The brief version is that the CSA have not commented on the legality of the Notice to Pay when questioned. They withdrew it as they have moved my case to Litigation. Legal advice I received indicated it was unenforceable.
I am told I am Non-Compliant. I am trying to cooperate, it is just they never respect my rights or act according to law. I just keep pulling them up on things they as experts should know with the quality training they receive. I think what they are saying it is all too hard for them because every action they take is severely flawed.
Their system does not allow negotiation on arrears until you meet the monthly assessed amount. This amount I cannot meet. I have undertaken a commitment and am paying a regular amount that I believe manageable.
Where to? It has been suggested that it may be more beneficial to actually go to Court. It might just be that a Magistrate would not be impressed by the CSA's actions against me. For what it is worth an Objection. The SPCA will then also be lodging a strong complaint on my behalf. Failing results from these, who knows?
I am not sure about the use of the word 'culture'. Definition suggests this a group of Micro-organisms? Maybe it fits??
Might just grab a ride on a Refugee boat making the return journey!
Anyway it was a good experience to see her unbelievable bias in the flesh. It reinforced the notion that they are just a collection agency and really don't care about how their processes effect their clients and they seem to operate on the basis that if they can collect more money, that result will out weight the over all negative impact they have on the community.
The collection agency is also a collective agency. They have the same collective thoughts and motivations after being taught the same propaganda. Propaganda is not based on any fact, just lies designed to influence and manipulate the thoughts of society.
As long as the CSA can paint a picture of us baddies to society and the politicians then they can be perceived as justified in their actions and will continue to be funded with $'s.
There is a very clear and distinct bias in the MO of the CSA. The Payers rights are typically ignored, overlooked and avoided. I have a CoA letter with reasoning about my fully leased commercial company vehicle that states factual evidence it is in fact leased. This same letter then goes on to quote a comment from my Ex to say "he must have got the cash from somewhere for it". The point is?
I personally would not recommend the CSA be allowed into any private place. To me this would just be too personal a touch from an agency that has shown themselves to be cold and uncaring. (except for one thing)
I did to some extent enjoy meeting the people who are in control of my life when I went to their ACT office. I think though I did get a little bored with their lack of participation in meaningful discussion. Anyway, after that meeting I am now trust poker machines to collect and invest my money wisely.
As Director of the Company I have spoken to a number of professional people 'in the know' about financial matters but have not had chance to seek legal opinion at this early stage. From what it has been indicated by the people I have approached nobody can see any legal basis for this Notice, or opportunity to comply. Everyone seems to find fault in this action. I am really reluctant to spend money I can't afford to play a game initiated by the CSA. They rolled the dice, they can call it. Everything they have done to date has been severely flawed. No reason for them to start getting it right now. They are already costing me time and energy just correcting their past mistakes.
I will be exploring their likely moves on enforcement of this Notice. I will also be calling ASIC just to reconfirm company obligations under the Corporations Act 2001, to which the CSA must also take into account.
I would be interested in any feedback or suggestions as to where the CSA are going with this? Remember I do not have the money they seek so what is the purpose? I have my suspicions.
Edit to reply to previous post comment: That is one of my suspicions. They are trying to find an out to get me out of their hair. It goes to court and someone else makes a decision for them. The CSA may not wish to appear to back down and can save face to some degree by employing this process. If it is in my favor then they will not have had to admit anything or go against their previous decisions which would be an admission of guilt. I still have numerous complaints to lodge against their actions. They could have negotiated something with me but as time goes on this is a less likely event.
Failure to comply with notices under Section 72A is one of strict liability. This means there are no excuses and you are immediately guilty of an offence. If only I had known about it in time.
Would anyone expect anything less than a defective notice to come from a like described agency?
The nature of the Notice to Pay Money does not allow for a self-supporting income based on Protected Income Amount as would a Garnishee. It reeks of fishing as no Section 120 was issued to the Company. No search was done on bank accounts etc. No consideration was given to my present financial situation to which they are fully aware. It is also assumes that the Company owes me an amount of money surplus to its needs.
Just supposing that the Notice to Pay did not include the required Information Section including details of Subsection 72A(8). I have it on good authority that the Notice to Pay also breached the Privacy Act again by disclosing personal information and the CSA Case Number. To date I have again not received the Payee Notification under Section 72A (5) If the Registrar gives a notice under subsection (1), the Registrar must provide a copy of the notice to the child support debtor.
Their actions will place the Company directly into insolvency. As a Director it will place me personally into Bankruptcy. My employee will be out of work. I will probably pick up unemployment benefits.
