Just been reassessed on CS1, all monthly figures


income £1300
council tax £75
morgagte £450
CSA £375 plus arrears

so now £400 a month left to live on!!!

car is £80 minimum a month plus tax and insurance of £35 (or do i take a 
chance and drive with out  any)
 food is another £80 minimum

gas and elec. £45
plus debts of £10K on payplan of £160 per month

leaves me a grand total of ZILCH!!!!

still got to add phone and internet and anything else (like house repairs)

Or should i do as csa advised me to do? sell house she told me!!!

Don't talk to them on the phone they just love sticking it to you! Only deal 
with them by letter.

Any way selling the house would cost you more in the long term if you had to 
then rent, dubm bitch.

Firts thing to do is check there assement is correct, then renegociate any 
arrears if they give you shit start planning your new life.

self employed
unemployed
imigation
house husband
black marketeer
dead

Welcome to hell


"andy c"  wrote in message 
news:IBvdi.1203$3j1.500@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Just been reassessed on CS1, all monthly figures
>
>
> income £1300
> council tax £75
> morgagte £450
> CSA £375 plus arrears
>
> so now £400 a month left to live on!!!
>
> car is £80 minimum a month plus tax and insurance of £35 (or do i take a 
> chance and drive with out  any)
> food is another £80 minimum
>
> gas and elec. £45
> plus debts of £10K on payplan of £160 per month
>
> leaves me a grand total of ZILCH!!!!
>
> still got to add phone and internet and anything else (like house repairs)
>
> Or should i do as csa advised me to do? sell house she told me!!!
>
>
>
>
>

Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
interests.

Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
Lay low, take up your life again.

I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
£20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
their first house in a few years time.....

Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
> Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> interests.
>
> Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> their first house in a few years time.....
>
> Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
£101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
a couple of months ago!!

Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?

Much appreciated

Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of giving his 
cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits + £10 irrelevant of what 
he pays, above the £10.00 of course so, in a case where he's a big earner 
and the ex has custody of three kids they could be taking the max which I 
believe is around £1400 yes fourteen hundred pound for three kids and all 
she would get is benefit plus the tenner.

Hey, hey the treasury wins again.

Not surprising really that they insentavise these bastards with big bonuses 
is it?

And they have the audacity to advertise on their shity website that they are 
helping to eradicate child poverty, doesn't that make you laugh?

Legal theft by the government from the very people (children) their damned 
stinking agency porports to the tax payer that it was set up to help. 
Thieves nothing less.




"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182265309.462081.273620@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
> Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> interests.
>
> Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> their first house in a few years time.....
>
> Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
£101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
a couple of months ago!!

Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?

Much appreciated

Fletcher wrote:

>  Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of
> giving his cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits + £10
> irrelevant of what he pays, above the £10.00

The original poster is on CS1 so the if the Parent With Care is
claiming benefits he/she doesn't actually see ANY of the money paid -
it ALL goes straight to the government and the children are left in
poverty as if the Non Resident Parent was paying nothing.


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

On 19 Jun, 18:21, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of giving his
> cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits  £10 irrelevant of what
> he pays, above the £10.00 of course so, in a case where he's a big earner
> and the ex has custody of three kids they could be taking the max which I
> believe is around £1400 yes fourteen hundred pound for three kids and all
> she would get is benefit plus the tenner.
>
> Hey, hey the treasury wins again.
>
> Not surprising really that they insentavise these bastards with big bonuses
> is it?
>
> And they have the audacity to advertise on their shity website that they are
> helping to eradicate child poverty, doesn't that make you laugh?
>
> Legal theft by the government from the very people (children) their damned
> stinking agency porports to the tax payer that it was set up to help.
> Thieves nothing less.
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182265309.462081.273620@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> > interests.
>
> > Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> > flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> > attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> > etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> > scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> > Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> > I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> > £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> > a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> > didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> > their first house in a few years time.....
>
> > Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...
>
> Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
> £101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
> Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
> have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
> a couple of months ago!!
>
> Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
> benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
> they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?
>
> Much appreciated- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Fletch.  For the years I've been dealing with this rubbish this
had never ocurred to me!  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
as well, could she get into trouble for this?  I can't believe though
that they do not know she is on benefits as she has had to provide
proof I'm sure.  Hub is going to check tomorrow.  The last assessment
we had in 2004 took her income into consideration but she hasn't
officially worked now for at least a year I'm sure.  She'll rue the
day she asked the CSA to collect the payments!!  Under the benefits
system she is classed as a lone parent therefore can claim income
support - if she moves in with yet another new boyfriend is she still
classed as a lone parent does anyone know?

