A Fairer CSA's Proposals, Aims and Goals

At 'afairercsaforall' we believe in fairness. In being fair you cannot please all the people all the time, there will always be those that oppose suggestions.

With this in mind, we recognise that the following proposals will not be met with 100% approval, and there will be some that will see this document as unfair to them.

We respectably request that, readers of this document, see past their own experiences, in a view to enable them to consider each point raised in an unbiased manner. Hopefully, the end result will be a new and fairer system for all.

Without doubt, for those that are failed by the Governments out of date Child Support legislation, which is inattentively and recklessly implemented by the Child Support Agency (CSA), it consequently leaves many non resident parents (NRP) and parents with care (PWC), along with their children and current partners, genuinely suffering financially.

Incredulously, the CSA owe NO legal duty of care to any of its clients. This is a serious issue, which needs addressing, legislation has in a majority of cases taken Child Support cases away from the courts. In doing so those NRP & PWC who have no choice other than to use the service provided by the CSA, are prevented any legal recourse through the court system. Both the CSA & soon to be CMEC legally need to be made accountable for their actions, as parents and children alike deserve better.

What went wrong with the CSA?
Common problems, and why they are simply not workable in reality.

Firstly, the time taken to carry out an assessment.
The first few months following a relationship breakdown is probably the most financially testing time for the new PWC. During these months the PWC has to deal with a new and vastly reduced household budget, while trying to deal with the stresses related to relationship breakdown.

Secondly, the sometimes inflated amounts NRP are assessed to pay.
After a relationship breakdown, both parents have extra costs to meet, including legal fees. And in the NRP case, the costs associated with setting up a new home for themselves and the visiting qualifying children. To help meet these costs the parent opts to do overtime, this extra income is used as assessable.

Finally, the biggest reason the child support system in the UK simply does not work, is because it is not what it claims to be.
When referring to the 'Child Support Agency', you expect it to support children right?

If that is what your are lead to believe, then you are wrong. It supports a small number of children true, but its main purpose is to support the treasury, yes the Government’s purse. It is the Governments secret little stealth tax. A tax on parenthood.

OUR AIMS

1) We believe after the trauma of relationship breakdown, both parents have the right to move on and rebuild their lives.

With this in mind, we ask:

When assessing the NRP income, only earnings relating to their weekly contracted hours, up to 40 hours, be calculated at the full percentage used in the case. Subsequent income such as overtime, bonus and second jobs to be calculated at a reduced rate of 5%.

Should subsequent earnings cease, the change should be implemented instantly and proof  provided to the CSA within 28 days.
Usually, extra work commitments are undertaken to better ones standard, everyone should have this right. ~ This change would benefit all parties, as the NRP would have an incentive to work extra hours/jobs and as such, extra income to provide occasional/extra treats for their children. Furthermore, a more realistic assessment bodes well for compliance, benefiting the PWC and relevant child/ren. The CSA would then acquire more time to efficiently pursue true non compliant NRP's.

2) Should a NRP becomes a member of a second family, whether children of that family are step or biological, ALL children have equal needs.

The NRP's income is used for the purpose of calculating any award of Tax Credits, for  ALL children step or otherwise, and rightly so, this is after all a FAMILY UNIT.

In many cases second/blended families consist of a NRP and a PWC, both from first families, who unite and become a unit in their own right.

With this in mind, we ask:

Any Child Tax Credits paid to a family unit be free from assessment.

Child Tax Credits, as its title suggests, are to financially support the child/ren, in addition to the income of the household it is paid to. ~ Therefore, it is hypocritical and unjust to include this income, paid by the Government who deem the payment of such, as preventing the receiving family from living in hardship and/or poverty, as assessable income.

3) Disability elements paid along with Tax Credit Awards, are paid to the family to financially assist with the extra costs and care required, by the disabled child to whom they are awarded.

With this in mind, we ask:

Disability elements be disregarded along with DLA and other disability benefits. Under NO circumstances should this be used as assessable income ~ This unfair practice needs no reasoning, it an inhumane disgrace that our Government can deem the inclusion of such acceptable, and has NO PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY.  No person other than the disabled person should benefit financially from these awards.

