The Child Support Agency replies with:
Dear
Thank you for your letter of 12th March addressed to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Although Mr Blair has an overall interest in the operation of the Child Support Agency, he cannot, due to the scope of his other commitments, become directly involved in individual cases. I have therefore been asked to reply on his behalf to the concerns you raise about child maintenance.
The new rules for child support were introduced for new applications received after 3 March 2003. Samantha Greening, the parent with care, made a valid application to the Agency for a maintenance calculation to be made. On 16 December 2004, the maintenance calculation was completed for £25 per week, effective from 8 November 2004. The legislation takes into account any times Jamie stays with you overnight, and the calculation is reduced by £3.57 per week to allow for this. Your weekly liability is therefore £21.42 per week, which represents less than 9 percent of your net income. This leaves 91 percent of your net income to meet other essential expenses.
If you consider that this calculation does not reflect your current circumstances, and you can provide evidence of any changes to your income, we will consider a review of your liability.
You have raised a number of other issues, which I will answer in the order they appear in your letter.
The Agency will be sypathetic to the financial position of a non-resident parent in the collection of any arrears on the case, but there is no mechanism to take into account any current debts or bills in the calculation of child support. If however, you have debts from the previous relationship, you can consider applying for a variation. I enclose literature, which explains in more detail how to do this.
If a person disagrees with the maintenance calculation they are able to appeal against the decision. Our records show that in January 2005 you appealed against the initial calculation, but the appeal was withdrawn on 2 March 2005.
All the payments you made to the Agency since the start of the case have been paid to Samantha Greenhall as child support for Jamie.
Although you have used the term absent parent in your letter, the Agency makes no moral judgement on the circumstances surrounding the break-up of a relationship and for child support purposes, we refer your role as that of the non-resident parent. You have clearly demonstrated this role by taking part in Jamie’s upbringing and by meeting your monthly commitment to the Agency for his benefit.
For reasons of confidentiality, I am unable to comment on the precise circumstances surrounding Mrs Greenhall’s entitlement to the benefits you mention as they are not taken into the calculation of child support. However, it would be her decision and not the Agency’s to either reach a private agreement or to choose to close her case.
Each application we receive is treated seperately. It would be wrong to compare your case with the Agency with any decisions that have been made in the courts on your sister’s case.
I am sorry if you feel the child support legislation is unfair, but we have to apply the law as it stands. Ministers have asked Sir David Henshaw to consider a redesign of the system, but I am unable to advise you when this will be completed.
I realise this may be a dissapointing reply, but in view of your final comments, if you are likely to experience financial difficulties in the near future, you may wish to consider approaching the Citizens Advice Bureau for some advice.
If you would like to discuss your case further or request a variation application form you can contact the Agency on 08456 090062 when you will be asked to enter your National Insurance number.
Yours Sincerely
Rob Northall
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS UNIT MANAGER