Bailiffs from CSA

[Inca]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Sorry Wales,,lost in translation...I know the bailiffs demands are beyond ridiculous..33k in 24 hours..as long as your name is Alan Sugar
I personally think that,with 2nd families,the budgeting has to include the payments to the first family.CSA is rarely the best option,,they make stupid levels of payments,it's always always best for everyone if an agreement between the 2 parents is reached and stuck to.
I am an 'ex wife',,my ex paid £20 a week but I knew he would pay £0 if I got CSA involved so I got off my bum and went to work.

[PlanB]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

im not saying the father shouldnt pay but at the same time why should the OP pay will you let her kids starve? As i said fathers should pay for their kids

I don't think the OP should feel responsible for her husband's conduct. It was his choice to pay or not to pay for his children. I agree with Wales that she has the right to safeguard her own kids because they're innocent in all this.

[Inca]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

I don't think the OP should feel responsible for her husband's conduct. It was his choice to pay or not to pay for his children. I agree with Wales that she has the right to safeguard her own kids because they're innocent in all this.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one folks,,cos I see it as the OP took as much responsibility for their situation as the hubby did. THEY decided to have kids (yes,,i know,,maternal instincts etc,,right to have own children)...THEY decided they couldn't afford HIS other kids,THEY decided he would quit work to avoid paying for his other kids,THEY decided she would be the breadwinner and THEY have incurred this bill by association.The 'innocents' in this mess are ALL the children,ok,OP's kids shouldn't have to suffer,but neither should the children of the first family.

[Sapphire]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

And here come's the next missive from me.....

Why have kids you can't afford to keep, all this boils down to in the end is child abuse, yes I've just said that, its abuse, not the knocking about kind, or the sexual kind, its the can't afford to give them things/feed them/clothe them kind, and even worse its the kind that says that daddy has a new family and doesn't love us anymore kind, if the second wife was any kind of good person/mother she'd have considered the other kids too before going along with her husbands plan to avoid paying for them and defraud the system and having another couple of kids too.

[wales01man]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Im thinking this is turning to oppose the rights of people to have children the OP has the children presumed to be the fathers and the father has kids from a previous relationship can we then say the first wife should not have had the kids because of what happened he left and did not support them?
Im positive no one on this forum will deny anyone the right to have children who knows how a marriage will progress this one failed and the father took the action he did i cannot condone that but my main point has been where do normal people get 33k overnite and why did the CSA let it go on for so long?there are a lot of people to blame here

[bizzybob]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Ideally the CSA should ensure all the children in both families are paramount, and therefore have sufficient income to keep them, unfortunately the CSA is about saving money for the government, so fails miserably at every hurdle imho.

[Inca]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Couldn't agree with you more,wales,it's a ridiculous situation that the CSA should never have let get to this point,33k is such a wildly stupid amount to expect yer average Joe Bloggs to have (even in assets).The OP needs to get some proper legal advice pronto to try and get this sorted.
Is it right that if insufficient assets are found on the premises the debt has to go back to the CSA? If so,,then I would (if it were me),make arrangements to pay them somehow (obviously will take years).

[gravytrain]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

I am more interested to find out how on earth there managed to be £33k of arrears before the strong arm enforcement came into play.

[Sapphire]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Yep I agree too, but what I would like to know is ......

Did they reply to the letters and what excuse did they give for not paying ?

I agree £33k is a lot to find overnight, but turn it on its head, they have had 8 years to save up for it.

[Inca]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

[QUOTE=gravytrain;326819]I am more interested to find out how on earth there managed to be £33k of arrears before the strong arm enforcement came into play.[/QUOT
Very good point gravytrain,,I can understand the 'head in sand' scenario but it seems CSA had their eyes wide shut too.

[PlanB]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

I can understand the 'head in sand' scenario but it seems CSA had their eyes wide shut too.

Unless the father sent back all the CSA letters marked "Gone Away" and covered his tracks by removing himself from the electoral roll. If the OP's name is on the council property and all the utilities it would be very hard for the CSA to trace him if he was determined enough to remain off the radar to avoid paying for his children :rant:

The OP has not said whether her husband claimed any benefits while not working for all those years but if he didn't and he wasn't paying any tax (because he wasn't working) then he couldn't be traced through the DWP and HMRC and CSA shared database. It's not that difficult to become a 'ghost' in the financial system if you want to do a runner :bolt:

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

Sorry BB,,normally I wouldn't butt in on a post but WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN SIDELINED FOR THE NEW FAMILY??
There IS an income,,there is blood to get out of a stone,,the OP WORKS...and as the 'breadwinner' the money for the other children should come out of her wages.You can't just decide not to support them cos it doesn't suit you anymore.The OP admits they have been getting letters about this,so it's no great surprise.
I appreciate everyones deploration of bailiffs,,I'm no great fan,,but to openly state that 'we were paying till we had our own kids' smacks of severe selfishness and lack of moral judgement IMVHO.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, Inca, my gut-feeling is whether the CSA have a right in law to pursue the partner of a person subject to a Child Support Order. If the law says not, CSA could have the case come back and smack them in the face. As for Rossendales, if they are true to form, i.e. make the Muppets look intelliigent, the taxpayer, as always, is going to foot the bill for their stupidity and the CSA's.

[gravytrain]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

The action would have been brought under the child support act 1991, a liability order would have been issued by he magistrates court and a warrant issued by the CSA enforcement unit.

I do not think that the rules of distress will be any different , in that they bailiff will only be able to levy on goods owned by the person on the order.
I would suggest a call to the unit and see if they will entertain an alternative payment method, perhaps an attachment of earnings or deduction from benefits backed up with and income and expenditure statement.

This is essentially a liability order from the Magistrates court so i don't think they have any powers to force entry under the DVCVA as this is not a court fine as such.

So the usual advice applies do not let them in and try to get the warrant re-called.

[MissFM]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

The CSA is a very odd institution IMHO, with draconian powers seldom found elsewhere in our glorious democracy. As I understand it (and this is purely from observation and experience, so please feel free to correct if wrong) it only "kicks in" automatically if the receiving parent is on benefits - ie it is an institution set up to reimburse the treasury first and foremost. However, it can also be activated by other means.

The £33K over 8 years wouldn't actually be that ridiculous - it works out at just over £4K pa, which is nowhere near enough to support a child, let alone "children" and we don't know how many in this case. However, do look at the exemptions and the reduced payment areas.

We don't know the circumstances of the OP's OH's separation or any other contributing details so, as usual, my spirit seriously rebels against taking any judgemental approach to their actions and I'm sure that's not what the OP came here for.

Looking at the CSA's way of calculating contributions (although it's a little opaque) it does seem that the contribution for someone out of work should have been a lot less, if anything at all.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_198849.pdf

As stated in posts above, the lack of response to the CSA will have created extra problems for the OP and her OH and specialist legal advice would be a very good idea.

[Inca]

Re: Bailiffs from CSA

As I already clearly stated...I agree to differ with others opinions,,and I have mentioned getting legal advice BUT however 'draconian' the CSA may be,IF they are acting within the boundaries of the law,(point taken and acknowledged BB )then payment must be negotiated as soon as possible to prevent furthur recovery action as in 'it aint gonna go away guv'.