to believe there has to be a better way?? (wrt CSA)

[littlemisssarcastic]

I am having no joy with the CSA, XP is a 'job hopper'.
By the time the CSA have his income details (from HMRC which takes approx 12 weeks) XP has moved on again to yet another job.
XP begrudges DD a single penny and has in fact stolen every penny she has ever been given as a gift. He is the definition of 'non compliant parent imo.

After yet another futile conversation with CSA today, where they now want me to try direct payments from XP instead of going through the CSA, I am wondering whether there is a better way of getting money from unco operative NRP's to RP's which may be more successful than the CSA. I am not aware of any such system apart from CSA now, but is there for instance any reason why CSA can't be used to ascertain who the NRP is (if they deny they are the parent) and once it is established who the NRP is, the whole issue of collecting child maintenance is passed onto HMRC who then collect maintenance payments alongside income tax and distribute to RP's?

Is this a possibility?

It seems to me that the CSA is a failure for many RP's and a huge amount of money is pumped into it with very few satisfactory results, or is that just me?

I am having the same problem with my ex partner

The CSA is going to start charging for their services very soon, so that might change things, I don't know. From what I am experiencing, it's a failing organisation.

There's force in the idea but HMRC will fight every inch of the way against being used as anybody's debt collection agency; it is not their job. Why RPs more than other creditors?

Will be watching with interest as xh is also a job hopper and has paid nothing for over a year. I hOpe you get somewhere. Thankfully I am now in a position I do not need xh's money.

The way the CSA is designed would be fine if the people working there were efficient. Or if there were enough of them to actually do the job. But they do need to base their calculations on what it costs to raise a child, not on what it costs the NRP to live.

They have the power to take money directly from wage packets, and I think they should do that as routine. If a NRP moves jobs, then they should have the power to take any missed payments directly from bank accounts. Benefits should only be paid in food vouchers to NRPS that won't pay, so thay literally have NO money to spend. If they get upset that they can't spend money when they have contact with the child, then tehy will start paying the money and have the right to be paid their benefits in cash.

If NRPs show any resistance at all in paying, they should lose the right to use the NHS, and any right to a state pension. If they have a private pension, it should be used to pay for the child.

If the punishments for non payment were harsh enough, people would pay what they owe.

I'm sorry, the CSA is going to start charging for their not even close to acceptable services?

I would sooner give money to my next door neighbour's elderly Labrador - it would undoubtedly do a better job.

andrew: Why RPs more than other creditors? top of head answer is that the tax payer doesn't pick up the slack with other creditors in the same way as it does with the children of deadbeat dads.

Andrewofgg I suppose I thought that because CSA and HMRC are both govt run organisations, and maintenance is linked to income, it would be easy to implement and would save govt money if they used one organisation (HMRC) to successfully collect money where CSA have been unsuccessful??

I thought if govt agreed, (since surely it would save them a few more billion being pumped into CSA to keep it going) HMRC would not have a choice.

hiddenhome What will happen to all of the RP's who already have an ongoing case with CSA? Will they be sent a bill?

slavetofilofax Completely agree. We're too complacent imo at CM dodgers.

swallowedAfly How does the tax payer pick up the slack for children of deadbeat dads?

True enough swallowedAfly but many NRPs are multiple debtors and if the State is going to give one creditor the advantage it should not be itself!

slavtofilofax NRPs (I am not one and never have been - let me say that now) are still human beings, not serfs, which is what you would make them.

They would open new bank accounts and in a free society there is no central registration of such things. The NHS must remain available to all who need it - you cannot withdraw it from anyone. And I don't know how many NRPs are of an age to be drawing a pension but it cannot be many! By the time they do the debt will be time-barred like any other debt.

Finally, contact and maintenance must never be linked - children are not pay-per-view. A father (in the usual case) has no right to say "I won't pay because I am not getting contact" and a mother has no right to say "I won't allow contact because you are not paying".

Hopefully the CSA won't start charging and the agencies / charities campaining against the plans will stop them from doing it. It's a dreadful idea that will take money away from RP's who really need the money.

"It's a dreadful idea that will take money away from RP's who really need the money..............and unnecessarily charge NRPs who readily pay under the existing system

littlemisssarcastic - tax payer doesn't do so. Actually PWCs receive benefits regardless of maintenance.

Is there an answer? Is there a better way? Or do the RP's of the non compliant NRP's just have to tolerate it because realistically, nothing is likely to happen anytime soon to enforce non compliant NRP's to pay maintenance towards their DC?

In an open and non-slave society the remedy would be worse than the cure - as slavetofilofax has proved.

Would you explain a little further please Andrew?

Yes - she suggests e.g. banning non-compliant NRPs from the NHS - or taking their pensions decades later - or effectively preventing them from seeing their children.

Oh bugger: I meant of course The remedy would be worse than the disease.

Is there a foolproof answer, no. Is there a better way. Hell yes.

Frankly the problem is that the system has been abused for far too long and unfit for purpose. Personally I lay the blame on the people who started it. Rather than go straight for the deadbeat dad's whom didn't pay a penny, they went for the low hanging fruit of dad's who paid something. They then applied a formula so complicated not even God himself understood and the result was chaos. We've been saddled with the effects ever since.

