Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

CSA includes dividends from shares in super fund

I received a change of estimated income letter from the CSA that added to my taxable income a number of dividends. Just a date and the amount were given with no information as to where they came from. The result was enough to take me over the estimate limit and they proposed to fine me for underestimating my income.

After much head scratching I looked at my self managed super fund and was able to match up all the amounts to dividends received by the super fund on shares that the super fund owns.

I objected to the determination, identifying each amount against a shareholding and pointing out that the shares were owned by the super fund which is a separate entity and the dividends were paid directly into the super fund bank account. I received a curt phone call from the objection case officer saying that my objection had been denied. She would not give me a reason for the denial.

I am appealing the decision but if the appeal goes against me it means that everyone who has superannuation could have the super fund income added to their taxable income. For those on a super pension it would mean double dipping, the super fund income that is generated in order to pay the pension and the pension itself.

As to how they picked on these shares I can only speculate. Super fund shares must be registered with the name of the trustee followed by the name of the fund in angle brackets. You can guess the rest.
       the CSA must provide the notification in writing and it must include or be accompanied by the reason(s) why the objection was refused.

Here's what the CSA Guide says :-

The CSA Guide - 4.1.6: Making a decision to allow or disallow an objection (extract) said
Notifying parents of the decision

CSA must serve written notice of the objection decision on the parent who lodged the objection and on the other parent if the other parent was entitled to be served a copy of the objection and accompanying documents (section 87(2)). The notice of decision must include a statement that the parent may apply to the SSAT for a review of the decision if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the objection (section 87(3)).

If the Objections Officer refused to change a child support assessment because the issues involved are too complex, the notice must state that the parents can apply to a court for an order departing from the assessment (section 87(3)).

The notice must include or be accompanied by the reasons for the decision (section 87(3)).

The reasons for decision will include:

    * the Objections Officer's understanding of the relevant legislation;
    * the findings of facts upon which their conclusions depend; and
    * the reasoning process that led them to their conclusion.

Here's a link to the relevant section of the CSA Guide The CSA Guide - 4.1.6: Making a decision to allow or disallow an objection.

With regard to the super dividends I'm not sure whether the CSA have made a decision via a change of assessment or that they have made this decision when reviewing the estimate (the latter appears to be the case).

If the latter then I believe in not issuing (assuming that they haven't) you a notice requesting information then it would appear that they have acted against their own guide on perhaps also illegally. Here's what the CSA guide says in relation to this.

The CSA Guide - 2.5.1: Estimates of Income (extract) said
Reviewing an estimate

CSA can check an estimate to find out if the estimate is still accurate and, if not, to review the estimate to a more accurate amount (section 63A, and 63B).

A parent is required to tell CSA of any event that affects the accuracy of their estimate. This obligation is outlined in the notice that is sent to a parent when an estimate is accepted (section 160 & section 162A(2)).

CSA can also review an estimate if it becomes aware that the estimate is no longer accurate.

CSA can review an estimate in two ways:

    * CSA can amend an assessment based on an estimate if it becomes aware of an event that has affected the accuracy of the estimate, or if the parent tells CSA that the event has occurred (section 63A); or
    * CSA can amend an assessment based on an estimate if it has sent the parent a notice requesting information relevant to determining the accuracy of the estimate, under section 161 or 162A(1) or (4) (section 63B). (See chapter 6.2.3).

Most estimates are reviewed under section 63A when the parent informs CSA of a change in their income or when CSA otherwise becomes aware that the estimate may no longer be accurate.


M becomes unemployed and lodges an estimate in June. On 1 October M starts a new job. On 10 October M calls CSA, advises of the income change and lodges a new estimate. CSA will accept the new estimate but will not amend Ms previous estimate. Ms previous estimate will be used in their assessment until 9 October.

F changes jobs and lodges an estimate in January. On 15 May F gets a promotion which makes the income they estimated in January no longer accurate. On 15 June F calls CSA, advises of the income change and lodges a new estimate. CSA will accept the new estimate from 15 June and will also amend Fs previous estimate to reflect the change in income from 15 May.

CSA will only review an estimate under section 63B if:

    * Every attempt has been made to contact the parent but they cannot, or will not, provide any information, or consent to any amendments, or lodge a new estimate;
    * All efforts to gather income information from third parties has been exhausted; and
    * There is still not enough reliable information to proceed with an amendment under section 63A.

