The Child Support Agency, which is the organisation responsible for child support enforcement in the UK, was seeking a Liability Order against him for unpaid child maintenance.
The CSA got the Order. The judge accepted my client’s written submissions and listened to what he had to say, but he had no power to do anything other than grant the Order.
The next step is recovery proceedings. It’s likely they’ll send the bailiffs round to his house, they may also register the debt, which would affect his credit rating, or they could put a charge on his property. They can even do this:
Committal Action - Proving before a Magistrate that a non-resident parent has "wilfully refused or culpably neglected" to pay the debt owed to the Agency. This can result in the Non Resident Parent being committed to prison for up to 42 Days or, as an alternative the withdrawal of their driving licence.My client is the “Non Resident Parent” in this case but, as he told the judge in court, they can send him to prison if they like but he’s not paying. He means it.
Usually, coming across the bare facts of a case like this, it’s pretty easy to come to a judgement. I think most people would probably say that my client deserves everything he’s got coming to him.
I’d agree, if it wasn’t for the fact that this man has been fully supporting his children; even the CSA accepts that. They also accept that the money he paid out for his kids falls within the definition of a “voluntary payment”, which is allowable as a deduction against the child maintenance assessment.
But here’s the rub: the children’s mother has refused to confirm that the clothes and other items were purchased by their father, and because of this the CSA will not deduct what he’s spent on his kids from the money he owes in maintenance..
Still with me? Okay, then here’s the detail.
My client’s case centres on a batch of store receipts for clothes, shoes and other essential items, which he purchased for the children as part of a voluntary arrangement with their mother.
The CSA accepts that the receipts confirm that the items were purchased for the children during contact with their father. And the CSA accepts that the items were returned to the mother’s house with the children. The problem is, the children’s mother refuses to confirm that the items were returned with the children and as far as the CSA are concerned if she won’t confirm it, they won’t accept that the payments he made are deductible against his assessment.
You know what really annoys the guy? Individuals working for the CSA recognise that the mother is not telling the truth; they’ve had the opportunity to check the receipts against the clothes in the kids' wardrobes. The only clothes the kids had were the ones their father had bought for them. The receipts and credit card statements are pretty clear, you can match up items of expenditure with individual pieces of clothing. There’s a paper trail a mile wide. The CSA has seen it all, twice, and accepts it for what it is. But because the children’s mother denies the fact, they’ve ruled against him.
I’m not a lawyer, I’m a citizens' advocate, so I don’t really know if he has a legal argument but he certainly has a moral one, and the sum of money involved is not trivial.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter whether his case is legal or moral, good or bad, because the CSA, unfettered by diligence or due process, has made its decision. That decision has been made on behalf of the Secretary of State; there is no right of appeal. My client could, of course, take action in the High Court to have the decision overturned. If he could afford to do so, I'm sure he would, but he doesn't have much money; what little he has, he spends on his kids.
It’s always sobering to be reminded that access to justice for the redress of grievances is not a right but a privilege allowed only to those who can afford it.
