When my Son was 19 in 2020 he enrolled to do a college course which Pearson specification states is 360 GLH and 445 TQT. My Son then asked if could come and work with me part time so i asked him to send me his college timetable so i could work around his schedule . i was shocked to see his timetabled hours were less than 12 hours per week so i emailed his college to ask for clarification . My email was directed to his tutor who specially adapted the course for my Son to incorporate two years in one , meaning he was doing 9 hours of supervised study per week. But because one of the lessons clashed on the college schedule my Son only did 8.5 hours per week.This was all confirmed by email. I immediately wrote to CMS and CH to inform them and they contacted his Mum . She reported our Son was in full time education which CMS accepted. I then appealed and CMS did a CB check and then told me i still needed to pay .Throughout this time my Son was doing lots of work with me so i knew he wasnt attending college full time . CMS refused my mandatory reconsideration so i appealed to the tribunal
I have had a 4 year battle with CMS whilst my case has been in dispute , issued with RDO , threatened with bailffs and enforcement action if i didnt pay, along with persistent weekly text messages every Sunday morning at 8.00am ,not to mention all the eccessive charges they have applied . Ive been to my local MP and ICA but ultimately no one wanted to help , not even any solicitors .
My ex finally provided a letter from the head of college stating my Son was a full time student which didnt give a breakdown in hours . I wrongly assumed that the evidence from my Sons tutors along with his timetable which had his name on it would be accepted . On the actual day of the tribunal hearing we were sent late evidence from my ex submitting a recent email from the head of year , supplying a generic timetable which he stated my Son was sceduled to take with over double the amount of hours allocated to his own course. He stated my Son was a full time student by attending over 540 GLH . I lost this appeal based on this late evidence so i appealed to the Upper Tribunal .A year later i was granted another hearing .
By this time i had also produced my Sons official examination results which conformed the name of the course he took . It also showed he got an X grade for one of the mandatory elements of his course , which represents 120 GLH of the total 360 GLH .( so 120 GLH needed to be deducted from the 540 GLH the head of year stated my Son took )
At the second tribunal hearing the Judge still preferred the evidence from the head of year stating because of his position he believed he was more credible . He disregarded the factual official exam results and evidence from my Sons tutor and his personal timetable which all proved he didnt attend college for more than 12 hours per week of supervised study.
After i received the second failed decision notice i made an appointment to see the head of college .I asked him to explain the vast difference between my Sons timetable and the one he supplied .He confirmed that the college have to allocate enough hours to enable them to receive full time funding but that doesnt mean the student was timetabled for the same hours . He openly said that he couldnt put that in writing for obvious reasons but he would say that even though my Son was provided full time hours by the college , his attendance records confirm he only attended less than half the time, which relates to my Sons personal timetable i provided which had his name on !!
I was sent my Sons attendance records and a covering letter from the head of year explaining my Son only attended part of the time which i sent off to the courts for reconsideration . My request to have the decision set aside has just been refused . The judge has not applied the rules of law when making his decision because he still believed the head of year was more credible , what a joke that is . Fraudulently allocating enough hours to claim full time funding , thats really credible .
Alll of the facts i supplied can not be disputed to confirm my Son did not meet the legal eligibilty rules on GOV.UK for being in full time education of more than 12 hours per week supervised study. attendance records are factual , exam results are official , yet the Judge overuled it all , how is that justice ??
Ive now got CMS threatening legal action again , and my original maintenance liabilty has almost doubled with all the added charges from CMS .
The justice system is flawed
Where can i go from here ?
TIM WARD
Hi,
seems like you exhausted most avenues. you can try complain to parliamentary ombudsman, it looks like your MP would have to make complaint referall to them first:
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint/before-you-come-to-us
When my Son was 19 in 2020 he enrolled to do a college course which Pearson specification states is 360 GLH and 445 TQT. My Son then asked if could come and work with me part time so i asked him to send me his college timetable so i could work around his schedule . i was shocked to see his timetabled hours were less than 12 hours per week so i emailed his college to ask for clarification . My email was directed to his tutor who specially adapted the course for my Son to incorporate two years in one , meaning he was doing 9 hours of supervised study per week. But because one of the lessons clashed on the college schedule my Son only did 8.5 hours per week.This was all confirmed by email. I immediately wrote to CMS and CH to inform them and they contacted his Mum . She reported our Son was in full time education which CMS accepted. I then appealed and CMS did a CB check and then told me i still needed to pay .Throughout this time my Son was doing lots of work with me so i knew he wasnt attending college full time . CMS refused my mandatory reconsideration so i appealed to the tribunal
I have had a 4 year battle with CMS whilst my case has been in dispute , issued with RDO , threatened with bailffs and enforcement action if i didnt pay, along with persistent weekly text messages every Sunday morning at 8.00am ,not to mention all the eccessive charges they have applied . Ive been to my local MP and ICA but ultimately no one wanted to help , not even any solicitors .
