So what d'you think of the naming and shaming non-maintenance payers idea then?

[ChristmasCaroligula]

news story here

I'll start first shall I? I think it's a pile of crap. I want to know why we don't have halls of shame for income tax evaders, or council tax non-payers, or congestion charge defaulters. You know why? Because we bloody well make them pay, on the whole. We take non-payment of council tax so seriously that we send old age pensioners to prison if they don't pay it. And yet with maintenance we talk about collecting money as if it is impossible.

And another thing. Someone tell me how it would benefit my children if their father was publicly named as being a wastrel? How would that be in their interests? How would that make them feel? I can't imagine how awful it would be to be told in the playground "your dad doesn't love you enough to pay your money. And no you can't play with us!"

I can't believe that this government has so lost the plot that it can come out with an infantile idea like this and think it will disguise the fact that their agency is a disgrace. Rant, rant, rant, rant.

I would object to a trust fund idea because it ignores the fact that kids need to be supported now. A lump sum at 21 isn't going to make up for the fact that kids couldn't afford new clothes, holidays, school trips, music lessons, etc. in their formative years. It also won't pay for the fuel they use and the food they eat. And it promotes the idea that an absent parent can be some kind of Santa Claus figure, totally absent for the whole year and then suddenly a hero at christmas. (I felt that icon was appropriate there)

Damn wrong one. I meant this one

They can take the maintenance out of dole money, but what happens is that when the man then gets a job, he stops paying. By the time they've caught up with him to take the money out of his wages, he hasn't paid for six to twelve months. Then they take the money out of his wages, he then stops work and goes back on the dole, he stops paying again. Then they take a year to take it back out of his dole again. This is my exe's modus vivendi. ATM I am getting a fiver a week maintenance, straight out of his dole. When he gets a job, that will stop and I will have to nag the CSA again. Because they don't have a culture of collecting money. If the Inland Revenue carried on like this, Gordon Brown would be broke.

You can only register for VAT as a self-employed person if you are regularly earning more than £50k. You have to prove to the tax office that this is the case, so if you have a self-employed ex-P/H who is registered for VAT & saying he is not making any money that is utter rubbish.

LOl Bugsy but much of what parents who dont pay say is rubbish in my experience and lies!

Why can't they serve jail time for not paying up?

Because then they'd cost the taxpayer even more PPB.
I know GF, it is tragic really [wry laugh emoticon]. I have to force myself not to dwell on this subject for too long, as I end up so angry.

it will achieve nothing. I don't even think it will shame the children, because quite honestly, who is going to look at the name and shame website? I agree that something needs to be done but, and I run the risk of being shot down here, I do think that in some instances it is a too way street, and that as well as ensuring that absent parents pay for their children, that parents who deny their ex access should be held to account as well.

There was actually a piece on radio5 the other day talking about absent parents, in which they said that actually, the greatest proportion of non paying absent parents is women, but that this isn't generally assumed because more absent parents are men iykwim, but something like 90% of women who do not have custody of their children don't pay anything towards their upkeep. so it's not all men.

That's probably because those women are in prison, drug addicts, or otherwise hopelessly inadequate wannabe - hence not having custody, as it is so unusual.

I agree that sending them to prison would only cost the taxpayer more money, but that doesn't stop us sending non-council tax payers to prison. Even when they're pensioners. Or anyone else who commits a crime. We could say that about any group really. The thing is, if they knew that prison was an option, just like with income tax, they'd pay up.

I've only read the OP but my thoughts are..

It's a waste of money scheme that will not benefit the children or the parent with care but the government need a high profile way of saying "we're doing something".. It's just plain wrong imho and it's going to get them nowhere.. they are throwing good money after bad if they go ahead with this scheme. it's riduclous - and agree makes people an easy target, kids can be so cruel.

Wannabe - Contact and payment are treated as two separate issues by law for these reasons, then people cannot deny contact for nonpayment and vice versa. However, I would say that someone who claims parental responsibility should then take economic responsibilty.

In the end it is the kids who suffer and no one else and it is them we shoudl be protecting.

My friend's x has never paid any maintenance but he was taken to court by the CSA. Blimey, I thought when she toldme, so they do actually prosecute someone for not paying.

But there was more to the story. They took him to court for refusing to complete their forms and give them information and he got a fine. Did they fine him at the same time for not paying or get any money out of him for my friend? Nope.

Meanwhile there's my lovely dh who has never missed a payment, and pays by direct debit every month - and he gets at least 6 letters each year telling him they've decided he should pay in via a bank and enclosing paying in slips. When he rings and asks what they're on about they tell him "it's a computer error just ignore it". They wrote to him and told him he had to change his payment date to a certain date, which he did, then they wrote again and said that he was in arrears because his payment date had changed, so he had to change it back.

I honestly can't see what difference a naming and shaming website would make. They need to get the CSA better organised and with real powers that they act on when people don't pay.

