To be beyond furious that DD's Dad can hide so well from CSA?

[TickleMyTitsTillFriday]

They can't find him apparently. Even though he had another child and they will therefore be receiving child benefit. They can't look as it's in his GF's name and they're not allowed due to data protection. Nothing shows up on tax system for him or experien and they have no other way of finding him. I'm so FUCKING ANGRY!

I used to work for the CSA and felt incredibly frustrated that we could not do more to trace absent parents and make them pay for their children. It was my job to track down NRP's and we had limited methods of doing so; we used the benefits database (access to which was monitored and we couldn't use the details of a partner of an NRP), HMRC, credit reference agencies (again monitored), council tax register (although we had to have an idea of which council the NRP lived under and then contact them in writing to request information - there was no central database we could check). I used to send in bayliffs as well with mixed success.

Having the same powers as police would have been fantastic, but in order to do that a huge proportion of CSA staff would have to be retrained or made redundant in order to employ more capable people. I worked with many people who were absolute idiots, who didn't understand child support law or how to effectively use the tools to trace people, who regularly sent demands to the wrong people and used the databases to look up people they knew for private purposes. To suddenly grant them more powers would be very worrying.

Re; the issue of capital, interest on savings or rent received for properties owned is classed as income and can be used to calculate the weekly amount of child support payable. If the NRP has at any time been liable to pay an amount and has arrears, even if they currently are not being charged a weekly amount because of their low earnings, the CSA can still obtain a liability order and put a charge on the NRP's property or send in debt collectors.

It's so infuriating when absent parents get away without paying and I am glad I don't work for the CSA any more for that reason.

I don't understand why they can't charge penalties and interest to the non paying parent .

After all ,you get a £100 fine if you are day late returning your self assessment tax form . There are penalties for paying your tax late

But if you don't pay for your kids, or pay late, or pay peanuts - suddenly the Government is powerless . They are quick enough to demand money or access your bank account if it's about tax or benefit fraud .

If you are investigated for benefit fraud and you are living a lavish lifestyle while claiming benefits , they will soon stop them

So why can't they do anything about the non paying fathers who put their assets and income in their new partners name and claim they are peniless ?

I totally disagree with the suggestion about vouchers . It's not up to the NRP or the goverment to tell parents ( usually mothers ) what they can spend their money on . RP are the ones who know where it shoudl be spent - some need it just cover the basics of food and keeping a roof over their heads

If you are a foster career you get a weekly allowance for each child, to cover their expenses . This includes a contribution to all household bills and well as activities, clothes, outings etc . It's age related, and of course it's not taxed as its expenses. This is totally seperate from any fee , which is treated like a salary or consultancy fee.

I mention this because it gives a realistic idea of what it actually costs to keep a child. And these figures are accepted as accurate by almost every local authority in the country

Here are the current rates

www.gov.uk/foster-carers/help-with-the-cost-of-fostering

You will see that they range from £120 for a baby ( outside the SE) to over £200 for a 16-17 year old in London

So I'm at a loss to understand why relatively well off NRP are being given orders of less than £50 a week. Surely the minumim should be £60 / week for a baby ? ( although clearly some low earners cant afford that )

These costs will be slightly higher than for an non fostered child as foster kids have to have their own bedroom , so that puts up housing costs. But otherwise they are a good indication of how much kids costs

I think this proves that 99.9 % of single parents are not cashing in on their ex and spending it on fags and lattes

They seem to be terribly inept even when they are in possession of all the information.

My friend (I witnessed one of the phone calls she made in complaint so not purely anecdotal) had almost five years with no money from her EX. The CSA would make her these pointless courtesy calls, and ask her how she was doing and send letters telling her payments would start on 'x' date. They never did. And when she queried why she never received the payments, they confessed they'd asked him to pay on those dates. He never did and they never enforced it. She's given up now. It's a sorry state of affairs.

I think this proves that 99.9 % of single parents are not cashing in on their ex and spending it on fags and lattes

can we please stop making this a single parent issue? because it isn't, never has been, and never will be. Some PWC are single parents, yes. But not all of them, by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

I meant parenst who are not living with the other parent of their child or children . Surely they are entitled to money for their child, regardless of their martial status ? Why does it matter if they are single, divorced , remarried , seperated or living with someone else?

I get the dutiful mail merged letter every year my ex has been told to contribute £0.00, etc etc, just the same as if I got £50 a week... So I always assumed that prior to sending this letter, the CSA checked if his circumstances had changed. He was on Incapacity Benefit over ten years ago, when assessed.