If a parent complies with a notice issued under section 161 or 162A(1) or (4), CSA can only amend the assessment to give effect to the review of the estimate from the date that the parent complied with the notice. If a subsequent estimate has been accepted, CSA cannot amend the earlier estimate.

Here's a link to this section of the guide The CSA Guide - 2.5.1: Estimates of Income

You may wish to read the whole section sof the guide rather than just the extracts provided. You may also wish to read through section 2.6.14, which deals with a reason 8 change of assessment.

The guide itself is not necessarily a fully comprehensive reflection of the legislation, therefore you may also wish to look to the legislation which the guide points to.

We are most certainly interested in hearing how this goes as I believe it to be very wrong that the CSA can consider superannuation dividends as income. Perhaps the plus side is that all people with superannuation should, under such a ruling, be able to declare the losses that have been made as a child support income reduction. If the CSA have gone to the lengths of investigating this in your case, then to be fair they should investigate it in all cases and automatically reduce incomes accordingly, many of which would very likely result in a child support income of $0 or less.

Perhaps you would care to provide documents in relation to this this finding, ensuring that information that can identify the parents or children is not revealed.
My post above is a summary. In more detail:

The CSA have carried out an audit of my child support over the last 10 years and have claimed that I underestimated for the years 1999-2000 and 2005-06. In both these years they have added income from shares owned by the super fund and imposed a fine. I objected to both.
Presumably they had also added in super fund share incomes for the intervening years and the totals for these years were within the estimated income limits.

The objections case officer rang me last Friday on my mobile while I was away from home to say that my objections were denied. She would not tell me why and when I asked where the extra amounts came from she said that she had my tax return details in front of her. She named my tax agent and said that the disputed amounts were in the return submitted by the tax agent. I said that they should have not been included and that I wanted to check. The case officer then suggested several times that I withdraw my objection and re-submit after I had checked. I then said that on the understanding that I could submit an objection again, I withdrew my objection. I then rang my tax agent who said that the amounts were not in the taxation return. I rang the ATO who confirmed that my tax file only showed what my agent had submitted.

I then rang back the CSA intending to clarify the issues. I spoke to an ordinary case officer and asked to be put through to the objection case officer. After waiting on hold she returned and said that the objections case officer would not speak to me because I had withdrawn my objection.

I am now about to submit another objection which is essence is the same as the first. Once they deny this objection as they must if they are consistant, I can then get written details why and I can commence the appeal process.

I feel that I have been treated shabbily and have been manipulated into withdrawing my objection so that the CSA do not have to provide details of the alleged incomes or provide reasons for denying the objection.
Redo the original objection, stress that this is only being done because the CSA Objections officer provided false information that led you to withdraw the original objection and that if the CSA refuse to withdraw the withdrawal that came about due to to false information being provided by the objections officer, and if the time to apply has expired, that this is then to be treated also as an extension of time to lodge an objection, the reason for that extension, again being that the CSA objections officer provided false information which led to the withdrawal of the original application.

You may also wish to raise the matter with the Ombudsman, as this would appear to be fraudulent activity, something the Ombudsman has reported on in the last year or so and something which I believe the CSA have been tasked to halt.

You may also wish to raise a complaint in regard to the CSA Objections officer actions which I believe would contravene the APS (Australian Public Servants) guidelines/legislation.
Do the CSA record telephone conversations?
It could boil down to her word against mine and the Ombudsman should be able to get hold of recordings if they exist.
          yes recordings are made, however I'm not sure if that includes when they phone out. Looking into this a little further. I can't see anything in the guide that allows an objection to be withdrawn, the CSA officer appears to only be able to allow, disallow or partly allow an objection.

If they don't make a decision then you can apply to the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court on the basis that the CSA has failed to make one of the three allowable decisions.

You may wish to have a good read through section 4.1 of the CSA Guide in regard to objections.

If it's a matter of your/their word then they will be able to supply the grounds upon which they withdrew the objection (I wonder what that would be). I hope that you recorded the reference number they gave you. In addition to a recording of the conversation the officer should have taken notes (often referred to as screen notes) and you can ask for the notes that were taken (they are recorded in Cuba I believe). Often the will try to fob you off saying that they are protected under Freedom of Information. In which case you simply tell them to speak place you on hold whilst they contact the Freedom of Information Officer who will confirm that you have a right to the notes.

I advise that you stop talking to C$A over the phone and conduct all communications on this matter in writing, otherwise you will get no-where as you will have nothing to fight them with when they contradict themselves, as they do this all the time.