4) Travelling to work costs money. It is an outlay one would not have if they did not work. The current system recognises only travel “as the crow flies” and only travel in access of 150 miles.

With this in mind, we ask:

All work related travel be recognised in line with Inland Revenue guidelines, and not as the crow flies - as for the crow, well we don’t see many Vauxhalls sitting on telephone wires. With rising fuel prices, NRP’s should not find themselves worse off in work. It should always pay to work.  

5)  Parents who retain the care of their children need, a steady financial income from the onset and through-out the childs life up till adulthood. Children need support every day. CSA delays and maladministration are promoting some PWC families into financial hardship.

With this in mind, we ask.

All applications received by the CSA be assessed fairly and accurately, within 30 days from the PWC's contact. In the event the of  the NRP’s payment not being received on time, the CSA make payment in lieu of Child Support and then recover the amount from the NRP payments ~ The PWC would then have income when it is due and most needed.

6) New regulations soon to be in force, mean PWC on benefits will be allowed to retain up to £40 of Child Support received, without losing any benefit.

With this in mind, we ask:

Tax Credits be amended to make the same true for the working PWC ~ Why should hard working parents, who choose to work be discriminated against?

As a parent on benefit is to have a rise of £40 then so should every parent in the country!

7) Since March 03, when CS2 was introduced, 2 different calculation methods have been in force, CSCS & CS2. This means, two NRP with exactly the same set of circumstances are paying two totally different amounts, as such, PWC are receiving two totally different amounts.

With this in mind, we ask:

One fairer system be put in place immediately, C-mec goes some way, but its implementation is not soon enough and current cases may never move over.

8) The CSA were intending on pursuing payments from "deadbeat dads". Sadly, the Agency has a dismal record for successfully chasing truly non-compliant NRP's.

In efforts to meet their 'targets', the Agency focus on compliant parents, pushing them to the extreme, in their attempt to 'get more money to more children' - However, little has improved for PWC families, with truly non compliant NRP's and they still have little hope of receiving payments in respect of child support.

With this in mind, we ask:

The agency uses its energy to chase true non-complaints. Most NRP's want to help with the upkeep of their children. The Agencies heavy handedness is causing untold problems. Not all NRP's fall into the 'deadbeat' club.

9) Agency maladministration, delays and errors are a common cause for a case accruing arrears.

Extortionate repayment amounts towards arrears, as well as regular maintenance payments, are resulting in poverty for the NRP and their family.

Whilst awaiting Agency decisions/actions, PWC's are left in hardship.

With this in mind, we ask:

That, where the Agency are partially/fully responsible for the accrued arrears, the collection of such is determined by making allowances for the NRPs family/personal circumstances and prior consideration is given to the NRP before implementing a DEO (detachment of earnings orders). Currently homes are being repossessed, helped by the Agency abusing DEO legislation.

Under such circumstances, the PWC should be given a reasonable and relative lump sum payment where the agency is at fault.

10) The most important thing to remember - this is about the children. Agency intervention causes problems not only for the warring parents, but also the children involved.

With this in mind, we ask:

The Agency considers the detriment that Agency actions can cause to ALL children involved, including qualifying children, NRP children and PWC children. The children are all step siblings, resentment is not healthy and does not promote balance for our future adults, all need to feel and be equal.

11) CS2 does not recognise housing costs of a NRP - C-mec is following the same route. Many NRP’s go on to have second families, who welcome qualifying children for regular overnight stays and extended periods during school holidays.

With this in mind, we ask:

Housing costs are disregarded, but only up to a reasonable amount in all assessments. Many homes are being repossessed, leaving second families homeless and qualifying children missing important contact visits.

12) Most NRP's want to contribute to the upbringing of their children. Contributions come in many forms, not just financial, this also includes contact.

There is a difference between a NRP and an excluded parent.

With this in mind, we ask:

A PWC who wilfully, with no legitimate reason, prevents/deters a child from having contact with the NRP, be subjected to financial penalty, by way of a deduction in Child support of a minimum of 50%. This would encourage much needed contact for child/ren and parents OR free up funds for the NRP to take action through the family courts to enable contact to be reinstated.

