In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
judgement yesterday was

The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does not 
owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it collects 
maintenance.


NACSA CHAIR

-- 
WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied and
is subject to errors and omissions

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>> behalf it collects maintenance.
> 
> "An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
> agency.
> The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
> circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
> actions against the CSA."

Ludicrous that a Government body has no "duty of care".  If that is it's 
excuse (and it is) then that alone should be a reason to close it 
immediately.

Marag

Well isn't the name CSA - Deception? or at the very least extreamly 
misleading, bordering on fraudulent and why all this absolute pish on their 
website frontpage giving out the idea that they are so caring and actually 
give a fuck about kids.

So now it's legal history that the CSA officialy don't give a fuck about 
kids!

Oh I forgot they are changing that to C-MESS and giving up the 15 year 
pretence and going on to club us all into the ground for our cash.

Being realistic here I don't know why he tried sueing on those grounds which 
are at the very least weak to begin with given their operation when there 
are so many other areas that could be legally attacked if you have the 
funding?

e.g this theft of monies paid by the NRP to CSA for 'his' liability for 
child care that just gets stolen by the government if the ex is on benefit. 
Now in there some where there has to be a way to show this is a crime. The 
thieving government are stealing in some cases from two sets of children. 
How in holy hell can that ever be justified in a court of law and if it can 
there is no more credibility for uk courts, it makes being separated from 
you child mother a crime punishable in law by the government shaking you 
down under the guise of Child Support.

Next there is... blah blah blah

"NACSA CHAIR"  wrote in message 
news:YH6ei.8454$p8.2604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In the case of Denise Rowley, single parent who tried to sue CSA....the 
> judgement yesterday was
>
> The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA) does 
> not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it 
> collects maintenance.
>
>
> NACSA CHAIR
>
> -- 
> WHEN CSA GET IT WRONG...NACSA PUT IT RIGHT!!! www.nacsa.co.uk PO BOX 4454, 
> Dudley West Midlands, DY1 9AN  FAX 01384 343966
> Disclaimer: the content of this email is based upon information supplied 
> and
> is subject to errors and omissions
>

>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
> behalf it collects maintenance.

"An appeal to law lords may follow as families try to act against the
agency.
The case had been brought to try to clarify whether, and in what
circumstances, families can obtain compensation through the courts in
actions against the CSA."


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 34 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

redmelons wrote:
>>  The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Child Support Agency (CSA)
>> does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose
>&