Our Past Successes

Our Past Successes
Our aim is ensure the Child Support Agency and now Child Maintenance Service correctly administer your case in accordance with the Child Support Act 1991.
It is true that some decisions of the CSA are unfair, and financial hardship can occur to both NRPs and PWCs. We cannot go beyond the legislation, or magically remove debt that is proven to be valid, but we do have a huge success rate where legislation has not been applied correctly. Read some of our CSA success stories below
Success Stories

Mr T contacted us after the Agency had reinstated a sizeable debt that had previously been deferred from his account. Deferred debt is quite different to suspended debt and was relevant to particular regulation that was in place until 2005. Once removed, and as long as certain conditions were met, Deferred Debt cannot be reinstated. Despite this, the Agency continued to pursue the debt, and imposed a Deduction from Earnings Order.

Outcome: We continued to argue that Deferred Debt could not be reinstated to an account, and referred to the specific legislation that was in place at the time. Eventually the Agency accepted that their decision was wrong and the debt was removed from the account. We are now waiting for the refund of monies taken from our client’s salary.

Mr M has fought the Agency as a Male PWC for some six years, but never gave up. With support and guidance he finally secured an appeal hearing to present his evidence demonstrating the true income of the NRP.[/font]

Outcome After six long years, the Tribunal concluded that the NRP had assets that could increase the available income and maintenance was finally calculated to a more accurate level.

Mr A was notified of court action taken against him for a debt that was in fact time barred. CSA argued that the case was valid, and refused to withdraw their application despite being made aware of the regulations that confirmed their action was illegal.

Outcome The matter proceeded to further court hearings, with 3 sitting judges and an entourage of CSA representatives. The court unanimously rejected CMEC’s application and would not grant the order.

Mr W had been subject to a variation order which assumed a large sum of money was available for increasing his notional income. NACSA advised the NRP how the legislation should not apply in this case as he had sufficient evidence to demonstrate the money was being retained for a specific purpose. The matter proceeded to appeal, and the appeal succeeded.

Outcome The calculations had to be readjusted to remove the notional income that had previously inflated his assessments.

Mr H approached NACSA with a debt of £60,000. He had attempted to resolve the issue and put an end to the ever increasing arrears. NACSA worked through the case history, identified areas that needed attention

Outcome A number of assessments were amended to ensure the case was administered correctly. The debt was cancelled and a refund of just under £5000 was paid to the NRP

Mr E originally visited our office regarding letters being received from bailiffs. The debt was originally thought to be approximately £10,000 but was later realised to be nearer £37,000. Investigations showed that a review of maintenance had not taken place many years prior. CSA refused to do so . NACSA guided the client through Appeal Tribunal and won the case. The Tribunal ruled the case was to be reviewed as we had argued.

Outcome Client debt was reduced to just under £550. This was duly paid, and the case is now closed.

Mr A; Client had been advised that his case was closed as he was due to leave the UK. Upon his return to the UK he was informed that his case had continued to charge and had not been closed as advised. We successfully guided him through the appeal process to resolve the dispute.

Outcome The case was closed and all debt was cancelled.

Mrs M. Client was able to successfully secure regular maintenance charge against an NRP that had been non compliant for many years.

Outcome Regular maintenance now calculated, and an advance payment of £10,000 was paid to the PWC.

Mr W. Client was notified in 2008 that he had an active CSA case dating back to 1997 with an outstanding debt of £38,000. We successfully guided the client through the appeal process, which concluded there was no jurisdiction for CSA to act in the case.

Outcome was that the case was cancelled along with the entire £38k debt.

Mr G. Client was initially subjected to debt enforcement over £69000 alleged debt. We successfully demonstrated that the client was not liable for the debt and it was proven that he was deemed the Parent with Care.

Outcome Debts cancelled, a refund of just under £4000 was paid and regular maintenance calculated to be paid.

Mrs G: Client approached us regarding non payment of regular maintenance and the CSA decision to remove £15000 from arrears owed to her.

Outcome Successfully demonstrated that the debt had been incorrectly reduced, and the amount was reinstated.

Mr O. Client was being charged regular maintenance for a child that lived with him for majority of the time. We successfully demonstrated that our client was deemed to be Parent with Care due to the number of nights access he had with the child.

Outcome The case was closed with the associated debt cancelled.

Mr H. Client was advised of a debt in excess of £35000. Successfully demonstrated that the debt was incorrectly calculated.

Outcome Debt reduced by £19,000

Mr M: Client had been paying the PWC directly for many years, as instructed to do so by the CSA. CSA rejected the claims that he had paid directly and instigated enforcement action including securing a Liability Order against him for £14000.We successfully demonstrated that the error was that of the Agency, and that under conditions of Maintenance Direct the Agency cannot enforce debt that may have accrued during that period.

Outcome CSA acknowledged Maintenance Direct arrangement, and cancelled all debt and associated enforcement.

Mr B: Had disputed paternity to one of the children for many years, but CSA had refused to organise the appropriate DNA testing. and continued to charge him. Courts became involved but client was misguided by solicitors and the situation became more complicated. Almost at the point of giving up, Mr B contacted NACSA who advised him regarding his rights to the DNA testing and put him in contact with a solicitor to help resolve the issues with the courts.

Outcome Mr B successfully secured the DNA testing, and was proven not to be the father of the one child as suspected. The whole case is now due for a full audit and compensation will be sought. Mr B would like to tell other people never to give up hope!

Although we have received just a few complaints over our 20 year history – as we believe in honesty we would like to share with you complaints we have received.

Complaint 1: Client was dissatisfied that we were unable to reduce his large arrears account, and the debt remained payable with enforcement measures being taken against him.

Reply : Unfortunately as the debt was proven to be correct, through non payment over the years, there was no opportunity to challenge the level of debt and it remained legally payable. We have to abide by the legislation which allows CSA to enforce debts if proven to be owed. We do not have the powers to force CSA to cancel valid debts.

Complaint 2:  Client emailed his dissappointment over the low success rate we have in arranging for NRPs to avoid payment of child support.

Reply: Our remit is to ensure maintenance is calculated correctly and in accordance with the law. Our aim is NOT to teach parents how to avoid payment. We are therefore pleased that this complaint was received.

Complaint 3:  Client accussed the organisation of giving inaccurate information and being “incompetent.” Demanded a full refund.

Reply: Having been asked to inspect a volume of paperwork in preparation of a forthcoming appeal, our concerns over certain documents were relayed to the client and advice given on how to prepare for the appeal. Warnings were expressed about the possible outcome if certain information was not provided. Unfortunately the client was unprepared to accept or acknowledge the advice given and chose to dispute our credibility.  It is a sad fact that Child Support Legislation is complex, and at times unbelievable. The powers of the CSA should never be underestimated and we offer the advice and guidance with the best of intentions – but this may not always be the response that a client wishes to hear.  We are not able to break the law.