Thanks again

Eli wrote:


>  if she had not told the CSA she is
>  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?

Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> Eli wrote:
> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> --
>
> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
help.

Eli xxx

While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it 
never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she 
won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account frozen, 
they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they 
won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame they 
are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.

If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the 
discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!

Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that 
the government steals from children not one of them will say they have ever 
head of such a thing!


"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> Eli wrote:
>> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
>> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> --
>>
>> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> help.
>
> Eli xxx
>

On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account frozen,
> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame they
> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>
> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>
> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have ever
> head of such a thing!
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> >> Eli wrote:
> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> >> --
>
> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> > help.
>
> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
benefits agency?

thanks again

They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC 
can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and acted 
on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical 
Gestapo discrimination tactics.

I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist 
you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!

"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
>> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
>> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account 
>> frozen,
>> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
>> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame 
>> they
>> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>>
>> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
>> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>>
>> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
>> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have 
>> ever
>> head of such a thing!
>>
>> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> >> Eli wrote:
>> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
>> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>>
>> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
>> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
>> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
>> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
>> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
>> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
>> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
>> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
>> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
>> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
>> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
>> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
>> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
>> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
>> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
>> > help.
>>
>> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
> come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
> type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
> the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
> them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
> them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
> benefits agency?
>
> thanks again
>

On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and acted
> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>
> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
> >> frozen,
> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame
> >> they
> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>
> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>
> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
> >> ever
> >> head of such a thing!
>
> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> >> >> Eli wrote:
> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> >> > help.
>
> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
> > benefits agency?
>
> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
me ill a second time round.

And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!

I remember your first trip around the block Eli, don't get to stressed with 
this shower!




"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182337209.727880.231830@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
>> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and 
>> acted
>> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
>> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>>
>> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
>> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>>
>> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, 
>> >> it
>> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, 
>> >> she
>> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
>> >> frozen,
>> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and 
>> >> they
>> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and 
>> >> shame
>> >> they
>> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>>
>> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
>> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>>
>> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware 
>> >> that
>> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
>> >> ever
>> >> head of such a thing!
>>
>> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> >> >> Eli wrote:
>> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income 
>> >> >> support
>> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>>
>> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
>> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the 
>> >> > letter
>> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
>> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' 
>> >> > thing
>> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
>> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
>> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
>> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of 
>> >> > work.
>> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
>> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
>> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
>> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the 
>> >> > young
>> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day 
>> >> > I
>> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not 
>> >> > contributed
>> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
>> >> > help.
>>
>> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
>> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
>> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
>> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
>> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
>> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
>> > benefits agency?
>>
>> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
> by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
> told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
> just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
> other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
> held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
> how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
> me ill a second time round.
>
> And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
> duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!
>

On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -
>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
> as well, could she get into trouble for this?  

I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
please ignore :-)

I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.

Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
maintenance assessment.

Yes the theory is as you say, they should know exactly what her benefit 
status is and they should react to fraud as soon as they are made aware of 
it however the reality is they don't give a shit about any aspect of any of 
this other than getting cash IN, nothing else is of any concern as they are 
now insentavised by bonuses and if the work they do doesn't contribute 
directly to earning bonus it's of no interest at all.

So nothing ever gets done about this stuff. They simply don't care



 wrote in message 
news:1182342129.421290.204810@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:
>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
>> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
>> as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
> please ignore :-)
>
> I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
> involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.
>
> Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
> because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
> was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
> with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
> years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
> maintenance assessment.
>

Oh found this little gem, it's not a criminal offence to lie to the Gestapo!

Does the CSA have to believe what I tell them?

A tribunal case has found that the CSA must believe the answers you give to 
them as fact, unless they have good reason to believe you are lying.

Officers administering social security (including that branch known as Child 
Support) are bound by reported Commissioners' Decisions. In R(SB) 33/85, the 
learned Commissioner held that a claimant's own [written or oral] statements 
are evidence and that an adjudicating authority must have regard to that 
evidence, unless the evidence were self-contradictory or inherently 
improbable.

