Text Box: CSA Workers encourages NRP to lose his house One NRP had to call the CSA as they had left him with no money to buy food or to pay for fuel to put in his car to get to work. His case worker turned around and told him to default on his mortgage in order to free up some of his money as Child Support was priority over any other bill. Child support may be a priority and yes we do agree that children have to be paid for, however the Child Support Agency have no right advising an NRP to default on his mortgage in order for him to live just so that the CSA can swallow up most of his income CSA Break several Laws and Guidelines One NRP was contacted initially by phone by the CSA under the guise of the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions). The case worker stated that she was enquiring about his ex wife’s claim for child tax credits. The NRP told the case worker child tax credits have nothing to do with him and to take up the issue with his ex wife. They then stated that they were now from the Child Support Agency so when the NRP started to ask the case worker some security questions to prove that they were from the CSA they refused to do so, the NRP exercised his rights and asked them to request information in writing as he was not prepared to give his personal income details over the phone. The Case worker then accuses the NRP of being none compliant and states that the CSA have the power to go direct to his employer to obtain the information they require, the NRP asks again for the CSA to follow procedure and send out the Maintenance Enquiry Form and he would fill them in and return what ever forms they require. Three days later the NRP receives a liability order stating he is liable to pay £100 per week and to fill in the direct debit mandate form and return it back to the CSA. The NRP contacts the caseworker to ask how they had come to a figure of £100 a week, he was told it was the figure given to them by the PWC (this the CSA are not supposed to do) so again the NRP asks the caseworker to send out the correct forms yet again for him to fill in and send back to them in order to calculate the correct procedure. The caseworker said he was down as being a non compliant NRP and that they would start enforcing powers against him. Eight days later he receives a Deduction of earnings order (DEO) stating that the CSA were taking £480 a month from him. Again the NRP contacts his caseworker to ask why he received a DEO from them, and why if he is liable for £100 per week why are they taking an extra £80 on top of that. The caseworker informs the NRP that he failed to return the Direct Debit Mandate Form and that the £80 was arrears that had accrued. The CSA by law cannot accept the figure solely from the PWC, the CSA by law should have contacted the NRP’s employer to obtain the correct income details in order to make the correct assessment plus the CSA by law have to inform the NRP of the arrears he has to pay and also the CSA have to by law negotiate arrears with the NRP, so the CSA caseworker was trying to act fraudulently. The NRP issues a summons on the CSA and when the case was heard in court the Magistrates was appalled by the lack of procedure and the laws broken by the CSA and was told to re assess the case again from scratch and to follow procedure and the law. The CSA chose to ignore this. A few days after the court case the CSA contact the NRP and admitted that procedures had not been followed and said that they would issue a fresh direct debit mandate form for him to fill in and to send in some cheques to cover the arrears however the CSA refused to lift the DEO, the NRP refused to send in the fresh Direct Debit mandate form because with the CSA refusing to dismiss the DEO he feared he would be paying the CSA twice every month once through his pay roll and second from his bank. The CSA would not clarify that they would not do this so the NRP decided to take his case to his MP. The CSA continued to lie to the MP, they continued to lie to the NRP and when the NRP caught them out lying and then stated that all the calls were being recorded by the NRP they then told him that he would be correspondence only. They are refusing to answer any correspondence made to them. The case continues. CSA Fraudulently Change a Cheque sent in to them A father was paying the CSA by sending in cheques. The father had put down the wrong year on the cheque and was informed by the CSA that they were returning the cheque to him and could he send in a new cheque with the correct details. The father sent in a new cheque with the correct details but the CSA did not return the original cheque with the wrong year on it and instead they altered the date and put an initial on the cheque and then went on to cash both cheques in the one month taking twice the amount they should have done. The fathers bank has confirmed the CSA have altered the cheque which is a fraudulent act by the agency and now the father is taking the CSA to court for fraud. Father Pays CSA through a DEO then the CSA deny they got any money A father was paying the CSA through a Deduction of earnings order in the mid 1990s and had the wage slips to prove it. Early in 2008 the CSA wrote to the father stating that he had not paid any child maintenance at all. The father told the CSA that he had been paying child support and luckily for him he had kept all of his wage slips to prove it. The CSA then advised the father that it was his responsibility to ensure that his employer made the payments to the CSA. The wage slip with the deduction of earnings on is proof that the CSA had been paid and if the CSA had been doing their job correctly in the first place then what they should have done was taken the Employer to court and had the employer fined for every month they did not pay the CSA. A little advice from the fathers Ombudsman and a letter from his MP to the CSA the CSA then changed their attitude and had realised that the father had paid far more than the £5, 102 that they wanted in the first place so they decided to close the account but did not refund the overdue amount that the father had overpaid. Father hit by imaginary arrears A father who had been paying the correct amount of Child Maintenance since he was assessed by the CSA was issued with a letter from the CSA stating he was in arrears by £900. The father was confused as he had kept the CSA up to date every time he had a pay increase and sent in all the wage slips as and when any increases took place. He paid the CSA by sending in cheques every 4 weeks as this was the time periods he used to be paid. The father contacted the CSA to find out whether any confusion had occurred and was told by the caseworker that his particular caseworker wasn’t in and could he call back the following day. The following day he got the same response and this carried on over a period of a few days, however one day he was asked to leave his number and his caseworker would ring him back, he is still waiting for that return call. A week later he received a letter stating that he had ignored the letters sent out to him requesting the £900 arrears and that if he did not pay back the arrears they would impose a Deduction Of Earnings order on him and send in the Bailiffs. After the father had contacted the Dead Beat Dads Association and we put him in the picture he rang them back and informed them they need to prove the debt in order to remove him from paying by cheque and onto a DEO and he also made them aware that people are now onto the CSAs new scam in order to obtain more money. To date the father has not had any more threatening letters, and the CSA have allowed him to carry on paying by cheque. Rounded Rectangle: NRP Case Files

Cases where the CSA Break the Law