Do what Mike says and resubmit the objection in writing with the information that you have obtained from your tax agent.

Make sure you follow all the objection and appeals instructions very carefully so you have access to all mechanisms of appeal without delay. They rely on the ad hoc nature of the phone to tell people they are out of time or have not succeeded in their claim to make it hard for clients to actually achieve anything because the client does not have any hard copy records to backup claims of when and what communications etc… have occurred.

Do not rely on receiving copies of screen notes as C$A officers do not make accurate notes of telephone conversations - they only write what they need to to justify their position on the matter or make the payee look good.

They should not be including any income from your super fund unless you are accessing the funds in some way.

They cannot assess 99-2000 income for child support purposes as they can only go back 7 years.

After all the C$A mechanisms for appeal are exhausted and for an assessment that is more than 18 months old, you can apply to the Family Court or FMC for a Departure Order. The courts are usually a lot fairer than C$A or the rubber stamp they call the SSAT in dealing with child support matters if you think the assessment is not fair.

Do not pay any penalties as you can usually negotiate to have them remitted when an issue is resolved.

Watch your statements very carefully as they will often try to convert penalties into child support and then collect it.

Always complain in writing and write an individual letter for each complaint. You will have a better response rate this way as each complaint is assessed on its merits and sent to the most appropriate person for consideration. Don't be surprised if you find yourself corresponding with up to four C$A employees at the same time. This is the extent they go to in order to stop you from engaging with them.

Every decision they make must be accompanied with legislative references and be in writing.

They exist to extract as much money as they can off you and make you feel guilty by saying it's all for your kids benefit, and they succeed because you did not have time to deal with the issue over the phone at the time and had no record of any communications to hold them accountable for their actions.

Only when you conduct all communications in writing you will begin to experience the contempt the system has towards you as a payer, and also experience being dealt with by a number of people and processes within the agency that often do not communicate relate with each other.

Written communications will also get you the results that you want if you persist and beat them at their games.

You are so very not alone if you feel they have snubbed you off.

Do not let them pull the wool over your eyes like they do to most clients.

Last edit: by HappyDaze

HappyDaze said
They cannot assess 99-2000 income for child support purposes as they can only go back 7 years.
This may be an inaccurrate statement,


Registrar may initiate a determination under this Part

             (1)  If, at any time when an administrative assessment is in force in relation to a child, the Registrar is of the view that, because of special circumstances that exist, the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support should be departed from in relation to the child, the Registrar may make a determination under this Part.

The key to this statement is the period of the "administrative assessment", the assessment may have been in force for 5, 10, 15 years and if an audit has been carried out or evidence has come to light the assessment can be changed by the registrar.  this is only a small part and all the relevant parts of the act need to be read.

Of course this is my interpretation and I could be wrong but when it comes to Children, some things that we as adults thought are written into stone, suddenly crumble into sand.  It pays to check all the writting.

Please if I am wrong someone correct me.

The advice to have any correspondance to and from the CSA be in writting is sound advice, also ask that any decisions that they make that they include the reasoning and the relevant part of the act that allows them to make that determination.
                   I thinks it's more complicated. 98K is followed by two notes, which I think says that a court's leave is required if the day(s) are more than 18 months earlier than the notification (I think that's what it's saying although I may well be wrong) and then section 112 imposes the 7 year rule, although this then points to section 111 which is the section for an administrative assessment over 18 months old, section 98S(3B) appears to say go to section 112 as well.

Trying to fathom that out has done my head in. I'm off to bed. :)

Notes for section 98K said
Note 1:   For the determinations that the Registrar may make under this Part see section 98S.
Note 2:   The Registrar may only make a determination under this Part in respect of a day that is more than 18 months earlier than the day on which the relevant parties are notified under section 98M with a courts leave under section 112 (see subsection 98S(3B)).

Section 98M said
98M  Parties to be notified
   (1)   The Registrar must, in writing, notify the parties to the proceedings that the Registrar is considering the making of a determination under section 98S in relation to the child concerned.
   (2)   The Registrar must also cause to be served on each of the parties to the proceedings a summary of the information that the Registrar used to form the view that the Registrar should make a determination under this Division.
   (3)   At the same time, the Registrar must inform each party to the proceedings in writing that the party may make any representation (a reply) regarding the summary that the party considers relevant.

