Blog 8: Having had the Independent Case Examiner find against me, this blog will describe how the Agency cranked up the legal pressure; how they embarked upon their campaign of intimidation and how they began their proactive action in pursuing the liability order.
Update
Before I begin discussing Agency debt-enforcement , I think it is worthwhile revisiting the lamentable role the ICE has played in prolonging this dispute. To this end, having reflected upon blog 07, I thought it would be appropriate to seek comment from Joanna Wallace (Head of ICE) and ask her the question as to how she believes she can guarantee her organisation’s independence, when ICE seeks its technical guidance from the very government department that is being complained about.
I think this is a fundamental question that goes to the very heart of their impartiality. As has always been the case with the ICE, Joanna Wallace has elected to ignore my request for comment and continues in her refusal to engage. Today (06th June 2017) I wrote the following: –
FAO Joanna Wallace
Dear Ms Wallace,
“My previous e-mail has not been acknowledged and the Examiner has not responded to my question. The ICE’s role is to investigate Maladministration. As you are aware, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) upheld my complaint that the Agency were guilty of maladministration and the Agency themselves have also acknowledged this. However ICE failed in its investigation to find any such grounds for Maladministration and this I attribute to you having taken your technical guidance from the very organisation against which my complaint was levied.
I therefore again raise the question as to how you can claim ICE to be an independent body. I remain deeply troubled by your attitude that you do not feel compelled to respond to this question, just as I am extremely disappointed that you do not feel this matter to be a consideration that requires comment.
Personally, I believe this is fundamental to your very purpose and your lack of technical knowledge seriously undermines both your impartiality and your credibility to act as an independent body. I again invite you to respond as I am certain my growing followers will be interested in your views”
Should Ms Wallace respond, I will be sure to post her comments.
Agency enforcement
It should be recognised that ICE carry a considerable amount of weight with both the courts and the PHSO [This I will discuss in future blogs]. As discussed in blog 7, ICE did not uphold any aspect of my complaint, which therefore left me totally exposed to the Agency who had now been given the green light to pursue the debt without restraint. Although it is now recognised that ICE’s findings were incompetent, their failings literally threw me to the wolves and the Child Support Agency (CSA) wasted little time in demanding their pound of flesh.
Having exhausted the official complaints process my only course of action was to approach my local MP Simon Hughes, who was also the Front Bench serving Minister for Justice. I engaged with my M.P. on the 24th February 2011 and the Rt. Hon Simon Hughes sympathised with my case and did in fact take the time to write to the Agency’s CEO looking for clarification around the issues I was raising.
Initially, the case was held in limbo whilst the agency considered their next move. However, relying upon the ICE’s adjudication, the Agency felt empowered to commence recovery action for the outstanding liability order. It is the manner in which the Agency communicates that causes the recipient such distress. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, my very first letter received from the Agency on the 10th September 2009 stated “Despite having tried to contact you a number of times, you still have not sent us the information we urgently require. It is a criminal offence under child support law if a person fails to provide information when required to do so”.
The steady stream of letters I was now receiving were just as threatening and just as intimidating; One such letter stated “Your child maintenance is £113 a week and this is effective from 13/08/2009. This should be paid every week. You now need to set up your payments urgently”. It continued “If you don’t set up payments we may be forced to take further action against you. If you are employed we will take action to recover what you owe directly from your wages. Our legal powers are extensive and include the ability to seize property, suspend driving licences or even send you to prison. This is not our preferred course of action so please contact us and pay what you owe.”
There is no filter to these threats, so if you are a vulnerable adult, such demands can have devastating effects. I know of many cases where the Agency’s relentless pursuit of a debt (whether due or not) has driven quite sane non-resident parents (NRP) to suicide (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525148/The-CSA-not-only-ended-my-fathers-life-it-ruined-mine-too.html).
Having personally felt the full force of the Agency’s manic obsession in debt recovery, I can testify first hand that being on the receiving end of their debt enforcement is a harrowing, stressful and hopeless undertaking which drives you to complete despair.
In my case I received a steady stream of debt enforcement letters, each incrementally increasing the imminent threat of recovery action. This culminated on the 09th August 2011 in a Deduction of Earnings Order being served upon me.
At the same time (and unbeknown to me until the Subject Access Request in July 2015 which disclosed my case papers) the CSA also conducted a property search on my home with a view to commencing a repossession order to ensure recovery of the outstanding liability order. This was quickly followed by a court summons which was set for the 30th September 2011.
Inexplicably, on the 28th September 2011 the Agency wrote to my M.P stating “A liability order for £11,639.00 was granted for arrears that accrued during the period 13th August 2009 until 03rd August 2011. This legally recognises that there is a debt to be paid and it allows the CSA to take further action to get the money owed” The letter also advised “A recent check of the QC’s circumstances has confirmed that child benefit remains payable for him”.
However, as you will have observed, this letter was dated two days ahead of the court hearing and in point of fact, the liability order was not granted. The Agency’s charter states “We will be Respectful… We’ll be open and honest, and treat you fairly. We will explain what we are doing or why we are asking you for something. And because we respect the fact that every case is different, you can manage your case in the way that suits you best”. To openly mislead my M.P. does not appear to adhere to the principle of being open and honest and I maintain this particular letter was deliberately aimed to discredit me in the eyes of my M.P. and belittle my objections.
As events transpired, the hearing was adjourned and re-scheduled for 11th November 2011.
Blog 09: My next blog will recount my court hearings and the emotional stress and anxieties I endured in taking on the might of the Agency and its full arsenal of legal redress
Taking on Child Support 