That was a Supplementary Benefit decision, but is applied across all 
disciplines, including benefits, the National Insurance Contributions scheme 
and Child Support. In effect, even unopposed evidence need not be accepted 
if to do so would defy reason or logic.



 What happens if you lie to the CSA?

According to the CSA:

  "The Child Support Agency does not undertake fraud investigations in the 
manner of the police or the Benefits Agency. This is because the Child 
Support Act, under which it operates, does not specifically prescribe a 
criminal offence of fraud. In other words, to give false information to the 
Agency is not a criminal offence under the Act."




"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182337209.727880.231830@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
>> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and 
>> acted
>> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
>> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>>
>> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
>> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>>
>> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, 
>> >> it
>> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, 
>> >> she
>> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
>> >> frozen,
>> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and 
>> >> they
>> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and 
>> >> shame
>> >> they
>> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>>
>> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
>> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>>
>> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware 
>> >> that
>> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
>> >> ever
>> >> head of such a thing!
>>
>> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> >> >> Eli wrote:
>> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income 
>> >> >> support
>> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>>
>> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
>> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the 
>> >> > letter
>> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
>> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' 
>> >> > thing
>> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
>> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
>> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
>> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of 
>> >> > work.
>> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
>> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
>> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
>> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the 
>> >> > young
>> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day 
>> >> > I
>> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not 
>> >> > contributed
>> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
>> >> > help.
>>
>> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
>> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
>> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
>> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
>> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
>> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
>> > benefits agency?
>>
>> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
> by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
> told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
> just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
> other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
> held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
> how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
> me ill a second time round.
>
> And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
> duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!
>

On Jun 20, 6:25 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> Oh found this little gem, it's not a criminal offence to lie to the Gestapo!
>
> Does the CSA have to believe what I tell them?
>
> A tribunal case has found that the CSA must believe the answers you give to
> them as fact, unless they have good reason to believe you are lying.
>
> Officers administering social security (including that branch known as Child
> Support) are bound by reported Commissioners' Decisions. In R(SB) 33/85, the
> learned Commissioner held that a claimant's own [written or oral] statements
> are evidence and that an adjudicating authority must have regard to that
> evidence, unless the evidence were self-contradictory or inherently
> improbable.
>
> That was a Supplementary Benefit decision, but is applied across all
> disciplines, including benefits, the National Insurance Contributions scheme
> and Child Support. In effect, even unopposed evidence need not be accepted
> if to do so would defy reason or logic.
>
>  What happens if you lie to the CSA?
>
> According to the CSA:
>
>   "The Child Support Agency does not undertake fraud investigations in the
> manner of the police or the Benefits Agency. This is because the Child
> Support Act, under which it operates, does not specifically prescribe a
> criminal offence of fraud. In other words, to give false information to the
> Agency is not a criminal offence under the Act."
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182337209.727880.231830@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> >> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
> >> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and
> >> acted
> >> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
> >> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>
> >> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
> >> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>
> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> >> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her,
> >> >> it
> >> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop,
> >> >> she
> >> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
> >> >> frozen,
> >> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and
> >> >> they
> >> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and
> >> >> shame
> >> >> they
> >> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>
> >> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
> >> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>
> >> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware
> >> >> that
> >> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
> >> >> ever
> >> >> head of such a thing!
>
> >> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> >> >> >> Eli wrote:
> >> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> >> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> >> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income
> >> >> >> support
> >> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> >> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> >> >> >> --
>
> >> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> >> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> >> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> >> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the
> >> >> > letter
> >> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> >> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked'
> >> >> > thing
> >> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> >> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> >> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> >> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of
> >> >> > work.
> >> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> >> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> >> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> >> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the
> >> >> > young
> >> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not
> >> >> > contributed
> >> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> >> >> > help.
>
> >> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
> >> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
> >> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
> >> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
> >> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
> >> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
> >> > benefits agency?
>
> >> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
> > by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
> > told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
> > just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
> > other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
> > held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
> > how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
> > me ill a second time round.
>
> > And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
> > duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for this Fletch.  Though with our case, if the BFH is claiming
income support, housing and council tax benefit, the beef will be with
the benefits agency not the CSA.  We have been assessed and hub will
pay what ever, but if she's claiming benefit and not declaring it,
well I'll be damned if I will let that pass unquestioned.  As I said
Hub rang them yesterday and their re looking into her finances as
paying £10.15 housing per week and having £0 income and £129 exempt
income all looked rather strange to us and also to CSA.  We'll see
what happens eh?  So now her payment has gone from £64 to £101 she is
still complaining and told her child we must have upped our mortgage
or something as she believes this still isn't enough for what we
should pay her per WEEK!!