Section 98S(3B) said
(3B)   The Registrar may only make a determination under this Part in respect of a day in a child support period, being a day that is more than 18 months earlier than:
   (a)   the day on which the application for the determination is made under section 98B; or
   (b)   the day on which the Registrar notifies the relevant parties under subsection 98M(1);
if a court has granted leave under section 112 for the determination to be made.

Section 112 said
112  Court may grant leave to amend administrative assessment that is more than 18 months old
   (1)   If an application is made to a court under section 111, the court may grant leave for:
   (a)   the Registrar to make a determination under section 98S; or
   (b)   the court to make an order under section 118.
   (2)   The court may grant leave for an order to be made under section 118 if the court is satisfied that it would be in the interest of the parties to the proceeding for the court to consider, at the same time as it hears the application under section 111, whether an order should be made under section 118. If the court does so, the applicant is taken to have made an application to the court under section 116 for such an order.
   (3)   Otherwise, the court may grant leave for the Registrar to make a determination under section 98S.
   (3A)   To avoid doubt, the court may grant leave for the Registrar to make a determination under section 98S, or for the court to make an order under section 118, irrespective of what the applicant applied for under section 111.
Matters to be considered
   (4)   In considering whether to grant leave under subsection (1), the court must have regard to:
   (a)   any responsibility, and reason, for the delay in:
   (i)   making an application under section 98B or 116; or
   (ii)   making a determination under section 98S;
      as the case requires; and
   (b)   the hardship to the applicant (other than the Registrar) if leave is not granted; and
   ©   the hardship to the other party or parties (other than the Registrar) if leave is granted.
   (5)   The court may have regard to any other relevant matter.
Orders granting leave to specify period
   (6)   An order granting leave under this section must specify the period in respect of which the Registrar may make a determination or the court may make an order.
   (7)   The period specified under subsection (6):
   (a)   must not include a day in a child support period if the day is more than 7 years earlier than the day on which the application under section 111 was made; and
   (b)   is not limited by the terms of that application.
No requirement to make determination or order
   (8)   The granting of leave under subsection (1) does not imply that:
   (a)   the Registrar is required to make a determination under section 98S; or
   (b)   the court is required to make an order under section 118.
Thanks MT, I should have waited and had a good nights rest before starting to read those parts of the act.  It makes you wonder what authority the Dead Beat Gang (DBG) have when conducting complete audits going back years, of CSA cases, to find the so called "Dead Beat Dads".  Caution is always needed when laymen (me being one) try to interpret legislation.

Very confusing.

Am I to understand that, depending on the interpretation, the time limit is either 18 months or 7 years. Therefore, in either case, they cannot go back to 1999-2000 and if the limit is 18 months, they cannot even go back to 2005-06.

The ATO only require records for individuals to be kept for 7 years, but for Super funds it is 10 years.

From what I can gather, they seem to ignore the rules and I would have to go to court to strike out the claims. I would then be the bunny who pays for a test case. For the 1999-2000 determination, the fine is $50. Hardly an incentive to go to court.

I can see that they had me dancing to their tune. They did not give details as to where the alleged payments came from. I diligently found that they were in fact dividends and identified where they came from, and I told the CSA. Therefore, I  showed that I knew about the payments and I must be guilty. What they didn't take into account was that when searching for the source of the payments I was wearing my Trustee hat.

I have started talking to a lawyer who works in the field. He commented that "The CSA act as the judge, jury and hangman". It looks as though I will end up considerably out of pocket no matter which way the decision goes.
Now to make things even more confusing and after a sleep.

Section 98K is in the section in regard to departures from an administrative assessment, there is another section, section 75 which deals with amending an administrative assessment and this section does not appear to have any time limitations.

I think the wording may be the clue to why there is confusion. In section 112 it says "amend administrative assessment", whilst in 75 it says amending an administrative assessment. The former I guess meaning to amend the use of administrative assessment (i.e. not use or depart from administrative assessment) whilst section 75 refers to amending an actual administrative assessment (i.e. change the administrative assessment used).

Here's section 75 :-

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 Section 75 Amendment of Assessments said

75  Amendment of assessments

   (1)   The Registrar may, at any time, amend any administrative assessment by making such alterations and additions as the Registrar considers necessary to give effect to this Act or the Registration and Collection Act.

