Talk:Child Support Agency

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Disambiguation

I believe that placing this item as the root page for 'Child Support Agency' is inappropriate given the number of agencies around the world with the same name who also have Wikipedia entries, but are not immediately findable within Wikipedia's search. This leaves bias towards UK Wikipedia users, disadvantaging those from other countries seeking the domestic equivalients.

As such I recommend developing a new root navigational page which provides background information on the general operation of these types of agencies and links to all appropriate agencies and moving the current content to a page such as 'Child Support Agency UK'.

I believe this extensive a change needs the involvement of an official Wikipedia editor. Aceyducey (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoV

I believe that this current article is biased against the Child Support agency and does not leave the impression of a balanced view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terry Keen (talk • contribs) 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I agree with the above that the article is unbalanced, many of the claims are unsupported and use "weasal words". It's also factually incorrect in places, e.g. criteria when the CSA can get involved. I think it needs a complete overhaul. I'm going to try and do some of it, as the csa website appears to be easy to navigate to find the information required. Plus, there are several bbc articles on the CSA which give background reading and other points to include. MartinRe 13:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now. I made 2 very minor changes, but other then that it seems like a complete and well-cited article. ---J.Smith 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I've done my best to cite everything, but it's far from complete! However, I underestimated how tiring writing in depth on one topic is, so will be back to this article again soon. MartinRe 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what you think is inaccurate about the criteria when they get involved. In effect there are two instances, which were both mentioned. If the resident parent is on benefits, the intervention is automatic, otherwise, it is at the request of the resident parent. BTW, what has been missed out is that there is no legal requirement for a minimum amount to be contributed to the child's upkeep by the resident parent. In addition to this, if the NRP decides to make extra payments, these monies are not forwarded immediately to the RP, and any monies are in fact held by the CSA for 7-10 days. (Accruing interest?) There are many other farcical situations besides.82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

Rewrite

I've just completed a first draft of a rewrite. Have tried to expand the article quite a bit, including lots of citations. Comments welome. Even better someone else can continue - full articles are quite hard work! MartinRe 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reading, can see some things that need correcting/adding (not including typos)

calculations %63 under old rules is running total, should be better phrased.
systems needs more info and references.
critism - surely there are positive articles out there too?
stats are confusing, would like to have X cases per yer figure, but can't figure out which figures in the report that is.
link to ICE in external links.

And of course, written in more flowing prose, which isn't my strongest suit! MartinRe 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors section

For the year April 2004 – May 2005, Department for Work and Pensions statistics show an accuracy rate of 75% (new scheme) and 78% (old scheme), a drop from the previous years' 82% and 86%. Interim reports for the current year (April 2005 – May 2006), show an improvement to 83% and 84%, respectively.

That's what it looks like now (in line citation removed). Being someone who doesnt know anything more about the CSA then what I have just read, can you give more information about what an error is? Is it something as simple as a typo in the mail-address or something more-major? ---J.Smith 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much more myself, having never had to deal with them. However, the error figures are taken from the stats marked "This table shows the proportion of maintenance decisions (calculations or assesssments) carried out in the reporting period that were checked and found to be accurate to the nearest penny." Proably should put that in, rather than expect readers to follow the reference just to get that info. MartinRe 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check

I've added a POV-check template on the top, for discussion on the neutrality of the article. MartinRe 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup work

I just wikified most of the article, merged some sections and did a general cleanup on the article fixing wording and spelling errors - I also added the CSA logo image. I hope this helps!— Wackymacs 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, it reads much better now, my style was way too jumpy. Cheers. MartinRe 12:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating page

I'm going to update the page, as it looks like a little more information about "C-MEC" has emerged since this article was last worked on. Also there a mistake in the Functions and Involvement section, a child cannot request a case to opened against an NRP(s) unless they are resident in Scotland (where the legislation allows this). Potentially this could mislead a child leaving in England or Wales.

--Grahamhopgood 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been proposed that some of the material contained in the topic currently titled Child support should be merged with this article. Rogerfgay 10:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Legal Services (removal)

I'm removing all mentions of "Durham Legal Services" and all it's associated services. This includes the external links at the bottom of the page. This information adds nothing to this article, it is mostly unsourced, and it is pretty blatant advertising (see: WP:NOTYELLOW); not to mention poorly written!!!

if User:91.105.68.239 would like to contribute to this article (which probably needs major updating anyway IMHO) then please would they be so kind as to log in and discuss here first!

i'm also tidying up the rest of external links, as we don't need to reference *every* CSA complaints site out there. I'll keep ICE (as the official complaint service for the DWP) but the rest can go if i'm not mistaken.

--graham228221 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on title wanted

Given the long period under discussion, and the changes to the service in recent years, is it still correct to treat the Child Support Agency as if it extant under that name, or is a change of tense and mention of any renaming in order for the introductory paragraph?Cloptonson (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Child Support Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child Support Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612055741/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/childmaintenance/pdfs/Henshaw_complete22_7.pdf to http://www.dwp.gov.uk/childmaintenance/pdfs/Henshaw_complete22_7.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/csa.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

While I appreciate the article appears to be negative, there is good reason for this.

Neutrality (WP:NPOV) is NOT "making it sound as good as it sounds bad".

Neutrality is recording things AS THEY WERE.

It is not that the article is biased (POV)

In the case of the CSA, there was not much positive.

There was a heck of a lot of negative.

The income support parents did not want it, the working parents did not really want it.

All in all, it was a big mess.

We report that weighting as it was/is. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]