The CSA don't give a flying f*ck if the bitch commits benefit fraud -
I've been told this face to face by one of their half-wit pricks.  And
who has heard of the CSA ever getting tough on a PWC?  However,
compare to this just copied off their website:

"It is a criminal offence if we ask someone to provide information and
they fail to do so or give us information that they know is false.
This applies to any person or organisation who, by law, must give us
information. It covers people such as employers and accountants as
well as non-resident parents and parents with care.
If you fail to give us the information we need, or you give us
information that you know is false, you could be fined up to £1,000."

What sh*t!   I asked under the DPA and FOI for figures of PsWC that
they have prosecuted for fraud.  3 months later, no reply... Oh, and
the rest of their re-designed 'get tough' website?  What a load of
crass, grandstanding bullsh*t...
What sort of social reject, under-achieving c*nts could work for this
organisation?!!?

Interestingly I learn from their website that the average payment is
£22 pw.  No wonder they're so f*cking slow to address my appeal
against £125 pw for one child...  Still the malevolent whore does
rather nicely out of it - foreign holiday coming up soon.....

You are wrong in this respect.  CSA has no authority to prosecute anyone for 
benefit fraud, only Job Centre Plus can do this.  This shouldn't stop anyone 
reporting it, but it needs to be reported to the right place...

"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:6aCdnVwnP8500OTbnZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@giganews.com...
> Yes the theory is as you say, they should know exactly what her benefit 
> status is and they should react to fraud as soon as they are made aware of 
> it however the reality is they don't give a shit about any aspect of any 
> of this other than getting cash IN, nothing else is of any concern as they 
> are now insentavised by bonuses and if the work they do doesn't contribute 
> directly to earning bonus it's of no interest at all.
>
> So nothing ever gets done about this stuff. They simply don't care
>
>
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:1182342129.421290.204810@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:
>>
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
>>> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
>>> as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
>> please ignore :-)
>>
>> I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
>> involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.
>>
>> Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
>> because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
>> was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
>> with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
>> years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
>> maintenance assessment.
>>
>
>

Yeh but CSA activly ignore PWC fruad while at the same time trying to jail 
NRPs !




"Toffee"  wrote in message 
news:WJTei.6647$tj3.673@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> You are wrong in this respect.  CSA has no authority to prosecute anyone 
> for benefit fraud, only Job Centre Plus can do this.  This shouldn't stop 
> anyone reporting it, but it needs to be reported to the right place...
>
> "Fletcher"  wrote in message 
> news:6aCdnVwnP8500OTbnZ2dnUVZ8q6unZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Yes the theory is as you say, they should know exactly what her benefit 
>> status is and they should react to fraud as soon as they are made aware 
>> of it however the reality is they don't give a shit about any aspect of 
>> any of this other than getting cash IN, nothing else is of any concern as 
>> they are now insentavised by bonuses and if the work they do doesn't 
>> contribute directly to earning bonus it's of no interest at all.
>>
>> So nothing ever gets done about this stuff. They simply don't care
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:1182342129.421290.204810@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:
>>>
>>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
>>>> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
>>>> as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>>
>>> I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
>>> please ignore :-)
>>>
>>> I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
>>> involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.
>>>
>>> Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
>>> because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
>>> was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
>>> with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
>>> years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
>>> maintenance assessment.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Don't talk to them on the phone they just love sticking it to you! Only deal 
with them by letter.

Any way selling the house would cost you more in the long term if you had to 
then rent, dubm bitch.