My ex finally provided a letter from the head of college stating my Son was a full time student which didnt give a breakdown in hours . I wrongly assumed that the evidence from my Sons tutors along with his timetable which had his name on it would be accepted . On the actual day of the tribunal hearing we were sent late evidence from my ex submitting a recent email from the head of year , supplying a generic timetable which he stated my Son was sceduled to take with over double the amount of hours allocated to his own course. He stated my Son was a full time student by attending over 540 GLH . I lost this appeal based on this late evidence so i appealed to the Upper Tribunal .A year later i was granted another hearing .
By this time i had also produced my Sons official examination results which conformed the name of the course he took . It also showed he got an X grade for one of the mandatory elements of his course , which represents 120 GLH of the total 360 GLH .( so 120 GLH needed to be deducted from the 540 GLH the head of year stated my Son took )
At the second tribunal hearing the Judge still preferred the evidence from the head of year stating because of his position he believed he was more credible . He disregarded the factual official exam results and evidence from my Sons tutor and his personal timetable which all proved he didnt attend college for more than 12 hours per week of supervised study.
After i received the second failed decision notice i made an appointment to see the head of college .I asked him to explain the vast difference between my Sons timetable and the one he supplied .He confirmed that the college have to allocate enough hours to enable them to receive full time funding but that doesnt mean the student was timetabled for the same hours . He openly said that he couldnt put that in writing for obvious reasons but he would say that even though my Son was provided full time hours by the college , his attendance records confirm he only attended less than half the time, which relates to my Sons personal timetable i provided which had his name on !!
I was sent my Sons attendance records and a covering letter from the head of year explaining my Son only attended part of the time which i sent off to the courts for reconsideration . My request to have the decision set aside has just been refused . The judge has not applied the rules of law when making his decision because he still believed the head of year was more credible , what a joke that is . Fraudulently allocating enough hours to claim full time funding , thats really credible .
Alll of the facts i supplied can not be disputed to confirm my Son did not meet the legal eligibilty rules on GOV.UK for being in full time education of more than 12 hours per week supervised study. attendance records are factual , exam results are official , yet the Judge overuled it all , how is that justice ??
Ive now got CMS threatening legal action again , and my original maintenance liabilty has almost doubled with all the added charges from CMS .
The justice system is flawed
Where can i go from here ?
TIM WARD
@tim-ward, Sorry to hear your predicament with the CMS...you mentioned that your son's school/college confirmed the college has to allocate hours to to enable it receive full time funding.... and openly said he could not put it in writing for obvious reasons as you stated above. If it was me, I would email this person confirming our discussion and use what they had admitted to you as evidence to support your case that your son is not in full time education as you have stated all along.
Also, could your son, considering his age and he works for you if I am correct, could he not write a letter to the CMS and Tribunal confirming that he is not in full time education. Regarding the Tribunal rejecting or not upholding your case, please, do not give, the journey could be and is quite daunting. I had similar experience, with First-Tier Tribunal and had to as advised that, if they will not hear my appeal against CMS wrongful decision, that they have some form of legal responsibility to point in the right direction as they deal with legal matters and I am just a lay person with no legal knowledge or background. I advice them that failing to point me in the right direction is against natural justice and not in the interests of justice. Eventually, they heard my case because both in my appeal and subsequent letters to the Tribunal, I pointed out the inconsistencies in CMS decision and how it is likely illegal and unjustifiable. Please, remember, to be as polite as possible, not matter the pressure and injustice you are going through; most of us have been through what you explained in your post.
When I was dealing with both CMS and First and Upper-Tier Tribunal, I contacted this Barrister (Crispin Hayhoe) and spoke with his assistant Charlieigh Thurston who appears to knowledgeable. Here are some of the cases below Crispin brought against CSA (now CMS); unfortunately, I don't have the case numbers, but if you happen to speak to his assistant, ask for the case number to help you with your appeal against CMS decision.
