Claimant and Respondent
written by John Bolch
on Monday, May 21, 2007
Thanks to Family Law Week for the heads-up on a couple of on-going stories relating to the dreaded Child Support Agency.
The first concerns Denise Rowley, a mother of three who wants to sue the Department of Work and Pensions for "substantial compensation", claiming that she has suffered significant loss due to the negligence of the Child Support Agency in its handling of her claim for child support. In view of the importance of the case (which, if successful, could really open massive floodgates), Resolution has intervened, and details can be found here on their website. The very best of luck to Mrs Rowley - certainly, applicants to the agency should be recompensed for the considerable financial hardship many of them have suffered due to the inefficiency of the CSA.
The other story is that the Department for Work and Pensions has published its responses to the consultation on the Child Maintenance White Paper, 'A New System of Child Maintenance' and to the conclusions and recommendations of The Work and Pensions Select Committee report 'Child Support Reform'. Links to both responses can be found here. I have to say, I've not read them yet. I suppose I will, but to be perfectly honest it's difficult to get any enthusiasm when you have little confidence in the government implementing anything that will be significantly better than the debacle that has been the Child Support Agency.
June 20, 2007 9:55 AM
As a parent in the same situation as Denise i cried when i heard the outcome of yesterdays case...she lost the right of appeal. But what sickens me more is the judgement and i quote - 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 - so why the hell are they there??
mal administration and poor enforcement has been proved in my case the CSA have actively encouraged my ex husbands bad behaviour to a point a debt has accrued to over £31k, they have these powers of evoking driving licences and prison do they NO they don't, they even have the power to sell property do they NO they don't, apparently this is a long lengthy process...lets be honest you wouldn't be allowed to not pay your mortgage for over 8 years you would have been evicted within the year....children or no children, so finance houses have more powers that the CSA/Government!
They can change there name as much as they like but it's the same meat different gravy and it's the children who are victims of this sorry mess and parents like me who suffer emotionally, financially and mentally!!!
June 20, 2007 10:51 AM
Many thanks for this comment, with which I wholeheartedly agree. See my latest post: 'CSA: No duty of care'.
June 20, 2007 1:18 PM
I have commented on nearly all of this section of your Blog, i do hope you don't mind, it has actually released my anger that has been building up since last Wednesday.
The ones not commented on have been answered elsewhere
June 20, 2007 1:35 PM
I don't mind at all - I'm glad that my blog has at least helped you to release some of your entirely justifiable anger at a system that has obviously utterly failed you and your children.
June 20, 2007 3:24 PM
I am trying to contact my local Resolution Officer....if that's the correct term, and perhaps see if my children can force the issue in there own right, this is the only avenue i have not tried!