Firts thing to do is check there assement is correct, then renegociate any 
arrears if they give you shit start planning your new life.

self employed
unemployed
imigation
house husband
black marketeer
dead

Welcome to hell


"andy c"  wrote in message 
news:IBvdi.1203$3j1.500@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Just been reassessed on CS1, all monthly figures
>
>
> income £1300
> council tax £75
> morgagte £450
> CSA £375 plus arrears
>
> so now £400 a month left to live on!!!
>
> car is £80 minimum a month plus tax and insurance of £35 (or do i take a 
> chance and drive with out  any)
> food is another £80 minimum
>
> gas and elec. £45
> plus debts of £10K on payplan of £160 per month
>
> leaves me a grand total of ZILCH!!!!
>
> still got to add phone and internet and anything else (like house repairs)
>
> Or should i do as csa advised me to do? sell house she told me!!!
>
>
>
>
>

Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
interests.

Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
Lay low, take up your life again.

I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
£20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
their first house in a few years time.....

Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
> Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> interests.
>
> Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> their first house in a few years time.....
>
> Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
£101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
a couple of months ago!!

Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?

Much appreciated

Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of giving his 
cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits + £10 irrelevant of what 
he pays, above the £10.00 of course so, in a case where he's a big earner 
and the ex has custody of three kids they could be taking the max which I 
believe is around £1400 yes fourteen hundred pound for three kids and all 
she would get is benefit plus the tenner.

Hey, hey the treasury wins again.

Not surprising really that they insentavise these bastards with big bonuses 
is it?

And they have the audacity to advertise on their shity website that they are 
helping to eradicate child poverty, doesn't that make you laugh?

Legal theft by the government from the very people (children) their damned 
stinking agency porports to the tax payer that it was set up to help. 
Thieves nothing less.




"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182265309.462081.273620@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
> Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> interests.
>
> Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> their first house in a few years time.....
>
> Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...

Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
£101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
a couple of months ago!!

Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?

Much appreciated

Fletcher wrote:

>  Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of
> giving his cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits + £10
> irrelevant of what he pays, above the £10.00

The original poster is on CS1 so the if the Parent With Care is
claiming benefits he/she doesn't actually see ANY of the money paid -
it ALL goes straight to the government and the children are left in
poverty as if the Non Resident Parent was paying nothing.


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

On 19 Jun, 18:21, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> Yeh, they steal from your children and her children in favour of giving his
> cash to the government, e.g. she gets her benefits  £10 irrelevant of what
> he pays, above the £10.00 of course so, in a case where he's a big earner
> and the ex has custody of three kids they could be taking the max which I
> believe is around £1400 yes fourteen hundred pound for three kids and all
> she would get is benefit plus the tenner.
>
> Hey, hey the treasury wins again.
>
> Not surprising really that they insentavise these bastards with big bonuses
> is it?
>
> And they have the audacity to advertise on their shity website that they are
> helping to eradicate child poverty, doesn't that make you laugh?
>
> Legal theft by the government from the very people (children) their damned
> stinking agency porports to the tax payer that it was set up to help.
> Thieves nothing less.
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182265309.462081.273620@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 7:41 pm, AngliaZ  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Never do as the scum advise you - you can bet it is NEVER in your
> > interests.
>
> > Are you able to take a career break from your job?  I don't know how
> > flexible your employer is, but say if you left to take up that
> > attractive shelf-stacking job (and of course be nearer your child(ren)
> > etc), you would of course report your new employmnet details to the
> > scum.  Let them re-assess you on your new £70 pw wage.....
> > Lay low, take up your life again.
>
> > I wish I had done this years ago...To date I have been robbed of
> > £20,000 that went staright to the treasury as the malevolent whore was
> > a welfare bum.  That's 20K my boys will never see - still, maybe they
> > didn't want to go to college, or have me help them put a deposit on
> > their first house in a few years time.....
>
> > Thanks CSA you useless shower of under-achieving c*nts...
>
> Yes, my husband has just been reassessed again, he is liable to pay
> £101 odd per week to the useless BFH who is liable to pay NOTHING!!!
> Makes me sick, and its backdated to September last year so he will
> have arrears to sort out too!!  We were only contacted for information
> a couple of months ago!!
>
> Could someone please confirm for me, if the BFH is claiming a tonne of
> benefits, she may not actually get that £101 per month in total, do
> they reclaim some of that money back to off set the benefits?
>
> Much appreciated- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Fletch.  For the years I've been dealing with this rubbish this
had never ocurred to me!  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
as well, could she get into trouble for this?  I can't believe though
that they do not know she is on benefits as she has had to provide
proof I'm sure.  Hub is going to check tomorrow.  The last assessment
we had in 2004 took her income into consideration but she hasn't
officially worked now for at least a year I'm sure.  She'll rue the
day she asked the CSA to collect the payments!!  Under the benefits
system she is classed as a lone parent therefore can claim income
support - if she moves in with yet another new boyfriend is she still
classed as a lone parent does anyone know?

