to wonder why in the midst of CSA so many absent parents get away with not paying?

[ChoochiWoo]

Im just wondering really, even people who clearly have money, how to do they get away with is it a case of too many loopholes?

It's a sign of too many people willing to screw themselves and their families over, so they don't hae to put their hands in their pockets. There's no love lost between myself and the CSA, but there's only so much they can do while these NRP leave perfectly good jobs to avoid paying, move regularly, fudge self-employed earnings, even quit and live on benefits to avoid it.

That's obviously not to say CSA are faultless, at all! They have too many hoops to jump through, having to write x amount of times, call, give x amount of chances to pay, and then the sanctions that they do give are often almost impossible to put into place.

I would like to see a clearer link to a persons National Insurance number/ tax. I think it's ridiculous that with as many government systems in place as we have, that it takes months and months to try and trace someone through their tax code. If they change jobs during that time, they got lost again. They should be linked to benefits/HRMC in my view.

I don't understand if the Student Loans company can deduct at source using PAYE, why the CSA can't do the same?

VeryPunny
I don't understand if the Student Loans company can deduct at source using PAYE, why the CSA can't do the same?

You can bet your arse if it was mainly women who were the NRP then this would be the case.

Also, dickheads like my friend's ex who is self employed, cooks his books and so doesn't pay any tax then gets a stupidly low figure from the CSA so benefits twice from lying. To add insult to injury he posts FB pictures showing him living it up with his new gf while my friend tries to work out what bill she can get away with not paying this month.

I get maintenance deducted at source from pay.

Only took my case being open for 10 years for it to happen

If a person is a determined avoider then the CSA is totally ineffective.

Imo they've always been useless. My daughters ex pays practically nothing because he lies about his earnings (self employed joiner) and for some reason the CSA choose to believe his ridiculous low declaration of earnings.
He lives an affluent lifestyle with his new wife while my dd struggles to get by on her nat min wage. She gets £5 a week off him......total joke!

TheGirlFrom - you say if someone is a determined avoider the CSA is ineffective... Is that always the case? How can they avoid things like court summons and threats to take from their employer?

(I'm just asking on behalf of my friend, she's positive she isn't going to get her money)

they are singularly useless, ex has apparently been unemployed for the past year... yet he manages to live in a massive house and drives a BMW, his girlfriend does not work and he doesn't have to pay anything, because according to the CSA he may be living off savings............ good job the children have me, otherwise apparently nobody has any financial responsibility towards their own kids if they're living off savings!

If I didn't work for a year I'd be on the streets.

The source thing sounds like such a common sense answer, why hasn't it been done?

I have no idea why there hasn't been the political will to link the payment of child support to HMRC data, other than to agree that if it were mostly women defrauding the nation and its children on such a massive scale that things would be very different.

Hmm hate to say but does seem like possibly more of a 'feminist' issue then i thought, the benefits system is hugely under attack probably largely due to the fact its mainly women/single mothers

Speaking as an extremely busy 'small employer' - and it was 7 or so years ago now - but the CSA was a shambles.
We had an employee and were told to deduct from his income (his ex-partner was on benefits). I can't remember exactly what I had to do - it did involve photocopying and posting off things -and it was an absolute PIA.
I wasn't told clearly what I needed to do - just received a letter than a badly worded unclear form to complete and then every time he was paid send them a cheque with another form filled in maybe? - I do remember their helpline wasn't helpful and impossible to get through to!
When I complained I was told to deduct any administration costs (up to a certain amount) from his wages too...think that maybe came out of the payment to his ex partner - so would that include my time finding out what I had to do, changing the layout of his payslip etc, extra accounting, phone calls or just the cost of a copy, envelope and stamp? I didn't cos because that would just make it more complicated.

Employee was paid weekly, not a high earner - I think I suggested submitting monthly but if I did that the recipient would only be paid monthly and there was also a long delay between the CSA receiving the cheque and the recipient getting the payment...so they would have no money... I couldn't do that...but do know that I felt frustrated that the system wasn't more employer friendly. I agree it would be better if they were linked to the HMRC and it was done through tax codes.

