My feed

to access all these features

Find financial and money saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum.

Money matters

Did you know that our Government is now lifting children out of poverty by making other children homeless

162 replies

Twinklemegan · 08/08/2007 21:13

I just want people to know about this as it is so so shocking.

For the past few months the Government has been ordering the CSA to take out court orders against absent parents who are complying with existing agreements. This occurs where arrears cannot be paid back in two years. There is no mention in the enforcement guidance of ensuring that any other children do not lose their home or suffer other severe hardship as a result. The Government will try to recover arrears through the courts even when they are outside the legal time limit and has powers to force an absent parent to sell their home.

Even the CSA does not agree with this!

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 12:00

I accept that Expat, perhaps I phrased it wrong.

Can't you just please see my point about enforcement? That is all this thread is about. Like I said, even DH's ex has realised this is completely unfair and asked them to draw a line under it.

OP posts:
Tortington · 10/08/2007 13:06

"Custardo - it stems from the new 2007 collection regulations but it is internal guidelines which are being interpreted without any common sense. The information on the internet has (unsurprisingly) not been updated to take account of this"

said the man on the phone? or have you inside knowledge?

how they collect money and their guidelines should be a matter of public record. anything else is rubbish. So can you point me to the policies?

HappyMummyOfOne · 10/08/2007 13:27

"I think it IS unfair that I can't afford to clothe my DS because I personally have to pay someone else who left DH to remarry her ex and then had 2 more kids"

You pay the payments as a family not personally. Why should DS's son not have any maintenance just because the ex is now re-married? Your DH re-married and has more children or is that double standards?

What happens if you and him split. I presume you wouldnt expect any maintenance from him.

If he's been paying less than he should and arrears have built up, then its the child thats missed out and deserves to have the arrears paid. A judge wont force a house sale where children are involved so will just agree a payment plan to suit the CSA and you.

You knew your DH had children when you started a relationship so dont moan now how "unfair" it is that the child needs supporting. If your DH had paid the correct payments instead of the minimum you would not have this issue now.

PSCMUM · 10/08/2007 13:42

how funny that you see yours and your DH's money as separate, you 'personally' are paying as he cannot afford do. I think you just have a really weird attitude to money. I'm married and mine and my husband's money is one and the same, for whatever reason its being spent, its all ours, there is not a bit thats mine and a bit thats his. You as a family are supporting his children, also part, whether you like it or not, of his family. How I pity those children - I hope they don't realise how tight their dad;s new wife is.

TooTicky · 10/08/2007 13:56

TM, huge sympathies. It must be so scary for you. If they really do try to make you pay the lot in one go, talk to local papers and your MP. The CSA are shitty. I once had to phone them to let them know that their payment would be a few days late due to financial difficulties and because they didn't have my name on file as dp's partner, they wouldn't even listen to me. It's not as if I wanted to discuss any details!

Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 17:29

PSCMUM - I am "tight" because I have to be because money is extremely tight here and I can currently barely afford our food bills. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with more well off people.

OP posts:
Twinklemegan · 10/08/2007 17:39

TooTicky - thank you! It is very nice to hear a friendly voice amidst the attacks. I too have found the CSA will not talk to me, this being the reason why I do not feel involved in the case at all, other than as a handy pot of money.

Custardo - thanks for taking the time to at least respond to my OP. You're right it is based on what we were told on the phone. Perhaps I have been worried over nothing, but if I have then so will many many others be. In our experience the CSA IS true to their word, but only when it suits them. this link gives more information, although admittedly that is only hearsay as well. The reason we have been dealing with a liability order rather than a DEO is because DH is classed as self-employed.

I am sorry that others haven't had the courtesy to read and understand my OP. Not once have I questioned that DH and I should be paying maintenance for his children - not once! I have been instrumental in helping him through the whole process. I simply object to the whole heavy-handed approach of the CSA. And the fact is that the law says that only DH's income is to be included - if we have to pay through the CSA rather than privately I just want the law to be followed - that's all.

Unless there are any more well thought-out and reasonable posts to respond to I am signing off this thread. Many of you have lowered my opinion of Mumsnet considerably.

OP posts:
Tortington · 11/08/2007 19:22

dont the csa only chase to cover benefit claimants, so the saving is to the taxpayer - rather than a benefit to the child in any way? am asking i don't know! unless of course you ask them specifically.

Twinklemegan · 11/08/2007 21:07

Hi Custy - I'm not supposed to be here, but I'm lurking and thought I should respond to your question. Once the CSA is involved, whether that is because they have to be or because the PWC wants them to be, they can chase whatever they like. In our case most of the debt is "private client".

We have been told that the situation now is that all debts, whether owed to the Government or not, have been effectively handed over to the PWCs and it is up to them whether they are pursued or not. However, when we asked DH's ex whether the CSA had been trying to contact her to discuss the liability order (as they told us they had) she said she had heard nothing from them for years .

In practice this new arrangement means that PWC will have received the money twice over where the Government has already paid them benefits. Although it is certainly better for the money to go to the kids rather than into Government coffers.

Hope this clarifies!

I really am signing off this thread now as I'm not up for any more insults and accusations.

OP posts:
discriminated · 25/01/2010 00:07

I too am being leagally mugged im a mother of 2 my hubby is going through hell with his ex using csa his daughter 18 has decided to go to college and also works evenings weekends whilst they can earn as much as they like we have to hand over 15%of earnings to the ex whilst our kids only need10% each i asked the csa how my kids need less to live on i was told i get more
i asked how they work that out the call was terminated i have been told by my mp that as a second family we dont count only the first family do this is discrimination leagally and leagally leaving second family children in poverty and potentially homeless

scaryteacher · 26/01/2010 10:48

I assume if you put the house in the name of the second wife, and this can be done, then the CSA can't force the sale as you are not liable for the payments/arrears in maintenance; but your dh is.

youwillnotwin · 26/01/2010 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.