Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

CSA Falsifying Records

There is a need to monitor CSA via FOI to check for CSA errors that denigrate and overbill a payer.

I know it's been said, in relation to bureaucracy and government, that if there is a choice between conspiracy, malice and incompetence (aka stuffups) always suspect incompetence, but the sheer malicious nature of the CSA, and the number of men they have driven to despair and suicide, suggests the conspiracy and malice options are more applicable in relation to the CSA.

Two friends (names changed) recently related the following:
CC said
Another example of how important it is to put in periodic FOI requests to the CSA for ALL documents.

Reading through my stack, I came across this:
CSA said
(ubp7c 21/02/2005

Client Mr Cashcow came to the counters and asked for the CSA assistant general manager Angela Tillman.

I advised that we will not provide her with direct number for her office, I explained we act on CSA's behalf.

I offered to assist him with any enquiries that he has or give him the complaints #.  He advised that they are all "useless" and left the counter.

Mr Cashcow refused to provide his name or reference number or any indication of his enquirie [sic].

Mike P cst5 Sydney.
Firstly, I did no such thing.

Secondly, I would not speak to Tillman, although I do write to her.

Thirdly, I was in Melbourne at that time, with witnesses that will provide statutory declarations.

Fourthly, note the last sentence: "Mr Cashcow refused to provide his name …" - yet the scum blame me and again tarnish my name with a vile, false accusation.
GD said
The doctoring of files (eg. adding, removing or altering) is standard  procedure at the CSA and, as it is a practice so widespread, must be an entrenched and endemic approach to doing business.

Twice I have negotiated with them a credit for an amount they double charged on my account and both times the file entry was deleted and they claimed to know nothing about not only the original file but also the deletion.

The CSA exists to steal from male citizens and have few if any checks on how they go about it.  With Government encouragement and protection they break laws and commit perjury as a matter of basic day to day routine.

If any man objects to the outrageous arbitrary treatment then he is labelled a deadbeat.
In addtion to the genuine mishaps you acknowledge, Guvvy workers are just members of the general public and just as open to taking offence at clients who they may percieve as demanding or bombastic.

This is why it's a good idea to request a different case officer, if you feel you have been aggrieved.

You also have to remember, that like police officers, when you are not always dealing with the cream of society, it can taint your view. It's not fair, but it's human nature. A little power has turned a head before.

I greatly doubt there is any particular conspiracy. CSA and centrelink have a hard enough time getting it right, without the additional burden of being cleverly malicious.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I think it does very much rely on who you get as a case worker with both the CSA and Centrelink.

I have had no trouble with CSA and the gentleman who looks after my case seems to deal fairly with both my ex and myself

Centrelink caseworkers the same, and the only problems I have had have been with particular people. One woman in particular acted as though I was taking money from her personally, and as I had a business at the time of separation wouldn't let me claim certain expenses such as staff amenities (stated that it wasn't a business necessity… I told her I would tell both staff and clients that they can't wipe their butts cos toilet roll reduces Centrelink benefits). I then spoke to someone else who deals with business owners and had everything sorted out. Other than that issues have been policy or lack of related and sorted out eventually.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Artemis, perhaps not a conspiracy, but targets for CSO's to collect amounts, perhaps may lead to some forsaking the complete ruleset in their goal to meet their targets. OK the same in most businesses, but should the CSA be run that way? Should a child suffer the potential abuse of losing a parent simply to allow a CSO to meet a target?
MikeT said
Artemis, perhaps not a conspiracy, but targets for CSO's to collect amounts, perhaps may lead to some forsaking the complete ruleset in their goal to meet their targets. OK the same in most businesses, but should the CSA be run that way? Should a child suffer the potential abuse of losing a parent simply to allow a CSO to meet a target?
 I have not heard of "Targets" for CSO officers. Do we any evidence of specific collection targets to be met by CSA Officers?
GD said
The doctoring of files (eg. adding, removing or altering) is standard procedure at the CSA and, as it is a practice so widespread, must be an entrenched and endemic approach to doing business.
Like any large complex operation mistakes are made. To differentiate between mistakes such as lost documents and a genuine altering of key critical financial data that would impact an assessment for example is surely subject to disciplinary hearing and criminal prosecution of any officers involved. Is genuine criminal behaviour really going on?? Bring it to attention and we will assist in investigating off post.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 

CSA (and Centrelink) and Trusts

It took me between 9 and 12 months to get Centrelink to stop demanding Trust, with 5 trustees, documents I work for.

I am not a beneficiary, I provided them with their required paperwork by post with the answers I could answer, a second time by hand.

On the third time, I saw a manager who backtracked my file to establish I was not at any time required to furnish the info sought and handed me to the person who sought the not required info.

He first admitted his oversight then claimed computer error.

The fourth time I went straight to that person and confronted him on his incompetence, it is handy knowing who did the Misbehaviour so you can confront them directly.

After assuring me, after a 2 hour wait, he had corrected any problems and I would not be required to provide info not required to provide, this due to I was not a beneficiary.

It has been about 3 months since this tactic of stopping my Centrelink registration, not to forget, others have tried in other ways.

When I came back from NZ, CSA tailed me for about 3 weeks then recorded my start times, they sought from the Trust hirers knowledge of my income, this is not available due to a Trust hires me out as an employee of the Trust and I am not a beneficiary.

The inspector or investigator was almost assaulted by Railway Workers for photographing them at work, I had been hire out to their group, lol, he was lucky he ran, trains make a mess of a body.

The Trust I work for is not a sham it has been scrutinised by CSA, Centrelink and the Tax Offices of ASU and NZ but not for filled the direction of the purpose of the Trust of directions of the Trustees due to my issues in the FamCA.

