Help with CSA

3 hours per week isn't exactly an education.

I work in a college and cases like this are not unknown. I remember one girl who was forced to attend a course she wasn't interested in so her mother would continue to receive CS payments. The girl was also forced to work to support herself; needless to say, none of the CS reached her. The college found her a more suitable course to study.

My point is, if your brother-in-law has to pay anyway, it might as well be so the boy gets a decent education.

CS works so that the liable parent always has to pay even when care is shared equally; there is no reciprocal arrangement whereby the other parent pays when the children are not with her - her income is not assessed. This is grossly unjust but most people are completely unaware of it. If you try to reduce the payments it is very easy to portray you as merely trying to evade your responsibilities.

Some fathers have stood up to the system and they have ended up in prison (42 days is standard). When they come out the debt remains to be paid. It is a brave stance, but it is the only response to an unjust system; you cannot challenge it legally because it is the law.

I agree with all that you say, the situation appears slightly different in this instance, however. CSA rules state that the absent parent pays in line with child benifit:-

What counts as 'relevant' education for Child Benefit?
Your child will need to be in full-time, non-advanced education. They would need to have enrolled or been accepted onto the course before their 19th birthday.

By 'full-time' we mean an average of more than 12 hours a week in term time is spent on:

tuition
practical work
supervised study
taking exams
It doesn't include breaks for meals and homework.

As such he fails to meet the criteria that the Government has set down in order to claim the allowance. Also the CSA payments are based on these definitions.
Therefore I see no reason why the ex-wife should be allowed to continue to claim.
Even if it serves a purpose for his son to re-arrange his life to carry out a meaningfull and fulfilling course that would be usefull to his future, instead of his dictorial mother forcing him to do what she wants in order to receive money I don't think she's currently entitled to.

He was encouraged to take a college course, but was forced to stay in school carrying out a course that will have no benifit to him.

i can understand your frustrations but i do believe that you are fighting a losing battle, i have seen all to many of these situations at the csa and although i or you or anyone may not agree with it unfortunatley the law is very black and white and i truly dont believe you will get anywhere, but there is no harm in speaking to the csa and trying. but again whether or not they agree with it they can only make their decision based on the law and the guidance they are given

I think he's going to speak to the CSA tomorrow. I guess we'll get a pointer as to which direction they'll take.
My issue isn't particularily frustration, it's just that the claim doesn't meet the criteria, which I posted above taken directly from the CSA site.
His son went to live with him in the summer, but his mother begged and pleaded with him to come back home. Afraid of her her agreed. She needs a lesson here, and not at the expense of my brother-in-law.
If she wants to run his life, and he wants to let her, then he needs to show more comitment to the cause.

Sorry, I forgot to say Thanks to all that have shown some interest in this post.

We have had a little success. After phoning the CSA stating that his 17yr is not i nfull time education i.e is not completing in excess of 12hrs school, the CSA told my brother-in-law that CSA is paid based on Child BEnifit, and gave him the number to contact them. After contacting the Child Benifit office they agreed that 3hour per week does not constitute full time education, and that the ex-wife is actually claiming fraudulently. The CB office told him he would need to report this to the Benifit Fraud people and offered to pass they're number on (What a cop out).
They did give him a choicce, however. They suggested that he contact his ex and explain the situation. Which he did.
She hit the roof. Not surprising.
After contacting the school they claimed that he is in school in excess of 12hrs, as he goes to school and studies in the library, and that the ex is not comitting Fraud as he is in school supervised and under their control and responsibility.
However after another call to the benifit office, it was confirmed that the requirement is as stated on the CB website - 12 hrs supervised lessons or exams, does not include break times or study times.
We are awaiting confirmation of lesson times from the school before contemplating our next xourse of action.