The final straw for me was in 2003 when the SCO, Judith Williams, who still works for the CSA, decided that I needed to be more respectful to her and made a determination that I was capable of earning 25% more than I was earning and would have to pay an assessment on that basis, which basically made me destitute. When I objected, it was rejected, with the rejection accompanied by a mathematical analysis that matched her determination, but didn't add up. My complaint about that received the response that the objection decision "contained some mathematical errors,but the assessment is valid". When I demanded copies of the notes she had used to form her determination, I got a letter from Angela Tillmanns (then Qld State Manager, now CEO of the CP League) telling me that no notes need be taken during CoA meetings "since the SCO will make the decision immediately".

"Valid" is an important word. The Act said words to the effect that failing to comply with any of the provisions of the Act does not render a decision invalid. In other words "we don't have to get it right".

I refused to pay based on that assessment and I have refused to cooperate with the CSA since then. That has forced me into self-employment,since they will immediately take any wages or salary I earn, as well as any funds in bank accounts, also freezing the account. I have been living in ad hoc accommodation in my work premises since 2005, because without a reliable bank account I cannot rent a residential property. My ex continues to live in Government housing, although she now earns nearly $80,000 a year as a social worker, no doubt "assisting" others to milk the system.

I estimate that the actions of the CSA have cost me at least $200,000 in lost earnings and foregone opportunities and have caused me enormous stess. I intend to make them pay every cent.

So how can "valid even if incorrect" be enforced?

Even allowing that it may be *intended* to enable enforcement of (duly and diligently documented) assessments in the face of petty and obfuscatory objections, how can a duly inducted public servant be regarded as acting with due diligence if the amount is substantially incorrect? Taking intrusive action without due diligence is not permitted to public servants, no matter how poorly written the act they administer. Their duty was to inform the minister of the inadequacy of the act, not to regard it as a license to go on a witch hunt.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter:"how can "valid even if incorrect" be enforced?"

The Ombudsman's report clearly shows that it can't be if enforced through the courts which is why the CSA have always gone for the extra-judicial approach. One CSA person was horrified when I suggested that they were welcome to take me to Court to recover what they claim. "But that would be litigation!!" he exclaimed. Yes it would and it would fail, whereas taking money from people like thieves in the night leaves them with no resources and thus no way to seek redress.

It's been a deliberate policy of the Agency for years. If any other organisation tried it on they'd be ruined.

Anti

From what you are saying, they can take a percentage of what you theoretically could be earning, not your actual income. That seems to be a system almost designed to produce judgments based on guesswork.

benk:"That seems to be a system almost designed to produce judgments based on guesswork."

Got it in one. When you combine that with a complete unwillingness to be accountable and the clear cultural bias against fathers within the organisation it's obvious what is going to happen.

There are a group of contract Senior Case Offices whose role it is to do these Change of Assessment determinations. Their KPIs for additional payments under their contract include the amount of additional money they can assess as being payable. In other words, they have a personal interest in coming to a determination that more is payable. They are nothing but mercenaries paid to extort money from fathers, as the Ombudsman makes clear.

The Agency is in the throes of internalising those positions, so the likes of Williams may have to find actual work to do. They'll have to do some courses in Law and basic accounting first.

It's also interesting that the Ombudsman made his recomendation about CSA staff properly identifying themselves. I've been making the same point for the past 7 years to them, after they started giving nothing but first names.

Antiseptic,
As i said i truly do wish you the best in your fight with CSA.
My position is very different because i am the custodian of the children. My ex is remarried and they seem to be doing well enough but how can you really know. As they don't use her husbands income as part of the assessment i get zip. I don't push as the only contact i had with CSA was 8 years ago when i became a sole parent and they were not in a hurry to believe me that i was the custodian then. It took a long time to get them to accept this so i leave it alone or they will put DOCS on me and for those in NSW we know that DOCS attack the innocent as they can not get any success with those that need intervention.