This seems to be one of most used tactics of theft from your private income the Commission  uses. According to one of their publications, the Commission seems to think that they can issue what they call Administrative Deduction from Earnings Orders and they do not need to need to go to court to have the order imposed. It is then upon the discretion of a senior colleague to finalise the Deduction Order and then  utilise it  as some kind of lawful court order.

 

 The CSA are informing employers that it is a criminal offence to either fail to give them their employees details upon request and/or fail to pay the funds from their employees income. The employer has every right to protect his employees data and has every right to ask the CSA to provide proof  that their employee is the liable person. It quite clearly states in their own EU directive known as the Child Support Act 1991:

 

Dead Beat Dads Association is in possession of a Court of Record where the CSA admitted that employers can ask to see proof that their employee is the liable person. If the CSA refuse to do so then should the CSA try to prosecute the employer, then a counterclaim under the fraud act can be brought against the employee of the CSA who tries to bring a claim against the employer.

 

“31Deduction from earnings orders

(1)This section applies where any person (“the liable person”) is liable to make payments of child support maintenance.

 

The employer therefore  has every right to request to see proof  in LAW that his employee is the LIABLE PERSON, and the Commission  provides space on their deductions sheet for the employer to state the reasons why the deduction can not be made. We recently assisted an employer in court and it was confirmed that the Employer had every right to with hold information and funds as there had been no proof provided to show that the employee was a liable person.

 The employer has to comply with the Employment Rights Act 1996  section 13:

 

 13 Right not to suffer unauthorised deductions.

 

(1)An employer shall not make a deduction from wages of a worker employed by him unless—

(a)the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision or a relevant provision of the worker’s contract, or

(b)the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of the deduction.

 

(2)In this section “relevant provision”, in relation to a worker’s contract, means a provision of the contract comprised—

(a)in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on an occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question, or

(b)in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) the existence and effect, or combined effect, of which in relation to the worker the employer has notified to the worker in writing on such an occasion.

 

Statutory provisions have been confirmed to be Tax, National Insurance and Pension Contributions, a Statutory Provision  is NOT  a Deduction from Earnings Order enforced by the Commission as it does not comply with the Attachment of Earnings Act 1996.  It has to be proven in Law that the non resident parent is the liable person, the only way this can be done is in court, just the same as a Council Tax Liability Order. If it is proven that the non resident parent is liable then the commission has to apply to the courts to get an Attachment of Earnings order, which is the correct procedure according to their legislation.

 

It has become common practice for employers to inform their employees, when questioned about why private funds have been deducted from their pay packet, that it is the LAW.  Unfortunately most employers are not interested in protecting their employees and the CSA prey on the ignorance of employers to just dip into their private income of their employee without any proof of identity or liability, and transfer funds in an account being held at HSBC  sort code 40-34-18 account number 41775448. Here is the proof of where employees private funds are being paid into, this has been taken from a document served from the CSA to an employer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 We would like to point out what the CSA instruct the employer to do according to their Employers Handbook, which is not a legal document by the way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is their own legislation known as the child Support Act 1991

Deduction from earnings orders

 

(1)This section applies where any person (“the liable person”) is liable to make payments of child support maintenance.

 

(2)The Secretary of State may make an order (“a deduction from earnings order”) against a liable person to secure the payment of any amount due under the maintenance assessment in question.

 

(3)A deduction from earnings order may be made so as to secure the payment of—

 

(a)arrears of child support maintenance payable under the assessment;

(b)amounts of child support maintenance which will become due under the assessment; or

(c)both such arrears and such future amounts.

 

(4)A deduction from earnings order—

(a)shall be expressed to be directed at a person (“the employer”) who has the liable person in his employment; and

(b)shall have effect from such date as may be specified in the order.

 

(5)A deduction from earnings order shall operate as an instruction to the employer to—

(a)make deductions from the liable person’s earnings; and

(b)pay the amounts deducted to the Secretary of State.

 

If you care to notice the highlighted parts ,where in their very own legislation, it merely uses the words “SHALL” and “MAY”. You cannot follow the words “SHALL” or “MAY” with MUST. This is further proof that the Commission makes up the rules to suit themselves and to intimidate employers. The Commission uses a similar tactic when it come to paying off arrears , they used to instruct the non resident parent that the arrears had to be paid off in two years, this in fact was not a law but merely a managerial decision designed to look like a law by unqualified directorates thinking they could pass laws from behind their own office desks. The words “MAY” and “SHALL” in the legal dictionary states  that it is not mandatory.

 

If we MUST pay them funds then why don’t they use the words MUST in their own legislation? Something to think about?....

 

 We must point out that Dead Beat Dads Association are not legally qualified, however we have had a lot of experience in Court dealing with the corrupt actions of the CSA and supporting and assisting non resident parents, and we have been  commended by a Crown Court Judge for our conduct in assisting upon a case. From our experience and research we are highlighting what non resident parents rights ,and also employers rights. Any employers who wish to know more about their rights then please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

 

Notice here how they instruct the employer that they MUST deduct the amount shown on the order