Thanks again

Eli wrote:


>  if she had not told the CSA she is
>  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?

Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.


-- 

I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> Eli wrote:
> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> --
>
> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
help.

Eli xxx

While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it 
never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she 
won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account frozen, 
they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they 
won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame they 
are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.

If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the 
discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!

Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that 
the government steals from children not one of them will say they have ever 
head of such a thing!


"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> Eli wrote:
>> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
>> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> --
>>
>> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> help.
>
> Eli xxx
>

On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account frozen,
> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame they
> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>
> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>
> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have ever
> head of such a thing!
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> >> Eli wrote:
> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> >> --
>
> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> > help.
>
> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
benefits agency?

thanks again

They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC 
can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and acted 
on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical 
Gestapo discrimination tactics.

I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist 
you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!

"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
>> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
>> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account 
>> frozen,
>> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
>> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame 
>> they
>> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>>
>> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
>> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>>
>> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
>> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have 
>> ever
>> head of such a thing!
>>
>> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> >> Eli wrote:
>> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
>> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>>
>> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
>> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
>> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
>> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
>> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
>> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
>> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
>> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
>> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
>> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
>> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
>> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
>> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
>> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
>> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
>> > help.
>>
>> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
> come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
> type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
> the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
> them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
> them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
> benefits agency?
>
> thanks again
>

On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and acted
> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>
> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>
> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, it
> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, she
> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
> >> frozen,
> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and they
> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and shame
> >> they
> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>
> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>
> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware that
> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
> >> ever
> >> head of such a thing!
>
> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
> >> >> Eli wrote:
> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income support
> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the letter
> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' thing
> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of work.
> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the young
> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day I
> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not contributed
> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
> >> > help.
>
> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
> > benefits agency?
>
> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
me ill a second time round.

And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!

I remember your first trip around the block Eli, don't get to stressed with 
this shower!




