CSA

[thewomanwhothoughtshewasahat]

does anyone know if the existence of the CSA has made it more unlikely for parents to come to their own agreements? Apart from its appalling administration, which is a slightly different issue a couple of things in the recent coverage have made me think that it's conceptually wrong-headed. There was someone on R4 this morning where the father was willing to pay - (or so he claimed) which just made me wonder if that's the case then why on earth is the CSA even involved? I had always understood that it was meant to be a mechanism of last resort for non-payers. yet I wonder if people are now reluctant to come up with their own negotiated amounts in case they aren;t getting what they are entitled too/are paying "too much" - so the very existnce of the CSA creates a whole new demand.

The CSA was originally established as a way of recovering benefits given to single parents from the absent parent. If you didn't receive benefits and came to some agreement with the absent parent, there was no need for the CSA to become involved.

However, the very simplistic formula the CSA applies to maintenance soon became a reason for previously agreed arrangements to fall apart because some absent parents realised that they could get to pay less under the CSA's calculations.

Also, where there was no agreement in place and the resident parent was forced to contact the CSA, their case was given less priority because there were no benefits to be recovered.

So the CSA seems to cock up everything other than benefits-related maintenance.

yes, I had forgotten it's original purpose. But it does seem there's something in what I say. how stunningly ill-concieved.

the csa have been a pain in the butt quite frankly. for the last two years i have been trying to get maintenance from dd's absent father with no results. even though i have provided them with concrete proof he lives at the address i gave. when i was made redundant and had to claim benefit i was made to fill in a form giving details of my son's dad too. even though he has always paid me. they never followed it up which suited me just fine, i have no faith in them.

however, late last year after one of several complaints and letters to my mp, csa told me that they could only get me compensation for the case with dd's dad if the payments from ds's dad went through them too instead of our private arrangement. ds's dad, out of a favour to me complied with this and paid the csa as arranged. (even thought he was terrified the csa would fleece him, luckily they didnt).

they then withheld his payments and i ended up with no maintenance at all! (due to a "computer error") as usual. it was finally sorted but ds's dad is fuming that we've had to go to all this trouble when our agreement was perfectly fine...all to try and kick them into going after the one who IS avoiding them.

the best thing about it is that csa told me when this all came about, that ds's dad could carry on paying me directly, so long as it was their calculated amount and the benefits agency would obviously lower my benefit in accordance.

then they rang me back and said oh no, actually he couldnt. when i asked why they told me...get this...that the two fathers had to have the same payment method!!! dd's dad has never paid a penny and never answered any of their phone calls or correspondance. when they have made a home visit his gf has denied he lives there! same payment method? how exactly?????

and still..they havent done anything to chase the other one. now they are blaming it on the bailiff company. (it went to enforcement a year ago). whatever next? aliens landed and whisked him away? he answered the door but they still need more proof it was him? (maybe it was his twin brother?).

so no, they arent falling over themselves to recover my benefit.

shudder sounds worse than tax credits! hope you get everything sorted out. - the fact that they opt for getting involved in a negotiated agreement that both parties were happy with again makes me think it's incredibly wrong-headed.

they are brilliant. i did forget to mention in my last post that when this all went through, the benefits agency actually reduced my benefit as if ds's dad was paying me directly. im assuming csa had put this agreement onto their system before they "changed their mind!" i ended up with a grand total of £25 a week for six weeks until they sorted it out. i spent hours on the phone just to listen to them slating each other and blaming each other. very professional.