, 
,
| Just a quick question RE- CSA Arrears | ||
|
Posted 02 February, 2010, 12:51 PM
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
Bronze Member
 |
Hi, We recently asked the CSA to forward us the exact date when my husbands CS arrears with his ex wife started. They sent back a letter stating that the CS case was opened in Sept 2000 (just a month after my husbands second child was born to her ) . Their actual divorce was finalised in May 2005. I have heard about exemptions from paying whilst you are getting back on your feet after the initial break up so would we qualify for something like this? Is it just like going through a COA process or is there something else we have to do? The reason I am asking is that we are struggling paying not only the CS every week but also installments on the debt . It would be so helpful if the debt could be reduced. The CSA has now taken my income into consideration in order for us to pay this debt which sounds like it started 10 years ago. We dont live the high life so we struggle with the payments whilst my husbands ex wife is in the midst of building a brand new beachside home with her extremely wealthy new husband. Any ideas would be great. Thank for your time. |
|
|
 ,
|
|
|
Posted 02 February, 2010, 02:54 PM
|
||
Percolo Alio
  |
Sorry to say the answer is no. This only came into affect with the new legislation introduced in July 2008 and is only for the first 3 years after separation. I don't believe that they can legitimately do this unless they have issued a notice under section 72a against "partnership funds" Note, not a joint bank account (A notice under section 72A cannot be effective against a joint bank account because it is not possible to identify any portion as belonging solely to one owner (DFC of T v Westpac Savings Bank Ltd 87 ATC 4346).). Assuming there is no notice under section 72A, I'd suggest contacting the CSA and suggesting that they have erred in taking into consideration your income and that they only have the right, if they issue a notice under section 72A. Calculate a rate based upon your partners income and put it to them that you will agree to pay that amount. If they refuse, then I believe that you'd then have the right to object, as it is both "A decision about the particulars of a registrable maintenance liability entered in the Register" and that it would be "A decision to vary or refuse to vary the particulars in the Register". If they dismiss the objection then you can take the matter to SSAT and then, if need be, to court.  Last edit: 02 February, 2010, 05:02 PM by MikeT
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
| Taking advantage | ||
|
Posted 02 February, 2010, 04:50 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
 |
AT the risk of being further ostrasized I would like to advise that the CSA has no right to include your income in their assessments. You can do what I did and advise them that "because of your actions my relationship is over and the state now has responsibility for the children effective in 30 minutes". They will be on the footpath out front and you will be held accountable if you fail to protect them. Drastic reaction but that is what is often required when dealing with a system that focus,s only on the money. Of course they backed down and took a more reasoned position. Gutless is the most polite way I could describe the behaviour although bullying comes close. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 02 February, 2010, 09:54 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
at a loss - I have given advice on your situation before. I think you should apply to the court for a departure order for an assessment going back more than 18 months, and the result will most likely be that the debt will be deleted. | |
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 06 February, 2010, 12:00 AM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
I think what ataloss is saying about her income being taken into acccount in the debt recovery process is that when assessing what is a "reasonable" rate of debt repayment they usually take into account 'family' income and 'family' expenses, not just the PYR's 'share'. (Lots of PYRs are the primary earner in their new household so it is often to their benefit to be done this way). The form used to be called an Assets and Liabities Form (or 'ALF'). You could argue that you have separate finances and the appropriate installment amount should therefore be calculated only on HIS income and HIS share of expenses - but would this actually result in a lower rate of repayment?? Make sure it does before you run the argument. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
, ,
Forums
Rules
Groups
Unread
Recommend
Donate