   (2)   However, if the amendment relates to a persons percentage of care for a child, the Registrar must not amend an administrative assessment unless:
   (a)   the change to the persons percentage of care is at least 7.1%, and the change affects the annual rate of child support payable for the child; or  alters the persons cost percentage for the child
(aa) the change to the persons percentage of care is less than 7.1%, and the change is because of an agreement, plan or order mentioned in paragraph 49(a) or (b) (including a variation of such an agreement, plan or order); or
   (b)   the persons percentage of care falls below 14%; or
   ©   the persons percentage of care increases to 14%, or above 14%; or
(ca)    the persons percentage of care falls below 35%; or
   (cb)   the persons percentage of care increases to 35%, or above 35%; or
   (d)   the child is a relevant dependent child and the Registrar has become aware that the child was not taken into account for the purpose of making the assessment.
Note:   7.1% is one night per fortnight.

   (3)   Subsection (1) has effect despite the fact that:
   (a)   child support has been paid under the administrative assessment; or
   (b)   the child support period, or the part of the child support period, to which the administrative assessment relates has ended; or
   ©   proceedings are pending in a court having jurisdiction under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, or in the SSAT, against or in relation to the administrative assessment.

   (4)   Without limiting subsection (1), the Registrar may amend any administrative assessment for the purpose of:
   (a)   correcting any error or mistake (whether or not made by the Registrar); or
   (b)   correcting the effect of any false or misleading statement made to the Registrar; or
   ©   giving effect to the happening of a child support terminating event in relation to a child, the liable parent, the carer entitled to child support, or all 3; or
   (d)   giving effect to the happening of an event or change of circumstances that, under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, affects the annual rate at which child support is or was payable; or
   (e)   giving effect to the acceptance of a child support agreement by the Registrar; or
   (f)   giving effect to a decision or order of a court having jurisdiction under this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, or of the SSAT.

   (5)   Where a provision of this Act or the Registration and Collection Act expressly authorises the Registrar to amend an administrative assessment, that provision does not by implication limit the power of the Registrar (whether under this section or otherwise) to amend the assessment.

   (6)   Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or the Registration and Collection Act, every amended administrative assessment is to be taken to be an administrative assessment for all the purposes of this Act and the Registration and Collection Act.

It would appear that the rule is that a change of assessment (departure) has the limitations of 18 months or 7 years if leave is gained from a court. Whilst changing an administrative assessment (e.g. correcting taxable income) has no limitation.
Hi MT, that would explain how the Dead Beat Gang can go back so far to with their audits.  

What I would like to see is a few test cases where someone takes an employee of CSA and CSA to court for that employee giving false and misleading information over the telephone.  Companies in the private sector have been taken to court for their employees giving false information over the telephone and have been found liable, why would it be any different for the CSA.

Oops off subject…sorry
I submitted another objection, this time I attached copies of the dividend payment statements which showed that the securities were in the name of the super fund and the dividends were paid directly into the bank account of the super fund. You can imagine the work involved going through archived paper going back 10 years. I was able to get paper for 19 of the 21 items, I still cannot identify 2 items as the CSA has not provided any information, just a bald date and an amount. I also objected to their inclusion of $9 and $19 "interest" in 1999, without identifying where they came from. (I have bank records going back that far. I certainly cannot see these amounts).
I received a phone call saying that the CSA were sending copies of my objections for comment to my ex and implied that they would not consider my objection if my ex did not agree with my objection. This is crazy as my objection is on technical grounds that the amounts are not mine and really has nothing to do with my ex.

I was also told that the previous caller had not told me that my objection was denied but had said that the objection was likely to be denied and advised me to withdraw. That is not what I heard!
She also said that the previous person had told me to amend my tax returns for the relevant years to include the disputed amounts. This is partially true, in the letter confirming my withdrawal, there was a clause to that effect but I assumed that it was a standard form that they send whenever the sucker - er - I mean client, gives in to their bullying.

So I now have to wait for the reply from my ex within 28 days, then wait for another 30 days for the review. I asked what would happen if my ex does not reply and she would not give me a straight answer.

Fortunately I have kept my ex fully informed as to what is going on and she is likely to give a positive reply. I hate to think what would happen if we were antaganistic.
    here's what the guide says about objections :-
CSA Guide - 4.1.1 said
The objection provisions allow parents to ask CSA to formally reconsider particular decisions made under the Assessment Act or Registration and Collection Act.