Frosty, your DH would probably appear on the website because inevitably they would screw up the admin and put the wrong men on. Absolutely inevitably, as night follows day.

gf I do appreciate that payment and contact are separate, but there are a lot of men out there who feel that they are being unfairly treated with regards to access, and in some instances the mother of their children is even refusing to allow them to have access to their children, and yet they are still expected to pay maintenance. I agree totally that if you have a child then you should be responsible for that child, but I do think that in some, not all, but in some instances absent parents feel that they are being made victims by their exes who refuse access and thus they don't feel why they should have to pay to financially support children whose lives they are not allowed to be a part of. It may not be right, but I can sympathise with why some feel like that.

As for the rest who simply don't pay, I don't know what the answer is, because there are so many loopholes to get out of paying that I don't think there will ever realistically be a way to make them pay.

It's a very bad idea, and I think the CSA are skating on thin ground of they try to make it legislation. My ex and I had a very amicable agreement regarding maintenance payments until I started claiming income support and the CSA were automatically involved. I wasn't getting any money through and each time I phoned they told me it was because my ex was refusing to pay....when challenged he denied it, and when we got to the bottom of it, they had his file mixed up with someone with the same name (but different DOB) who lived in a completely different city. It took him months to get things sorted out (he had to fill out a direct debit form on six separate occasions!) with phone calls from both of us on a daily basis at one point. They were even threatening to arrest his salary....and it was his employer who noticed that the address and DOB didn't match their files. (good job they were on the ball. It was all sorted in the end, but we didn't get so much as an apology from them, and I'm still not sure I got all the money I should have done. Thankfully I went back to work and we were able to revert to our own arrangement again (and in some ways they did us a favour as he is now no longer ex....)
And as someone said earlier, it's not really the world at large's business. Although I do feel sorry for those people who haven't had any money, I don't think this is the way to enforce payment.

As an aside, I thought that they were going to disband the CSA anyway....

wannabe there is no excuse for either but non payment demonstrates a lack of adult behaviour in supporting their own kids. It is utterly immoral not to support kids whether the person sees them or not.

wannabe, there are also mothers out there who feel that because their exes are not paying maintenance, or are paying far less than they can afford, they don't have the right to see their children. If they're not prepared to shoulder the responsibility for paying for them, why should they have the right to see them?

It's exactly the same argument as the man who won't support his children because he's not getting enough access. And it's just as wrong. We might sympathise with the feelings, but we can't possibly support the actions, in either case.

havent had chance to read whole thread but just to say...

my ex hasn't seen my dd1 since she was 3mths old, he has never paid a penny she is now 7 - i don't want his money as it means he will have rights, i'd rather my dd1 grew up without him influencing her as hes scum.

so if they make it so that men HAVE to pay, what will happen? will he automatically have rights to see my dd1?

when she was little i contacted them but they said they couldn't find where he lived (even though i had told them, his dad had obviously covered for him) so they have never made him pay. i don't get compensation from the csa for this - £100 here n there would be nice.

I'd like the money but as long as it doesn't involve a complete prick having contact with my precious dd1 (messing her up when i have worked so hard to bring her up properly)

LMG if he is on her birth certificate he already has rights to see her, whether he pays or not. All he has to do is go to court to enforce those rights. (If he can be arsed - he probably can't.)

It's a good idea.
What worries me is if the CSA write off the £3.5bn owed. I don't think they should have a legal right to do that. It's an asset of the parent who is owed the money. Instead they should hand the right to enforce it back to the parent, not write it off. It's not the state's money to write off.

They should also name and shame those parents who won't see their children, who choose not to.

(money and ocntact are completely separate so anyone saying if he pays can he see... that's completely wrong, They aren't linked)

god the mind boggles with this government!! is this the 'new look csa' they have been talking about?? my case has been going on for nine months...they know where he works (i know they even have his payroll number) they know where he lives. the assessment has been done, hes been ordered to pay (and hasnt) even if they put his name up on a big bloody billboard with flashing lights he still wouldnt pay! putting his name on a website isnt going to do anything but tell all and sundry my business!

Exactly Ellesbelles. Putting my children's father's name on a website, exposes me and my children to comment and gossip and invades our privacy. Not to mention how much it would hurt my children to have their father publicly disgraced.

Agree with you about writing off the debt though Xenia. I have a feeling that when they establish the new look CSA, all the money I am owed will be written off. And I really can't see why the state should have a legal right to do that. It's money that is owed to me, not to them

it'll end up being a badge of honour, like asbos. well done mate, you're getting away with it.

I haven't seen a penny in two and a half years for our three kids, i get on OK ish with my ex and woudl rather he have the relationship that he does with his children than get a fiver a week deducted from his incapacity benefit. wouldn't even pay to take them all to the cinema (hell, wouldn't buy popcorn!) there's no doubt that i need the money, but my kids need a reasonable relationship with their dad more than me buying them something plastic.

of course when and if he goes back to work, i want their 25% and i damned sure we'll be getting it.

I too think it is a pile of crap Caligula.
I can't add anything to what has already been said in your opening post.

It makes me so

I am sorry for the sweeping statement BUT it is largely men who owe this money (& I am not implying all men don't pay); but the solution; they get a website! Whilst single mothers struggling to keep their childrens homes and lives together get blamed for all the ills of society.

can you tell this is a sore point

Giving the state any job to do usually fails. They will never pursue it as well as you would your own case.