13) Shared care is a major problem which is not addressed by CMEC. Actual legislation is required to make sure neither PWC nor NRP are deceitful with regard contact and length of visits. Nobody should be made to prove they had their own children - It is a fact children cost more whilst awake then when sleeping, the legislation should recognise this as common sense.

With this in mind, we ask:

Both parents be provided with a child contact diary with the MEF and MAF as standard.

When the NRP has the child/ren the PWC should be required to sign the NRP diary and vica versa. If  one refuses to sign and it is later proven contact did take place, then the parent who failed to sign be penalised financially.

Contact for a full day, should be treat as such and a one full day reduction implemented and so on. It matters not where the child spent the night asleep.

14) The CSA receives more complaints per client than any other Government dept. (Tax Credits have more complaints, but more clients). Complaints are currently dealt with the complaints dept of the CSA.

With this in mind, we ask:

For an independent organisation to deal with complaints, it is impossible for the CSA to remain impartial. All complaints no matter how trivial should be dealt fairly and with balance.

Local offices should be approachable, while the agency remains faceless, problems will continue.

15) Most importantly, both parents are clients of the Agency.

To quote CSA customer charter: "We aim to be professional and responsive, helpful and courteous in all our dealings with clients".

This is far from evident in practice. ALL clients have a right to expect and receive an efficient standard of service and be spoken with in a reasonable, civilised manner.

With this in mind, we ask:

Agency staff found to be unreasonable, disrespectful, rude, unhelpful, unfair or telling untruths, and any member of Agency staff getting any form of pleasure or control buzz as a result of hearing parents upset on the phone, be subject to immediate disciplinary action.

16) These days, it is an out dated assumption that all mail sent out reaches its destination. Important correspondence such as - MEF’s, DEO’s etc, should be subject to tracking.

This is common sense, and protects both sender and recipient.

With this in mind, we ask:

All important correspondence be posted recorded.

ALL MAIL SENT TO AND FROM THE AGENCY SHOULD BE REGISTERED AND SIGNED FOR TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED.

17) The Law states, that 'if an application could be dealt with by the CSA, then it must be pursued there. The court can deal with cases where the CSA do not have the power' - For the rest of us, if a private agreement is unobtainable, the system has taken jurisdiction away from the court and we are legally forced to use the CSA.

Currently the CSA DOES NOT owe any legal duty of care to anyone. Therefore, this area of Government is devoid of responsibility and can make careless errors and mistakes, causing actual financial loss to individuals with no legal reproach.

With this in mind, we ask:

That the CSA be legally recognised as 'owing a duty of care' to ALL its clients and as such, enabling any person/s dissatisfied with the standard of service received, to seek redress through the court system.

18) It is farcical that LO's are being sought from NRP's who have a good and consistent record of making payments.

With this in mind, we ask:

Legislation should be more specific as to what constitutes 'non-compliant' or the qualifying period for which enforcement action is deemed necessary. Perhaps something along the following lines:

A NRP will become non-compliant for the purposes of legislation, when he/she, without good or sufficient cause, fails to make due payments, on 3 or more consecutive occasions, or misses 4 payments within a 12 month period".

19) Current legislation allows the CSA to remove 40% of an NRP income, think about that 40% leaves little for other needs. It does not leave enough income for even basic needs in most cases.

With this in mind, we ask:

No more than 3% above the assessment amount be removed from any NRP's income.
1 child no more then 18%.
2 children no more then 23%.
3 or more children no more then 28%.
We believe ALL parents should be able to live, children after all should be a pleasure.

20) Many non-resident parents show concern that monies paid to the parent with care as a contribution to the wellbeing of their child/ren is not being used for the purpose it is meant. Child support is to support the child/ren and not lifestyle support for the parent with care, it is not for alcohol, recreational drugs,cigarettes  or any other social activity the parent with care see fit.

With this in mind, we ask:

Where an allegation of child support misuse is reported, and a non resident parent has supporting evidence then it is subject to investigation. Where misuse is proven child support is suspended and all monies paid into trust for the qualifying children. Where a parent with care denies allegations, proof must be provided to the contary.

21) THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY SHOULD KEEP THE GOVERNMENTS PROMISE, TO REDUCE ALL CHILD POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

SADLY, THEY ARE CREATING IT - THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE DRASTICALLY!