CSA makes decisions by determining facts and then applying the law to those facts. CSA will make reasonable investigations before making any decision and give each parent the opportunity to comment on information that it takes into account in a way that adversely affects them. New information about the circumstances of the parents or the child may become available after CSA has made a decision. However, CSA cannot simply change a decision once it has been made. A parent must lodge an objection if they want CSA to reconsider a decision. The exception is where there has been a simple factual error (such as a date of birth or arithmetic error) that is not disputed by either parent or the CSA. In these cases, it may be appropriate for CSA to amend the assessment (section 75 of the Assessment Act), or the register (section 42 of the Registration and Collection Act), without requiring the parents to go through a formal objections process. This will occur rarely and both parents should be contacted before such an amendment is made. If the facts are not clear; if there is new information that one parent has not had an opportunity to comment upon; or if there is any element of dispute, it is not appropriate to change a decision at the request of one parent. This should be considered as an objection to the Registrar's original decision.

A parent who failed to provide information to CSA before the original decision was made may be able make a new application based on the relevant information (e.g. a new change of assessment application). Otherwise, the parent may object to the original decision and CSA will take that new information into account when considering the objection.

If parents believe that CSA has made a mistake of fact and/or applied the law incorrectly they may object to that decision.

If a parent makes a valid objection CSA must reconsider the original decision taking into account any relevant new information provided by both parents or from other sources.

Basically they ask the other parent and if they agree, then there is no need for the objection process to continue, however I think that they might be trying to fob you off, if they are saying that if the other parent disagrees, then there can be no objection.

Section 80 Part VII of the Chdil Support Registration and Collections act has a table which sets out who can register an objection. There is not any item that says payer AND payee, some have one or the other whilst some say payer or payee. I think the first three entries in the table are the likely applicable entries these are :-

Child Support Registration and Collections Act 1989 - Part VII (section 80) said

1   to register a registrable maintenance liability
(a) the payer of the registrable maintenance liability; or
(b) the payee of the registrable maintenance liability
2   as to particulars entered in the Child Support Register in relation to a registrable maintenance liability   
(a) the payer of the registrable maintenance liability; or
(b) the payee of the registrable maintenance liability
3   as to particulars varied in the Child Support Register in relation to a registrable maintenance liability   
(a) the payer of the registrable maintenance liability; or
(b) the payee of the registrable maintenance liability

I even think that, if the error is a clerical error, then there is no legislated requirement to ask the other parent :-

Child Support Registration and Collections Act - Section 42 said
42  Correction of clerical errors and other mistakes in Child Support Register
      Where the Registrar is satisfied that a clerical error or other mistake exists in particulars entered in the Child Support Register in relation to a registered maintenance liability, the Registrar may vary the particulars for the purpose of correcting the error or mistake.

Yes they have to notify both of the change, to which either parent can then object.

I believe the guide is at fault here as it says :- "If parents believe that CSA has made a mistake of fact and/or applied the law incorrectly they may object to that decision." Whilst I think that it should say "If a parent believes that the CSA has made a mistake of fact and/or applied the law incorrectly the parent may object to that decision."

An Administrative Issue

Besides formal complaints to the CSA and Ombudsman (don't forget your local Federal MP) if you wish to institute further action in response to the behavior in relation to the first object and the result of the second, I suggest the matter is an administrative matter which would go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Unless I am very much mistaken, what you can do with a self managed Super Fund is very much controlled by the regulations. I suspect drawings are not allowed. In that case including "Dividends on shares in the super fund" as income has definitely crossed a boundary and should not have happened.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
I finally got satisfaction.
I received a letter stating that the CSA were sending my ex copies of my objections but they were never sent. After 6 weeks I got a phone call from yet another case officer who claimed that I had extra income 10 years ago and wanted me to verbally admit it. I refused and asked for them to put it in writing. Eventually she said that she had to resolve the case that day and would accept all of my objections. Case closed.
That's good news KO41, well done.

I would suggest refering the matter to the Ombudsman

Despite the matter being closed. I would suggest writing to the ombudsman setting out in detain what C$A attempted to do and particularly refer to the Senior Case Officers refusal to accept you obection. C$A apparently record all telephone conversations in theory.

I was reading something the other day which lead me to believe that in some if not all calls, active initation of the recording is required. It is also unlikely the calls are recorded if the C$A officer is based exrenally to a C$A building. Which may happen in some cases - Ie the C$A Officers based at Centrelink Offices, and some Senior Case Officers are (or it used to be the case) lawyers who contract to the C$A.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
and perhaps you should consider a claim against them for defective administration. See post titled Mechanisms for compensation.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets