Hi I am looking for advice please!
My son was born in July 1999, I was in a relationship with his mother until he was 15 years old, she then left with him without telling me and moved to Brighton from Birmingham. I am not on brith certificate, which she did with me not knowing until after the relationship ended. She started a new relationship in Brighton with a women and 12 months after leaving contacted me and offered to pay me £1500 to be a sperm doner for her and her new partner to have a child, I obviously refused!!
i tried endlessly to maintain contact and have access, also to arrange a private arrangement for maintenance. She flatly refused and denied me any access or would come to an agreement.this resulted in breakdown of communication and access to my son, I have not seen him or had any contact with and have no relationship with him now.
Yesterday I had a visit from a man from the court issuing a warrant for non payment of maintenance for the amount of £2000 which I knew nothing about until this.I made an offer for a payment plan of £100 which he put to the court but it became clear that the total amount owe is actually £9000 and I must attend court to state my case at the end of April.I have spoken with CSM today to dos out some information as I didn’t even have a reference number or any correspondence to be able to log into my online account.
Letters have been sent to an old address hence why I was unaware of this situation. whilst am happy to pay the £2000 I feel the total amount of £9000 is unfair purely because of how old the case is.the dates they have given me are 2014-2015 which would fall under the old CSA scheme. They didn’t revive a response from the letter sent to mother asking if she wanted them to continue chasing the debt.
The case was transferred to the new system CSM so the build up of arrears continued to be calculated
My son is now 25 years old. is there anyway I can have the debt written off or argue that the case is over 10 years?I am happy to pay say the £2000 but I am not convinced I should have to pay the remaining £7000
I am self employed and now have a 7 month old baby which I am financially supporting and have regular access too.Any advice or information would be greatly appreciated
many thanks Nick
Hi,
I think its very unlikely that they will wipe off this debt, unless your ex agrees to it. With their new rules they only wipe off arrears if it's £7 or less. In their booklet it states that you should inform CMS if you change address.
I think you should attend the court hearing and explain your situation. You could ask can they spread the repayments over a few years, to make it more affordable for you.
This may be of use: https://www.voiceofthechild.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Write-Off-and-Case-Closure-Write-Off.pdf
I recommend you join this support group for paying parents, some have been to court;
https://m.facebook.com/groups/239699060076601/?ref=group_browse
Hi @NickT
Yet again, the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) takes the stand that your guilty until proven innocent.
https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance-service/disagreements-about-parentage
As I understand, the CMS can only backdate a claim from when a case has been opened. However, the fact that you're asking to see the child would infer that you believe the child to be blood-related to you (i.e, the father).
What's interesting in all this is that the CMS is typically biased towards the claimant. When it's found that the perceived father of a child is not the father, the CMS does little to nothing to help you get the money back. They don't take any enforcement action against the claimant like the would if you were the non-paying father. They effectively wash their hands of it.
How the CEO of the CMS and Mel Stride (Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pension) are both still in post is bewildering. The organisation is a breaking point. It's a shambles. The rules are not applied fairly, which is why they are fire-fighting with so much administration. They would halve the amount of aggravation and paperwork overnight if they took bipartisan as opposed to draconian and ill-judged approach (where it is assumed that the claimant is always right and rarely investigated). Some of their decisions are mind-numbing.
I hope you manage to get the desired outcome.