"Eli"  wrote in message 
news:1182337209.727880.231830@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 12:04 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> They usualy totaly ignore anything the NRP says on the other hand the PWC
>> can do no wrong and anything she says about him is taken as gospel and 
>> acted
>> on immidiatly (they can get cash from him, not her = bonuses). Typical
>> Gestapo discrimination tactics.
>>
>> I doubt you'll ever hear anything about this from them and if you persist
>> you'll probably get the Data protection spiel!
>>
>> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182332518.960614.307030@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 9:32 pm, "Fletcher"  wrote:
>> >> While technically she's committing fraud, nothing will happen to her, 
>> >> it
>> >> never does. All that will happen is that the fraud will 'might' stop, 
>> >> she
>> >> won't be penalised or criminalised, she won't have her bank account
>> >> frozen,
>> >> they won't send in the bailiffs, they won't ban her from driving and 
>> >> they
>> >> won't jail her. Not only will they not threaten her with name and 
>> >> shame
>> >> they
>> >> are very unlikely to mention anything to her at all.
>>
>> >> If only we could find an efficient way to bring all of this, the
>> >> discrimination, the thefts, the injustices into public focus!
>>
>> >> Bet if you ask the next hundred people you talk to if they are aware 
>> >> that
>> >> the government steals from children not one of them will say they have
>> >> ever
>> >> head of such a thing!
>>
>> >> "Eli"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1182281209.125833.290490@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 19 Jun, 20:11, redmelons  wrote:
>> >> >> Eli wrote:
>> >> >> >  if she had not told the CSA she is
>> >> >> >  on benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting
>> >> >> > benefits as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>>
>> >> >> Yes, it would be classed as benefit fraud. If she's on income 
>> >> >> support
>> >> >> then she and your child are not entitled to a penny of the payments
>> >> >> you make to the CSA - the government takes it all.
>>
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 33 days.
>> >> >> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>>
>> >> > Thank you Red.  She was contacted last year and text husband she had
>> >> > been asked if 'he had a change of circ', but didn't realise the 
>> >> > letter
>> >> > was for her, hub text her back it was nothing to do with him.  I
>> >> > wonder if the 'failure to provide correct information if asked' 
>> >> > thing
>> >> > comes in here as he only got his request a couple of months ago and
>> >> > the assessment has been back dated to September?  Whilst I disagree
>> >> > totally that his child is not being provided for, I find it a right
>> >> > kick in the arse for her because she is a really nasty piece of 
>> >> > work.
>> >> > If you remember me from NACSA she has been a total mare and made my
>> >> > married life hell.  While hub has always wanted to pay a fair amount
>> >> > she has always wanted more without contributing an ounce herself and
>> >> > expecting me to subsidise her.- which I have for the sake of the 
>> >> > young
>> >> > person involved.  I am by no means perfect in any sense but the day 
>> >> > I
>> >> > found NACSA and this site which I have always read but not 
>> >> > contributed
>> >> > to, was a god send for me and I thank you all for your invaluable
>> >> > help.
>>
>> >> > Eli xxx- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Just to clarify, on previous assessments some years back when it has
>> > come back to us re the BFH it stated 'the other parent is receiving a
>> > type of benefit or income which we cannot use in the assessment'.  As
>> > the recent one doesn't have this on, do I assume that she hasn't told
>> > them she is claiming benefits?  Hub has contacted the CSA today to get
>> > them to check, will they just ask her or will they contact the
>> > benefits agency?
>>
>> > thanks again- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks Fletch, well hub rang back again (we are no strangers to this
> by any means we've been at war with them for 5 years so far), to be
> told they had not contacted the BFH for any COC her end and this was
> just a review on hub.  How on earth can they just do one without the
> other.  He's also asked them to check re the benefits, and they have
> held the review and are contacting the BFH for all her info - This is
> how we started out five years ago!!  I am not going to let this make
> me ill a second time round.
>
> And the post NACSA chair put up with the statement that the CSA has no
> duty of care - and all this - what a farce!!
>

On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -
>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
> as well, could she get into trouble for this?  

I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
please ignore :-)

I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.

Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
maintenance assessment.

Yes the theory is as you say, they should know exactly what her benefit 
status is and they should react to fraud as soon as they are made aware of 
it however the reality is they don't give a shit about any aspect of any of 
this other than getting cash IN, nothing else is of any concern as they are 
now insentavised by bonuses and if the work they do doesn't contribute 
directly to earning bonus it's of no interest at all.

So nothing ever gets done about this stuff. They simply don't care



 wrote in message 
news:1182342129.421290.204810@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 7:15 pm, Eli  wrote:
>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>  So if she had not told the CSA she is on
>> benefits, if she'd been getting the full amount and getting benefits
>> as well, could she get into trouble for this?
>
> I've got a bit lost on this thread, so if this reply is nonsense -
> please ignore :-)
>
> I thought if they were on benefits the CSA automatically become
> involved - the person claiming benefits doesn't have a choice.
>
> Without going into too much detail we tried to shop the PWC - not just
> because she was working for cash in hand and claiming benefits, but
> was also renting a house claiming housing benefit , and had a child
> with the "landlord". We got precisely nowhere. It took the CSA several
> years to acknowledge the other child, and thereby reduce the
> maintenance assessment.
>

Oh found this little gem, it's not a criminal offence to lie to the Gestapo!

Does the CSA have to believe what I tell them?

A tribunal case has found that the CSA must believe the answers you give to 
them as fact, unless they have good reason to believe you are lying.

Officers administering social security (including that branch known as Child 
Support) are bound by reported Commissioners' Decisions. In R(SB) 33/85, the 
learned Commissioner held that a claimant's own [written or oral] statements 
are evidence and that an adjudicating authority must have regard to that 
evidence, unless the evidence were self-contradictory or inherently 
improbable.

That was a Supplementary Benefit decision, but is applied across all 
disciplines, including benefits, the National Insurance Contributions scheme 
and Child Support. In effect, even unopposed evidence need not be accepted 
if to do so would defy reason or logic.



 What happens if you lie to the CSA?

According to the CSA:

  "The Child Support Agency does not undertake fraud investigations in the 
manner of the police or the Benefits Agency. T