Presumsably a decent father, when getting extra money thinks: "oh I owe £5k for little Jonny, perhaps I should give half of the overtime over to him"'

How do you do that if you don't know where the mother is?

You can't abitarily change CSA payments, they take it from you, you don't give it to them in this case.