Is this what the CSA is about? The CSA firmly believe they have almighty powers that are above the law. My PSO even said to me "what are you going to do, go to the Ombudsman or Member of Parliment?" (words to that effect) They have no fear of retribution as they cannot be brought to account personally or as an agency even if it is established they are in error. How many CSA employees have had sanctions brought against them? I would like an answer to this. Without consequences to actions their can be no incentive to correct mistakes. When you challenge the CSA to bring them to any account for clearly illegal actions and breeches to policy and codes of conduct, they set about to bury you. What sort of country is this? I have been willing to negotiate on the matter of CS payments, they have not and at all times demanded the full amount, no less. I have done nothing wrong except not being able to afford to pay CS at their exaggerated rate.
I wonder if the upper management of the CSA are aware of what goes on in the basement of the CSA? Maybe turning a blind eye gives another level of denying accountability into the equation.
Suppose I'll just sit back and wait for the summons. Does anyone know what the food is like in Gaol?
My partner is reading an interesting book on the Third Reich at the moment.
"I would like to assure the petitioners that the Government does not intend the Scheme to impose an unfair or unreasonable burden on parents." I am going somewhere with this. Just as an off topic but related thought. How would this apply to the new scheme where they will take money off low income earners that have children truant from school. Seems to be OK in this scenario. I thought the kids came first with this Government. It is all about applying a social financial pressure to secure a desired outcome. I don't disagree with the objective, just how it is sought.
Moving to the next thought. Is seems to be OK for the Government to cause hardship to a family and ultimately the children yet if you are a Payer with CSA this is the ultimate sin. This I believe is termed Double Standards.
The Policy/Legislation is not only open to interpretation but is subject to Perception Judgement. Interpretation requires one to actually read the legislation. Perception is just your feeling. This means that if you think it is right then just do it 'cause it could be right.
Can I say here that not only does the CSA need a review but they MUST adopt an full-time auditing process from an external source.
Yes, a scheme that doesn't reward the primary or sole carer with hanging on to the kids for financial reward would be idealistic. And financial reward may not be the only motive for this scenario. I really don't think such enforcement or to be seen to act tough against a group that are primarily women or single mothers would be politically beneficial. (This comment is without prejudice, just that this is what I believe to be the probable view and outcome in the public's opinion.)
As expected another 'request' under Section 72A has been issued, this time on my Company for the full amount of arrears. Oh, I (as Director) had until the day before it was received it to comply!
It is hard to believe but they still haven't got the process right. Tell you all about it after I tell them. Does an apology mean anything if they go and do it again?
I was wrong in assuming they would learn something. By this I mean with at least regards to the legislations they are obliged under law to comply with. Good news is I wasn't expecting them to so I wasn't disappointed.
I would not expect an emotion such as compassion or understanding to be within their scope. Sorry, that is an emotive statement but I can't find evidence to disprove it at this time. My PSO told me he had faith in the system yet is turning out to be little better than the rest of them dwelling in that big cold building. He led me to believe he was on my side then slammed an illegal Garnishee with extras on me. Maybe not all are bad but mostly the ones that I seem to deal with get that way. The lady on reception was actually good to talk too while I was waiting on the meeting. Think she was taking her mind off shivering. Anyway, it makes you wonder if they take bets on who gets me as a client or could they just draw straws to make it fair and equitable (thought out load).
Could it be that I am expecting too much from them? I guess people in the CSA feel they make a positive difference as long as they can justify these thoughts somehow. If a culture existed within the CSA then it could be presumed that being surrounded by like minded (brainwashed?) people you wouldn't perceive a problem to exist. Could an external audit process of CSA cases help here. This could be an interesting topic on its own.
Is it too much to ask for to be shown some respect of your rights? This would be a good starting point to facilitate fair and equitable negotiations.
Sorry if this post contains rambling thoughts, but without thought we may not reach understanding, resolution or closure.
Moving on I expect more developments to eventuate fairly soon.
Who would play sport if the Opponent was also the Umpire and brought their own Cheer Squad?
Regardless of a any resolution, they were questioned on its legality from the very outset and prior to them proceeding. It was only after "further investigation" after my trip to ACT to see them that their comment "it must be legal because they let us do it" was proven to be incorrect.
It could be construed as exercising a power in a way that constitutes abuse of power. That could be applied retrospectively and cannot be denied.
It is interesting how the previously misinformed have now laid down the law to me in regards to Section 72A and my obligations under this Act. Always good to know you are dealing with experts. I did tell them they would learn something.