The guy had worked for us for about 6 or so months before any of this started - obviously took that long to 'track him down' and left after about 3 months me starting deductions anyway...no doubt onto another job for his 6 months no deductions....
Also an ex boyfriend - (he was an ex then - had realised what he was like) was jubilant that the CSA said he needed to pay less than he had been paying anyway - and proud he had tricked them - he shared with a friend who earned more than he did -he couldn't afford to live in that flat so his friend paid say 75% of the rent - he told the CSA it was the other way round...)

God, can you imagine the witch hunt if there were wide-scale, long-term, open and obvious 'tricking' of a state agency by mothers trying avoid providing properly for their own children?

My ex pays nothing and hasn't for the 14 years since his firstborn. He inherited a third of a house in London worth best part of a million. He already had over a hundred thousand in savings. Owns his own London flat (bought in the late 80s when cheap but can't imagine what is worth now).

Unemployed and was claiming Incapacity benefit last I heard. So this poor, poverty stricken flower pays... £0.

CSA know he has all that money. I live in a council house on minimum wage.

If I could sue the CSA I would. If anyone out there knows if there is a lawyer willing to sue this man privately for money owed - as my husband has paid every penny for the two boys for 14 years - and say take his house from him, do message me. I would love him to be made a test case and to sue the arse off the CSA as well.

I do wonder if anyone has ever judicially reviewed the CSA?

Joffrey, I swear I had the most beautiful montage whizzing through my head as I read your post. Like the end court scene in To Kill A Mockingbird, only CSA-themed. Beautiful Ah, if only....

My ex has a very nice life- two or three lovely holidays abroad every year, mostly the States. He's been to Disneyland numerous times, meanwhile DH and I scrape together to give DD a few days in a caravan..

Ex doesn't even send a card for birthdays/Christmas, never mind actually contributing financially! hearty guffaws all round at the thought!

a) self employment
b) cash in hand work
c) temporary work
d) job-hopping
e) any combination of the above.

the CSA works for thousands - but unfortunately, it is one size fits all. Those of us who don't fit, don't get!

I don't think there will be any political will to change things with the CSA until single parent benefits can be reduced and the shortfall be made up in maintenance.

Single parent families already cost the government a lot of money, and I just can't see them ever ploughing any more in to make the CSA effective for parents that can't make private arrangements.

I'd like to see a system where maintenance payments were linked to HMRC so they could be deducted in the same way as tax and NI, and if a NRP wasn't earning then they still have to pay back money when they are. If they don't, they shouldn't be allowed a passport or a driving licence. The amounts owed should be more closely linked to what it actually costs to bring up a child, and then it would be acceptable to reduce benefits and make parents pay instead. Saying all that though, if NRPs are going to be held financially responsible for their children, then RPs should be too, I don't believe the government should be paying for SAHPs who could have gone back to work after mat leave.

Dn's partner has three children with different mothers that he doesn't pay for. He is 'self employed' and his boss is self employed and crooked too.

The other two men I know who don't pay are self employed too.

It's easy to get money from joe blogs who works at the council, the bank, the police, a big company etc.
it's near impossible to get money from joe blogs self employed plumber, builder, small business etc.

How does HMRC claim any tax of the self-enjoyed, then?

WooWooOwl Originally the CSA was set up to reclaim money that was paid in benefits so benefits would be paid and the CSA would keep any money that was reclaimed from the nrp the assumption was that the amount of maintenance was less than the benefits being claimed but that wasn't always the case which left a significant number of resident parents who were told they were not entitled to benefits because they got more in maintenance however there was no fall back if the maintenance wasn't actually paid, they then had to jump through hoops to get CSA to acknowledge that payment was not going to be forthcoming for some reason to be able to claim benefits again which resulted in some families having no money coming in for months at a time. There was no back up for families when maintenance was 'delayed' I for one never want to go back to those days.

Tax and NI can only be deducted at source when people work under PAYE and those people tend to not be the ones who are an issue for maintenance payments the ones who get away with it time and time again are working under the table or are self employed.