CSA v W
Advised paying parent on application to 1st tier and 2nd tier tribunals regarding the nature of a disability pension and whether it was subject to maintenance calculation
CSA v K
Advised paying parent on successful appeal against a final lump sum deduction order obtaining return of funds and substantial costs from CSA.
If CMS are writing you and threatening further legal action, baillif's etc, I would write them via signed for recorded delivery letter, stating Tribunal's decision is being appealed (that is if intend to appeal Tribunal's decision) and for them to cease or stop any further letters/action until further notice.
Look for Tribunal cases similar to your and see how the appellant successfully appeal CMS wrong decisions against you. In my experience, be prepared to put in the hours as can be quite exhausting, but worth it in my opinion. All the best.
Dear Bob ,
Thank you for taking the time to reply with some very sound advice , i will definately be following some of it .
Unfortunately my Son is reluctant to write a statement , he still lives with his Mum and he is fearful of the backlash he will receive if he gets involved.
CMS have already told me they intend to apply for a liability order straight away because they have to follow their rules , despite being totally sympathetic to my case , they say their hands are tied ? I will still send a recorded letter asking them to put enforcement action on hold whilst i appeal again.
The tribunal have said they can only set their decision aside if they has been an error in law or there were certain irregularities in the proceedings .He said he didnt feel it was in the interests of justice to set aside his decision . The judge said he made his decision based on the evidence he had at the time and said i should have gone to see the head of year before the hearing , because the new evidence would have resolved the appeal . So basically saying the outcome would have been different if he had the attendance records at the hearing . I expected a judge to accept my Sons own timetable and examination results confirming the hours allocated to his course and hours actually attended rather than preferring the evidence from the head of year rather than my Sons tutor because he believed him to be more credible .
I have also written to my ex wife asking her to close the CMS case and remove the arrears , appealing for her to accept our Son did not attend full time after receiving the attendance records , anything is worth a shot .
i will try ringing Crispen Hayhoe too as i need advice on presenting a lawful reason to appeal , otherwise it will be refused .
My Son did not meet the eligibility rules of law on GOV.UK by atttending college for more than 12 hours a week supervised study in order to qualify as a full time student , i dont understand why that isnt reason enough to grant an appeal ?
I also sent CMS my Sons timetable and email from his college tutor saying he was only doing 8.5 hours per week when i started my dispute 4 years ago but because my ex wife told them he was a full time student they simply believed her ,also saying because she was still in receipt of child benefit my liability remained . CMS have a flawed system and havent followed their own rules of law when they didnt accept the supporting evidence i provided, no justice there either !
My fight for justice continues to the detriment of my health whilst also being threatened with enforcement action
Tim Ward
Have downloaded the form for the ombudsman , certainly worth a try ,thank you
Please, do not be discouraged by the struggles and injustice you are currently going through. I would have another reasonable and conscious discussion with your soon about what is going on how his honest in put in stating the truth could resolve the matter quickly. In my opinion, if it was the other way round, would he not like to assist his mother resolve the matter quickly and peacefully? I think he would.
Also, if the judge, admitted as you stated, either in writing or verbally, that "said i should have gone to see the head of year before the hearing , because the new evidence would have resolved the appeal". Note, that I put this in quotation mark/form. Always, use quotation mark, if are quoting what a judge or respondent said to support your appeal.
I always make sure I highlight all the inconsistencies in CMS decision making process and how it is unjust and not in the interests of justice.
I would you to use this comment from the judge as very good evidence to appeal the judges decision to Second-Tier Tribunal. It is likely, based on the initial judge's own admission, that the outcome could have been different is more that enough evidence to appeal his/her decision because you a new evidence that support your case.
Look after your health, all this will likely wear you down, but stay strong. I know it is easier for me to say, but I had been through similar circumstance and run out of money and started dealing with my case situation myself in my quest for justice for me and my children. I used Barristers to do certain work (like pay as you go) because it can be quite expensive and do most of the work myself; for example, I will write my position statement and email it to the Barrister. They will re-write and make it bit better, it helped me learn, because after a while, I learn to write like them. If I find a good similar case to your situation, I will send you the details.
Here is the name of the Barrister's Chamber details - 33 Bedford Row, London.