A FATHER lost his livelihood after the Child Support Agency demanded more than two thirds of his annual income in maintenance, leaving him £5,000 to live off.

Self-employed Iain Wood gave up his once-successful consultancy business early this year as he battled with the CSA who threatened that bailiffs would seize his Vicars Cross home.

Mr Wood's income dropped by three quarters in 2001 as he tried to cope with a divorce and the disruption to his life.

He said: 'After the divorce I was rebuilding my life, so I could not put in the 80-hour working week the business required at its peak.

'I anticipated one or two years of keeping the business ticking over while I juggled moving house and all the other demands associated with a marriage separation.'

The CSA assessment was based on higher income figures from previous years. It demanded he contribute more than £11,000 a year for his two teenage daughters following his marriage breakup in 2001, which would have left him with £5,000 a year.

An independent tribunal last week upheld Mr Wood's appeal against the agency.

The Liverpool tribunal decided the agency should recalculate this amount, because the figures originally used were out of date, showing Mr Wood's income as four times higher than it was.

Mr Wood contributed a standard monthly rate towards his daughters' upkeep until the collapse of his business.

He refused to pay the CSA the amount calculated using the initial figures, resulting in demands for tens of thousands of pounds and several court trips.

Despite many attempts to resolve the situation, he was previously unable to get the agency to recalculate the amount he owes.

He said: 'I have no sympathy for fathers who don't meet their responsibilities but it is not fair to tarnish every father with the same brush.

'We have the right to expect that where the Government interferes at the heart of family life, they get it right.

'In my case they have got it repeatedly wrong from the outset and that inevitably has impacted on me and my children. It appears that in order to meet performance targets quickly the CSA may be concentrating on fathers who they see as a soft touch.

'These are, very often, responsible fathers who make significant maintenance payments despite considerable financial hardship. Many suddenly find themselves being taken to court. Some will question if it is simply to provide the statistics to prove the CSA is now working.

'We are not the negligent 'disappeared dads', we are the settled and caring dads who take our parental responsibilities to our sons and daughters seriously.'

Mr Wood's solicitor, Mike Smith, said the CSA was misguided in pursuing his client through the courts after an appeal was lodged in January.

'If the bailiffs had gone and seized Iain Wood's bank account and possessions, then sold them on before last week's tribunal, he would not have been able to get them back.

'They were legally entitled to take him to court because he owed them money, but their own guidelines say they should not enforce payment when an appeal is pending.

'In all my years of dealing with CSA cases, this is one of the worst instances I have seen on enforcement procedure abuse.

'When it comes to Mr Wood and his case, it appears the Enforcement Section have failed to follow their own rules time and time again. In the light of the tribunal decision, we invite the section to contact our office with a view to reaching an agreement on this matter, something I know Mr Wood would welcome.'

A DWP spokesman said the Child Support Agency does not comment on individual cases.