CSA reform - single parents to pay to use service - to be very angry!!

[timefliesby]

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?ID=235

So, the government is closing all existing child maintenance cases over the next three years and washing its hands of the £3.5 billion it has FAILED to collect on behalf of single parents. They say they'd like to give separated parents "the chance to come to a private arrangement" or failing that, all those single parents - you know, the ones that aren't getting anything for their children - to PAY to use the CSA. Yes that's right...pay to use the service which has FAILED to collect £3.5 billion owed. But just to hoodwink you into thinking you're getting a new service they'll rebrand it the CMS (wonder how much that's costing?).

Here's a revolutionary thought...the parents that are on friendly enough terms to agree a private arrangement have got a private arrangement already. Which harebrained, ignorant, idiot sat and looked at it and went "I know...we'll just get them to agree it between themselves"...no matter that some of them may have escaped just about with their limbs in place or endured years of control freak behaviour from the non-resident parent.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!

It used to be with the jurisdiction of the courts, because the only language these non-resident parents actually understand is "the bailiffs are going to be sent in" or "you will be going to prison.. if you don't adequately contribute to your children's upkeep."

Then the CSA came along and children suffered for it...now it's the CMS which is basically just the government's excuse to wash their hands of the whole debacle because which cash strapped, single parent can afford to pay for a service that fails to actually secure them any financial contribution towards their children???

Oh and the £3.5 billion is much lower than the figure would be had they actually made a maintenance decision on all those self employed fathers claiming they live on £600 a month whilst owning several companies...

DISCUSS PLEASE!

They used to here. Those paying maintenance could deduct it from their income for tax purposes and got tax relief on it. It worked pretty well but we decided a long whilst back to abolish that system.

What is unfair about the new changes in my view is I think those owed the money cannot take back the debt from the CSA and sue the non payer over it. Instead it is written off. That seems to be as if A owed B money and C the state suddenly decides to write the debt off - an abuse or process, breach of human rights, confiscation. Surely they could provide that instead the debt moves back to the parent who then can sue if they are within the 6 years or whatever you are allowed to sue in or the parent could sell the sum owing to a debt collection firm for 50% of its face value or whatever it is deemed worth?

My ex pays nothing but that is because our court order says he need not (as I earn a lot more). Even so you would have thought he might choose to pay something and at least have regular contact.

OP, can you post a link to the latest government documents that say the debts/arrears will be written off when cases are closed?

Back in 2013, the "Arrears and Compliance Strategy" clearly stated that arrears wouldn't be written off - is this another u-turn?

Isn't it rather foolish to publicise it anyway? What's to stop NRP ceasing payments now, knowing that arrears won't be chased?

One of my closest friends recently sold her house the one she spent her entire adult life paying for,her ex husband who has not clapped eyes on her or his children for 15 years had to receive a cheque from her for tens of thousands (think around 60k)

He owes her 15 years worth of CSA assessed unpaid maintenance of over half the amount she had to pay him.

She was not allowed to offset his proven undisputed debt against her payment to him. When the CSA were informed that further enforcement attempts may be a good idea they were not interested and actually stated that they wouldn't take that into consideration.

I handed the CSA company accounts proving the high income of the company I gave my ex,they were not interested apparently someone can claim they only have £65 pw for a 70 hour week without any benefits being claimed because they gave the company to their girlfriend and that's what she pays him and ofcourse not forgetting that he rents office space from her in a building he (not her) owns and that's a legit business expense.
Yet they were very quick to listen to him when he first claimed we had 50-50 then that he was the RP (we have never had more than EOW and for several years he's been prohibited by court order from even contacting dc so certainly not a RP

Would I pay for a service like that? Nope.

It's like they have only given two options ask for nothing or pay for this. No further option of using the courts nothing other than get agreement or get charged.surely if you could get agreement and count on payment you wouldn't have needed the CSA in the first place.

surely if you could get agreement and count on payment you wouldn't have needed the CSA in the first place.

Unfortunately, that's not always true. There are a minority of Parents (resident and NR) who have gone running to the CSA over the years without even trying to discuss the issue of CM with the other parent.

My exH (NRP) did it because he was advised to by his debt advisor. DHs exW (RP) did it when she was faced with an appointment for mediation. These parents, who cause the CSA to incur expense despite the RP being willing to receive direct payments, or the NRP being willing to pay directly, have contributed to the reasons why the system is considered poor value for money and has been overhauled.

The only parents I know who receive maintenance have gone through the CSA. It must be a minority who do it out of spite.

It's just the Tories way of penalising single parents. Whatever happens these changes will make us worse off.

I do realise I am going to upset people with this post
But
My husband has finally finished paying through the csa fir his dd, who is now an adult and their incompetence over the years has been astounding. He always paid but they treated him with utter contempt. His ex used to open and close the case, disagree with calculations etc. It would go to family court again blah blah blah.
It was agreed in their divorce that she would have the house car part of his wages as maintenance and it was never enough, so she went to the csa and from a third person (who dealt with them too as they took money out of my wages also - as a second wife) they made the situation worse. It fuelled anger, it was used as a weapon.
The person who suffered the most was my sd and she deserved much better than that and I am angry with all of them tbh. Mum, dad, csa.
There HAS to be a better way than how it has been done in the past.
Fathers are legally responsible financially for their children (as are mothers) there has to be a much more straightforward way of making them contribute towards living, breathing human beings

There might be a better way of providing a better CSA system but to ruin it for those of us who have no problem with it isn't acceptable. Or safe for those of us who have experienced abuse.

I can't even say to hell with it and close the case because XP would think I was in a new relationship and come after us (we've not moved house). This is dangerous, abusive men we're talking about.

meglet cases involving Victims of DV won't incur a charge for using the new system.