Yesterday's phone calls to the CSA revealed that they have never re-checked his incoe, financial status or whether there has been a change in circumstances, since... wait for it... 2003. Apparently that was MY fault. If I didn't prompt them to do it, they didn't bother. So how many of you are getting the "You are entitled to...." letter annually or however often it is and assuming, because that comes, they have checked the other parent's income and whether it has changed?

Now call me weird, but thought it is a reasonable assumption that if you are being mailed with your 'new' figure regularly, someone somewhere had checked up first.

So just be wary of that. Your twatfeatures may even owe you more money. No-one bothers to check their circms unless YOU pick up the phone.

"it would seem inherently wrong to me if you were able to use her information against him. "

Using it AGAINST him??

It would be using it so that he pays for HIS child ffs!

£119 a week to keep a baby KristinaM ?

Nappies and formula and a few new Babygros doesn't cost anywhere close to that.

Surly that only applies to foster carers, not the average parent. Foster carers are employed intermittently and will have an instant increase in utility bills (although only marginally, let's be fair - it only costs me 40p an hour to run my tumbler for example) so it reads as if it's partly subsidising their unstable choice of employment rather than actual baby rearing costs.

MrsKravitz, that's fascinating. Any idea why the standard of some CSA staff was so low? Was it treated as a civil service backwater where some people got shunted out of the way? Or was it just that in any large organisation, some people are going to be less capable than others?

Personally, I think there's something to the idea of non-payment affecting the non-payer's credit history. It won't make much difference to some people, but it could be a powerful tool for others.

I'd feel a bit demeaned by vouchers, and I don't see the benefit - it's not going to stop an aggrieved NRP from moaning about how the RP was spending all their money on manicures or whatever.

I hope the next generation are thinking I'd never be like my dad and let my kids down and not my dad didn't pay so why should I.

I don't know bibliomania, we all had to sit quite an extensive maths and English test and be interviewed - I can only assume that the bar was set very low to enable as many staff to be recruited as possible. Of the large group I was recruited with some people were graduates, but others didn't understand that 'I' had a capital letter or how to perform simple calculations, and many just didn't show any conscientiousness or care about what they were doing. It is an important job which can have serious repercussions (threats of suicide from NRP's were common) and the level of training and ongoing supervision of staff did not reflect that at all.

I find it totally bizarre how they arrive at such low amounts as well as how powerless the CSA seems to be.

Maybe this should be the target of a MN campaign, if it hasn't been so already (I haven't been around long).

Vouchers? Absolutely no way. First of all, vouchers for school stuff won't work. The schools are not going to take them - and since some parents have children in different schools, how are they then going to divide it all up? Perhaps more needs to go to one than the other. And then of course, I have one at a SS and one I've started HE'ing. Obviously the one that is HE'ing isn't going to need school vouchers.

No. This whole "making it more palatable for the nonpayer" because he has an issue giving money to his ex. Bollocks. Perhaps they should just tell him to man up and be responsible for helping support his child instead of being a nasty piece of work that puts his children far too low on the priority list.

Thanks for the reply, MrsKravitz. That's a bit frightening. I suppose it must be a frustrating job for anyone who cares about what they're doing, which leads to a high turnover, and thus the need to cast the net widely.

Complain to your MP everyone! I've just had a call from CSA and inexplicably they've found him all of a sudden...

Great news tickle . Let's hope they can get some cash out of him

Daffodil - no, it's to cover the full cost of keeping the child

The idea that babies only cost nappies and formula and a couple of baby grows is one of the reasons that NRP think it only costs a tenner a week to keep a child and therefore they should pay a fiver

How many new parents do you know who only bought two baby grows and nothing else for their babies ?

They also need a cot, mattress, grow bag and several sets of bedding, car seat, buggy, cosy toes, blankets, clothes,toys, bottles, sterilising kit, high chair, food, dummies, feeder cups, bowls

( and yes I know that they can sleep in a drawer wrapped in an old torn sheet and fed on gruel but the government takes the view that fostered kids shouldn't have to live like that )

They need a room to sleep in ( foster children can't share ) . It needs heated and decorated, and you have to pay council tax and a mortgage or rent .so if you have a 3 bedroom house and one room is for the foster child, it costs one third of the weekly cost of running your house.

If the baby or toddler goes to soft play or toddler group or swimming -that costs money .there are bus fares or petrol to all these places. And the doctor or dentist .

And if it's your own child and not a foster child, it needs one of the most expensive things you will ever buy apart from a house - childcare so you can go back to work .

Ok just spoken to the CSA and wanted to let you all know thus
They CAN contact the previous council where the paid council tax. There is a standard form which asks for new address if council have it.
They CAN search via child benefit. Whether it is claimed by him or not.
I have had high apologies and staff will be trained. In the meantime if this information helps you then call them today!

Great update OP, thanks for sharing!