The Final Blow: The Garnishee Verdict - ILLEGAL says CSA
All is going as well (and frustratingly) as expected.
Under the Public Services Act 1999
(4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws. For this purpose, Australian law means: (a) any Act (including this Act), or any instrument made under an Act; or
Extract from the CSA's written reply after being questioned about the Garnishee order.
"In your case, after further investigation we acknowledge that the CSA can not take section 72A action on debtors of a company. Therefore, the garnishee order with the (Clients name withheld) has been withdrawn."
My very last question in parting with the CSA from my meeting the other week with them was "are you going to withdraw the garnishee from (clients name withheld)?" To which they answered that they weren't.
Looks like they are now.
Finally an admission by the CSA conceding to an illegal act. Unfortunately this didn't come with any form of apology, which I would have expected as being a morally correct thing to do. Nothing can undo the damage already done to my reputation with my client or with the associated financial implications. And what about giving my client my personal information AND Case Number?
Do I continue to take it easy on them or start bringing them to account for their actions? They continually play dirty and I sit back and cop it sweet. They are meant to be the 'professionals' here, and it has become evident as to what. It is little wonder we feel our rights are being violate, it is because they are, and repeatedly. Do we sit back and be beaten into submission by their tactics? Maybe I am answering my own question.
Wages are paid to afford our living expenses as necessary. I have never really been in a position to pay a set amount each week due to the low income area I operate in and with consideration to varying cash flow situations. This is not technically the best way to operate things and may be seen to 'dodgy' to some. It is the only way I could do it. If I started juggling things then that would look dodgy. I played it the way I saw it being open and honest.
My wife is actually my de facto partner and we have always split income straight down the middle since the start, some 10 years ago. Some men do believe in equality. I would think the courts would evenly split our assets if we separated. It it interesting to note that as a de facto she wasn't even recognised as being in a relationship with me by the CSA until just recently.
The alarm bells should be ringing for the injustices that the CSA undertake on innocent people. As far as I am concerned I am innocent and have cooperated and do not deserve this special CSA treatment. I adhered to the tax laws as required and paid a professional accountant to ensure this. The CSA cross-referenced ABN and CS registered Payers and pulled up my name. It is obvious business owners were targeted in an attempt to recoup unrealised CS amounts. This in itself would be viewed as a witch hunt and we know how fair that little exercise was. Whatever happened to Innocent until proven Guilty in this country? I could name other dictatorial regimes where you were guilty if they said so. I seem to be having to prove my innocence here. I just looked under my feet and it is Australia I am standing on.
Now as a challenge show me 1 CSA employee that is accredited to handle the business financials of even Small Business? Even show me one that has some small amount of experience and is partially knowledgable in this field.
On the subject of the Garnishee. At least they haven't repossessed anything like my home or tax deductable luxury yacht (CSA don't read this, right?) I can't find anything in the Child Support Registrations and Collections Act 1988 that can be remotely applied to my Company situation. I am not a legal eagle and may have read over something. If anyone knows something of it then please point it out.
While we can discuss the legalities of the Garnishee the damage has probably already been done. I am very well know in the community and stuff like this spreads like wild fire in a smallish community. Thank you again CSA, but will not bend to bow just in case.
I am told it is up to my client to determine whether they abide by the Garnishee as my business name does not appear on it. I guess if they don't then a new one will be issued. And if they can't legally issue one on a Company then they will come over home and take stuff of value.
Like it was said "I must admit that if I was doing business with you and then had the CSA contact me I would not continue business with you".
Maybe I should just cop it sweet like I am supposed to.
PS: No, I don't have a yacht and I don't own my home either.
EDIT: Wages were usually paid once a month in a lump sum into a joint bank account. Both of us are on the Worker Comp policy. REASON: You guys posted while I was typing.
They have done similar to me with accessing joint bank accounts. They would just blame the bank for disclosing the information.
I have checked into the guidelines for CSA employee punishment and it is pretty weak.
They need to be held to account on all matters but I wouldn't expect even an apology from them. I have read a section where their legislation even allows them to make a mistake. Just can't put my finger on it.
This is a bit about Tax File numbers for your information. 16B (2)(a) is of interest even if they ask you for your TFN.
16B Registrars power to request tax file numbers (1) This section applies to a person in Australia if the person is a payer or a payee in relation to a registrable maintenance liability. (2) The Registrar may request, but not compel, the person: (a) to give the Registrar a written statement of the persons tax file number; or (b) if the person does not have a tax file numberto apply to the Commissioner for a tax file number and to give to the Registrar a written statement of the persons tax file number after the Commissioner has issued it.