The lovely CSA. This woman hits the nail on the head.

[Caligyulea]

Ah, the novelty of reading a Guardian article that isn't about how achingly desirable a needy writer's husband is, or how stupid other mothers are...

chap support agency

quite right too.

haven;t read it yet but so agree with you Caligula about the other stuff

I skim read this but the csa makes me so angry I couldnt do it properly. WE nearly lost our house beacuse of the CSA. After three years if trying to get reasonalble regular maintenace I have ended up owing my ex thousands of pounds due to a decision that even the CSA link is ludicrous and due to a clever tax fiddle!

What amazed me was that when my ex had no money to pay they let him get away with paying nothing even when it meant we faced loosing our house. But when due to his fraud we end up owing him money we have to pay it back straight away!

these agencies need to sort their act out, the way the work is ludicrous and don't do anybody any good!

I don't understand what point this article is making other than to say that it is outrageous to refund men who are proven not to be the child's father?

It would be fraudulent for the CSA to do anything else, surely?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, what she's saying is that it's outrageous that more priority and resources is given to this, than to collecting maintenance from men who owe it.

In terms of need, children need the maintenance more than the men who need the money to be paid back. You just have to look at the statistics on child poverty and the correlation to lone parenting, to see that. But in terms of priority, the CSA are putting more importance into giving money back (which can wait) than bringing money in (which can't, but does).

And I'm not sure she's just talking about men who aren't fathers is she? I thought it was about any man who has overpaid.

I think by law that is a priority as it would be fraudulent to keep the money.

I also think its a separate issue from the collection of monies owed.

The author seems to be confusing the two.

No it's not a separate issue. It's a question of resources. You might argue that the resources for paying back ought to be separate from those for collecting, but given that they're not, you then decide what takes priority - mothers and children, or fathers.

And I think the piss-poor performance of the CSA demonstrate exactly where their priorities lie!

Not defending the CSA. I think the govt needs to make its mind up, either it wants to collect or it doesn't. If it does it needs to look at taking the money directly from the fathers' earnings like they do in Australia.

I guess its another one of Tony Blairs trying to be popular and please all of the people all of the time things.

It must be far easier to look at a record and say this guy has paid £x and we can pay him back rather than chasing some git who lies about where he lives and leaves work to avoid payine etc.

They are dealing with the soft easy stuff that makes them look good. You know the oh look we sorted out this many claims rather than these necessary claims. It's all a numbers thing, how many have they processed sorted.

I think chasing these men is far more important but not easier.

I also think that if they give up work to avoid paying their benefits should go to the child and not them so that the git loses out. It would be easy to arrange through NI numbers etc wouldn't it??

Honestly, there are so many things they could arrange if they want to. How easy is it to avoid paying income tax? For normal people, it's pretty much impossible - you have to be super-rich to evade it effectively, and that's because unlike practically every other area of law, you're guilty unless you can prove you're innocent, as far as the taxman's concerned. So in general, normal employees just don't get away with it.

If they wanted to, they could make maintenance payment equally unavoidable. The simple, unpleasant truth, is that they don't want to. It's simply not a high priority. If it were, the CSA would be as unwelcome and scary as the Inland Revenue.

Think we all have to remember that these men may have other children and partners too who are suffering due to these men either being falsely accussed of being the father of another child or having being overassessed for maintainence (which they have paid and which has left them and their current partner and children in poverty). Not all these men are single and carefree.

Noone wins either way do they???

It makes me so mad. We are talking about 3000 men here... fine give the poor sods their money back.

BUT, what about the tens of thousands of women who cannot get a penny out of men who are definitely their kids dads! For years!

GRRRRR

At the risk of being lynched I shall admit that I worked for the CSA for 3 years.

I can honestly say that the mess that some mothers and fathers were in because of the CSA was disgusting and heart wrenching at times, however what everyone needs to realise is that the people that are working at the CSA the frontline staff are not to blame for this, firstly they are trying to do a job that is surrounded by so much red tape it is unreal we actually had one woman burst into tears when doing our 6 weeks training because she was so confused by it. Secondly the wage most employees get is very close to minimum wage and there are no incentives to make you want to go that little bit further, so when trying to meet your targets so you are not disiplined of course people are going to cherry pick the work they do, what would you do 3 cases in a day or pick the case that could take days to complete? Thirdly the abuse that the workers take is unreal, I myself have been subject to death threats, I also dealt with many many abusive callers and handled 3 suicide calls in the time I was there, this would go some way to explaining why the staff turn over is so high. I will also add that I knew loads of mums and dads working at the CSA who had cases that were getting nowhere leaving them below the poverty line seriously struggling but still everyday they came to work and did there best to sort out other peoples cases.

The problems that the CSA causes lies with no one else but the high ranking civil servants and the government but unfortunately it is always the frontline staff that take the flack.

Having said all that I would probably go back and work for the CSA again I always enjoyed my job (sadistic nature) and only left becasue they froze all promotions and advancements whilst the joke of a new computer system was being installed. I also don't mind giving any advice on the CSA and how to handle them in every new job I have I always end up helping someone out

Wow flutterbee, I have to say I really feel for the staff, I am impressed you would go back - sounds hellish!

I had a friend who worked for the CSA. He just found it depressing.

He's now so much happier at the DWP!

Note to self: stop complaining about my job!

I like Zoe Williams and Laura Barton. They should have their own 'Tonight' show. Their stuff is too marginalised in The Guardian.

Cali, what's the DWP?

Department of Work and Pensions, one of New Labour's renaming things to take in Jobcentre, CSA, etc - embraces what used to be called Dept of Social Security

This was discussed on Matthew Wright this am with a surprising number of callers saying they had had good experiences with the CSA. One suggestion though, (which I thought was rather good) was that NI numbers should be collected when register teh birth. It would, of course, deter some fathers from adding thir name
but...it's a thought.

An official report into the CSA (by a select committee, I think) found that the staff were so overwhelmed they were literally throwing people's files away.

They need to sort it out asap, put someone in who can actually run the place properly and give them the resources they need. It is appalling that a government department can be so badly run, doubly so when it is leaving vulnerable people - babies and children - without enough to live on.

I've always found the phone staff to be very helpful. I was told that my assessment was ludicrously high to make up some of the shortfall from dad's who don't pay.
In my case, it's funny how my ex still manages to go to the sunbed, nail parlour and buy a pc while our daughter goes without school shoes, regardless of whether i'm paying or not.

Tarantula wrote "Think we all have to remember that these men may have other children and partners too who are suffering due to these men either being falsely accussed of being the father of another child or having being overassessed for maintainence (which they have paid and which has left them and their current partner and children in poverty)."

This is exactly what happened to us last year. My dh has a 12 year old son from a brief relationship when he was 21. He is a good, hardworking, honest man. We have been together for 10 yrs and have two children and one on the way. He has a reasonable job and the CSA take money from his wages, which is beyond our control. He is happy to pay maintanence for his first son, but the have been deducting way too much and we have had severe financial difficulties because of it. He has a wife and two, nearly three, preschool children to support, who are suffering because of the CSA cock ups. Countless letters, phone calls, unbelievable stress. The f...ing computer system is always down. I am so unbelievably angry at the CSA. For 11 years, he kept in touch with the CSA and was always told he did not have to pay anything, then at the time when he could least afford it - supporting a young family on a single wage, mortgage etc, they for some reason start deducting from his earnings. We are in the process of fighting for compensation - I'm just sick and tired of the whole thing.

I will try to help anyone who wants to message me but can't promise anything