Ultimately, my point is,  it has been my experience CSA and Centrelink do what it takes to pursue a (payer) client, as they call you, to the ends of the earth to gain the maximum for their primary client the mother.

Jadzia, no offence meant, but please remember you are the mother, therefore it is probable as a mother they work for you in their book rather than your EX, I could be wrong as not all of us males have problems with the FIRM, but I could also be right.

A note: open for transfer to a new topic on TRUSTS if the Admin think off topic, for persons who are trustees and/or a beneficiary with 3 or less Trustees. The trust can be claimed to be a sham, depending on who are the Trustees. Lawyers and Accountants are not Trustees to disprove a sham Trust but support the Trust is a sham.

CSA Background

CSA is of course incompetent. They are simply the worst government organisation there is. I know this because I have dealt with them for years. I know people there, know how the system works, have insight into their computer systems, watched them develop over the years, etc.

Yes they commit crimes - some of which I have already reported to CSA, to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and then, when he did nothing, to the Office of the Prime Minister. They all did nothing. They devote their time and energy PROTECTING THEMSELVES.

They blame the need to protect themselves on the MALE PAYER MAKING A FUSS.

The CSA is very incompetent, biased in many ways and has been a haven for the feminists (with a cause) coming out of the University of Canberra who have progressively moved into the main office in Belconnen.

The ombudsman has previously pointed out how they misused data from other agencies.

It all comes down to their 'rabid dog'-like compliance approach which comes from their "it's all about the children" mantra. This allows them to skip a few logical steps and thought processes so they can 'expedite' matters (for the benefit of the children).

Just look at the time differences between someone applying for child support (and the payee having to pay) and the objection process. Money is taken straight away yet the objection process (using their own performance criteria) takes months if not years. Meanwhile they will garnishee your wages - while you are in the process of objecting.

From my experience, there are some nice people at the CSA - but it's in the same way that the man with the axe at your execution is 'nice' . They ask you how your are, offer you a nice drink, listen to you for a while, then chop off your head.

Many of them simply don't have a problem dishing out the damage that they do - other CSA offices actively REVEL in it.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

CSA Targets

Secretary SPCA said said
I have not heard of "Targets" for CSO officers. Do we any evidence of specific collection targets to be met by CSA Officers?
Knowing a recently enrolled CSO 3, yes they do have targets.

Each week the targets are:

1. to collect $4,000,

2. to arrange three (3) employer links for garnisheeing,

3. to arrange three (3) payment arrangements to commit to pay arrears, and

4. to arrange two (2) collects (or corrections) in serious/ongoing arrears.

(The above is a paraphrase, so my wording might be a little off.)
No-Justice said
Jadzia, no offence meant, but please remember you are the mother, therefore it is probable as a mother they work for you in their book rather than your EX, I could be wrong as not all of us males have problems with the FIRM, but I could also be right.
No offence taken, however the decisions made were fair for both of us at the time.

Also the natural father of my son stopped work immediately after the birth (17 years ago) and has worked cash in hand ever since. CSA report there is nothing they can do about that and when he applied to have thousands of owed money wiped they did so.

My ex-husband recently reduced work to avoid paying $250 a month and I got the same response - they can do nothing. He is also working 6 days a week in the same place so it wouldn't take much to investigate.

Personally I couldn't care less about the maintenance; it would cause more friction in an already tense situation. However my point was that they don't hound everyone, though I can agree hounding does go on based on anecdotal evidence of friends.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
A good friend's ex works cash in hand as a hair dresser and in a band. The band toured recently. He pays no child support and has not put in a tax return for 3 years. CSA and ATO do nothing.

I have had issues with Centrelink staff not knowing policy and had to ask a supervisor to get what I was entitled to.

It would not surprise me if CSA had targets. The Howard Govt was big on this - it may change with the new Govt.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

CSA Target Clarification

Uhhm.

Someone I know ;) just got an email, I might have been wrong in one of the targets I mentioned, it might actually have been corrections rather than collects (point 4 I guess).

Anyway the email was congratulating the CSO worker I know on being the star achiever and trying to spur others on because only x items were accomplished (sorry I'm not going to be more specific).

P.S. Thanks for the Mods improving my original post.

CSA Tricks

Artemis said
A good friend's ex works cash in hand as a hair dresser and in a band. The band toured recently. He pays no child support and has not put in a tax return for 3 years. CSA and ATO do nothing.

I have had issues with Centrelink staff not knowing policy and had to ask a supervisor to get what I was entitled to.

It would not surprise me if CSA had targets. The Howard Govt was big on this - it may change with the new Govt.
No question about; you just have to read the job adverts for personnel to conduct Change of Assessments (COAs) to see that.

The whole business of "mistakes" is purely a deliberate red herring to avoid and get around the Privacy Act (subject to Criminal Code) by getting a father to spill his guts on phone and provide a range of personal details and information that the CSA has no legislated right to forcefully request (but they are not prohibited from asking and if dads tell, well then the CSA can and do use that material against him).

Remember, apart from your last tax assessment, the CSA is only allowed one bit of info on you eg. PO Box - UNLESS YOU tell them over the phone (if you are unwise enough to talk about your personal case over the phone with the CSA).

The first task is simply to threaten the CSA with a s98 injunction unless your phone number is removed from their records, and they WILL do so.

However, in many cases the damage will already have been done by dad's big blab. And it works so well they recently started gathering information by email as well.

One reason the CSA works this way is that most people don't know the legislation and just assume the CSA is the government (which it is) and that if they are asking they must have the right to ask for it.  Which highlights the importance of:

1. Asking for the request in writing; and

2. Asking for the legislative basis (Act, Regulation, etc) for the CSA's authority to demand (aka request) information.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets