CSA NOW SCRAPPED AND REPLACED BY AN EVEN WORSE SYSTEM
Case No. A.38/96
Refusal to provide information about the organisation and working
arrangements of the Child Support Agency
Mr M asked the Child Support Agency for an organisation chart and adescription of functions carried out at CSA Headquarters. They refused. Heasked them to reconsider their decision. He also asked for a copy of theirbusiness plan, corporate plan and annual report; and for details of anymechanisms CSA headquarters had for identifying difficulties in individualcases which raised management issues affecting CSA as a whole. CSA sent thebusiness plan and annual report (they did not publish a corporate plan), butrefused to provide the rest of the information. Following the Ombudsman'sintervention, they told him that they had not complied fully with Mr M'srequests because to do so would have required an unreasonable diversion of
resources; and would have led to Mr M's making further requests.
they now saw that they could have provided an organisation chart, and hadsince done so. The Ombudsman found that the request for an information chartand description of functions had now been met. He also found that CSA had nocentral mechanisms for identifying difficulties in individual cases whichgave rise to management issues; and informed Mr M of that by means of hisreport. He criticised CSA for mishandling the request; and said that theirconcern about possible future requests was not an acceptable reason underthe Code for refusing information. CSA agreed with the Ombudsman's findingthat their procedures needed to be improved and described the steps they
were taking to do that. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint.
22.24 CSA initially misunderstood Mr M's requests for information. They havenow met his request for an organisation chart and, through the medium ofthis report, have provided information in response to his other questions.In addition, they are taking steps to improve their handling of requests
under the Code. I see that as a suitable outcome to a justified complaint.
Total screening and investigation time = 36 weeks
PULLED FROM PARLIAMENT OMBUDSMAN'S WEBSITE
The CSA has DRACONIAN powers in the UK under these two acts. Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000
Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48)
These functions have been the biggest killer of men outside of any world war.
When a supposed civilised country produces such laws you can be certain
the propaganda produced by the media to cover up for the many deaths
of those who lost their lives
is similar to how the atrocities in the death camps of the last war were kept secret
The sinister manner death after death lacks the necessary mass media coverage
shows it is ALL controlled by those who stealth murder.
The asset strippers will be exposed for their murderous ways and this is at every level in the UK government ,judiciary and the crown all party to mass murder on a grand scale were nothing is being done
to highlight the death and destruction of good men using
this wicked and evil system.
However reading these regulations show clearly they are in clear breach of article 14 of the European Court of Human Rights under discrimination.Anyone who finds themselves hounded by this organisation should challenge these acts under those ECHR grounds as they are clearly written on a gender basis making assumptions that in all cases mothers have residence of a child .This is not the case even if judges suggest otherwise .By them failing to give the necessaryprocesses for children to have their rights secured they breach the parents rights toensure shared contact and THEY know this would force them to rewrite all Uk law on divorce completely.Something they are determined not to do and will require enforcing through the
European Courts as German parents are doing on PAS.
July 13 2000 ECHR Judgement in the case of
Elsholz v Germany Application No. 25735/94
|THE FORMULA FROM HELL AND SECRET DOCUMENTS