That was agreed as one of the first principles - and hasn't changed afaik?!?

Sounds like there's some media scaremongering going on - I can't find anything published by Government to suggest that arrears are going to be written off, or that victims of DV will be expected to negotiate directly with their abuser.

Frogs, your ex would have had to,because it used to be the case (not sure if it still is) that any payments made for CM were not protected from your income for any debt collection unless court or CSA ordered.

If you have a ex whose willing what s the point of using the CSA? If you are going to get more money then they should have offered more in the first place.
It serves no useful purpose to go via a third party if you don't need to,not even mischief related ones.

owl

Yes the CSA make massive cock ups but unless this all happened before 2003 then it's not quite right.

They stopped being able to even consider a partners income under the second set of rules (2003) if it was under the old rules and she closed then reopened then it would have changed from the old to the new.

Once you have opened a CSA case you cannot then go back to court for CM because you are not allowed to even if you had an existing order (you cannot open a CSA case if the order is under 12 months old).

You may have a massive case for complaint and refund and that may be worth checking out very quickly

I'm quite concerned about how one will be expected to prove abuse, if they are going to go down the same road as the LA has then shed loads of victims are screwed

frogby the initial charge is irrelevant. XP will still be required to pay approx 50 more a month. He won't agree to this and we will be at risk again. I don't want him to pay 50 more a month because I don't want him screaming at me and the dc's.

As it stands I don't have a choice, although I am going to beg the CSA to not make him pay more and just take 50 out of my payment. They get their blood money, XP knows no different and me and the dc's will be safe.

It serves no useful purpose to go via a third party if you don't need to,not even mischief related ones.

Well. That depends on what you class as useful, really, doesn't it? Even here on MN "going to the CSA" is considered to be the ultimate threat by some posters.

I don't disagree - it doesn't achieve anything for the DCs, but it provides emotional satisfaction to some.

sock Yes, that's why my ex went to the CSA - but the outcome was the same; the CSA incurred an administrative charge for a CM arrangement that could have been made privately between parents

meglet there are other options open to you - depriving your DCs of that financial support seems a very unfair punishment for their fathers abusive and illegal behaviour.

Do you have contact with a police domestic violence officer who you could discuss your concerns with?

It's only a threat if your really daft (if you don't need it)

It's a bit "I'm going to the CSA"

Ex "hmm ok then but I'm already giving you exactly/ more than what they would tell me to"

This is mixing up two separate issues. If a NRP is violent, lets down car tyres etc then the police should be called, in the same way as you would if a stranger did this! Otherwise yes it is being complicit with the perpetrator, as well as being a damaging example to the DC.

sock Personally, I agree with you, but, because many don't, it does result in a significantly higher administration cost for the CSA because of those really daft RP.
There are regular threads on the Step board where RP have applied to the CSA because they believe that they are entitled to more then the NRP is paying (often believing they are entitled to a portion of the stepparents income as well) only to have the assessment return a significantly lower amount of CM that they are receiving from the NRP directly. As you say, really daft, but costly for the CSA and ultimately the tax payer. Maybe an application fee will put those vexatious applicants off - a classic example of how the daft minority ruin it for the rest.

I have always called the police on XP in the past (I have crime numbers) and will do so the moment he apprears again. But the police aren't going to pay for damage to my property, or cover any time I have to take off work. Losing £50 a month to keep us safe is a no-brainer, the children won't be deprived of anything. They will be deprived and distressed if XP starts smashing on the door or trying to see them out of spite. I'm not having their lives ruined by him making contact.

The CSA are stirring up trouble with abusive ex-parents. They are not the women and children at risk when the NRP kicks off again.

Ah yes, put off those vexatious applicants off . Never mind the collateral damage caused to victims of abuse. FFS.

ok, so effectively you're paying protection money - terrible example to the DC!

Why is it a terrible example? They won't go without and the law can only do so much to keep us safe.

What would be worse would be to roll over, accept the lower charges and wait for our lives to be pulled apart.

Obviously you have are very lucky, and naïve from the sound of it, if you have never dealt with a abusive partner.

Do we have any figures for vexatious applications (not including mistaken NRP)?

IME you have to be very careful taking a newer partners word as absolutely gospel (not because they lie) but they often tend to believe that the type of NRP who can't be trusted is a wonderful dad whose being unfairly hounded, anybody doing a quick google or check would know partners haven't been taken into account for over 10 years.

(Could be biased as I work with a vulnerable group of people but)my experience is I know of one just one bloke whose paying more plenty who think they are and shed loads who openly boast about lying to reduce payments.

The figures would interest me be obviously we all tend to consider more the situation we are more familiar with.

MrsYoung

Be a love and stop insulting meglet. You clearly have an extremely limited knowledge base surrounding safeguarding when DV is involved.

Meglet is in a much better position that you are to asses her own safety,plenty of victims are in exactly the same situation, even in the days when the CSA was obligatory for certain RP's those in her situation were exempt.

anybody doing a quick google or check would know partners haven't been taken into account for over 10 years.

I know - bonkers, isn't it? As you say - some RP are really daft and don't think through the consequences of their choice. I doubt an application charge will make much difference to be honest - given the same really daft RP will often pay for a court application for vexatious/malicious reasons.

I think it's fair to say that there is as much anecdotal evidence about vexatious RP applicants as there is about non-paying NRP; when it comes to statistics, the evidence is harder to interpret -there was a thread a few months back examining the various studies and what became clear is that there has never been a simple way of extracting the data.

meglet The problem you have is that the stated purpose of the CM agency is not to protect victims, so it won't be considered a factor when value for money is being assessed - there are other government funded agencies to protect you and your family - the government expect you to use them, not rely on a loophole in a scheme designed to achieve something different.