If it were me, I'd take the opportunity of the reboot with CMEC to tackle the core group of non-compliant NRPs. You hit them hard, fast and with everything you got. Chase them with baliff's, take away their passports, drivers licenses, use detachment of earnings, take them to court within 6 months, fuck it even jail. We need to give CMEC officers real teeth and the latitude to do what it takes.

It's quite simple really. A lot of errant parents fail to pay maintenance because the CSA are famed for being incompetent so they know that:

a) They can get away with it
b) Chances are, even if caught, nothing really bad will happen anyway.

Once those core group start getting thrown in prison for wilful non-payment, the rest will quickly fall into line.

You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. Throw a few of them inside and you'll soon see real changes. But whilst we're pussyfooting around we'll get nowhere.

CSA (and it predecessor) took 15 years for my DM to get any money from my D F and then it was only £2000 , this was a man with his own business and oodles of money, he would turn up to court in a new merc and laugh his ass of at DM saying she would never get any money from him.

Endless paperwork and court visits and never speaking to anyone at the CSA who had any clue what was going on.

Eventually CSA told DM it was up to her to prove everything as D F had hired accountants/solicitors to hide assets/money and the CSA found it too difficult to sort anything out as he had forged paperwork that "proved" he was an employee of his own businessand earned next to nothing (the business was named after him FFS).

DM hired private investigator and proved everything then they took DM to court for breaching the data protection act by providing evidence of what they asked for

Conclusion, dont put yourself through it, seriously you dont need the stress, if DH and I split up and he trys anything to get out of paying for DS i've pre-warned him that i'd kneecap him, stuff the money.

Yes, they are going to start charging an annual fee and will also take a percentage of the money collected

My ex partner has gone self employed in order to dodge payments. I fear I will never receive anything again and ds is 13 now and starting to become expensive.

As an idea: In Switzerland there is a thing where if the NRP doesn't pay, the state does. The NRP then owes the state. The state then has the incentive, and has the power, to chase the NRP up and make him/her pay.
The advantage being, the RP is not left out of pocket, and it doesn't depend on the RP's ability to chase the NRP up.

I don't know if this is exactly the solution to the precise problem you are talking about, but it does make a lot of sense to me.

Sounds like a great idea Meita

That does sound like a good idea Meita, but how does that work wrt self employed NRP's who claim they earn much much less than they actually do?

And is it still calculated on the NRP's earnings?

If it is, and those earnings are correct, then it sounds like a good idea.

Also, what about the RP's who are in receipt of benefits? Would they receive the 'maintenance payments' from the govt on top of their state benefits, as they do now? I wonder if the govt would then reduce state benefits for single parents since they'd probably be more successful at chasing up payments if the state had paid out in the absence of the NRP paying out in the first place.......as you said Meita, the state would have the incentive as well as the power.

haven't caught up just read your question andrew so sorry for what i've missed but i don't think you can realistically see the lives of dependent children as on a par with a mortgage company or higher purchase car sales company.

child maintenance isn't 'a debt'. it's kind of a natural consequence. you have a child - it needs supporting in the world and you are 'attached' to that child in terms of liability, morality etc etc etc until it is an adult.

not quite the same as a company that's taken a gamble with you and 50000 other people with poor credit ratings as to whether you'll afford to pay back half or three quarters of of the total loan agreement based on stats that x% will do this and Y% that etc.

i'm thinking the difference between companies who speculate on human behaviour and a child is pretty exponential?

niceguy - it's remarkable that they don't jail the worst culprits isn't it? that is all it would take to create a massive sea change.

Actually, Andrewoffg - CSA is NOT time barred. I know of someone who is receiving CSA payments from her ex's pension for her 24 AND 30yo's, because he never paid when they were dc, and the only time CSA payments are written off is if there is not enough left in their estate when they DIE to pay the entire amount owed - and outstanding CSA payments are taken from the estate FIRST.

But yes, the CSA is unfit for purpose, and I have NO idea what I am going to do when they start chasrging for their services - I won't be able to GET my maintenance without losing some of it - when it's a very small amount anyway, and you have a non-compliant ex partner, I feel that this will unfairly penalise the RP into giving up on maintenance altogether.

I know LOTS of RP's who are saying that they will close their case and go without maintenance if they have to pay to get it when it is their non-compliant ex partners that are causing them to be unable to have a private agreement in the first place. It's like the RP is being penalised for the NRP's shitty behaviour. When you are only getting £1.36 (my maintenance for DS1 from Ex-H) a week, it is hardly worthwhile paying a percentage of that to continue getting it...It's not even worthwhile really when it is £55 a week (my maintenance from Ex-P for DS2 and DS3). Ex-P is non-compliant, and if we had a private agreement, he would stop paying, wouldn't be honest about any wage increases and would continue paying the same even if his income DOUBLED. Yet when they start charging, I either have to accept that he will pay what HE sees fit to bother to pay, or I have to PAY for the 'privelige' of being able to receive the correct amount of maintenance...SHIT SHIT SHIT IMO.