Lost bank statements
15. The CMS needed copies of Mr L’s bank statements to check how much child maintenance he had paid. It received them on 10 February 2017. Mr L sent the original documents so asked for them to be returned. The CMS told us they were posted on 23 March, but Mr L complains he never received them.
16. After Mr L reported that he had not received his bank statements, in April the CMS investigated what had happened to the statements. It shared copies of emails its mail handling team sent explaining that the post log showed the statements were sent to the correct address on 23 March.
17. The CMS told us it had not used a tracked or recorded delivery service because its policy is to return documents using the same type of service as the sender, and this is what it did in this case. This means there was no way of knowing what happened to the bank statements after they were posted. The CMS told us it does not have a written policy that it must use a signed for delivery service when returning documents such as this, and we are not aware of a wider policy that should apply.
18. It is unfortunate that Mr L’s bank statements appear to have been lost in the post, however we cannot see that the CMS should have done anything differently. The CMS returned these documents, as requested by Mr L, in line with its policy for returning post. We reviewed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and central government policies on handling people’s confidential information and did not find anything that says it was wrong to post documents using a standard mail service, as the CMS says it did. Although the alternative option of using a signed for delivery service may have prevented the loss of these documents, using such a service would still have carried a risk of them being lost or delivered to the wrong address. It was Mr L’s choice if he wanted to arrange for the use of that service, and we do not see the CMS should have made such arrangements automatically.
19. The CMS is responsible for returning documents, but it is not responsible for the postal system, and we cannot reach any view on the balance of probabilities as to why the post was not received. This could be for any number of reasons. We can only say that the evidence indicates the CMS acted in line with its policy when it returned those documents and recorded it had done so, meaning there were no failings in how it handled the return of Mr L’s bank statements.
Call back requests in 2017
20. The CMS no longer has recordings of its calls with Mr L in 2017 but does have written records. We reviewed the notes of 80 telephone calls with Mr L between January and November 2017. The records show there were no calls in December 2017.
21. There are a number of occasions where Mr L called the CMS because he was unhappy it had not called him. We have found there were some instances where Mr L voiced that concern, but it was not clear the CMS had agreed it would call him. The CMS told him it would try and arrange a call back but could not guarantee this on 20 February. When Mr L requested a call back on 18 August it told him it did not think it could meet that request.
22. The CMS’s records show Mr L wanted call backs on: 7 and 24 March; 3, 14 and 24 April; 29 August; 2, 4, 5 and 12 September; and 22 and 29 November. The records do not allow us to say whether the CMS had agreed to call him on those 12 dates. Although it is possible that the CMS agreed it would call him, looking at the circumstances of those calls we cannot say on the balance of probabilities that was the case.
23. There are other instances in the CMS’s records where it seems clear it had agreed to a call back, but they did not take place. This appears to have happened on 11 dates: 28 February, 20 March, 5 April, 14 June, 28 June, 4 October, 11 October, 18 October, 25 October, 8 November, and 15 November.
24. It is possible there were further instances of call backs not being made. Therefore, having carefully weighed up the evidence we have, we think that on the balance of probabilities there were likely 11 occasions when the CMS agreed to call Mr L but did not do so, on the dates listed in paragraph 22.
25. The CMS’s Client Charter says, ‘if we say we’ll do something, we’ll do it’. It did not meet that commitment when it did not make the call backs it agreed to. This is a failing in the service it provided, and we will consider the impact this had on Mr L later in this report.
26. We also note there were instances where a call back was agreed but the CMS had to change that plan. This ensured it could meet the commitments in its Client Charter. It agreed to call him on 13 January but left him a message the day before to apologise it would no longer be able to make that call. As well as showing instances where the CMS does not seem to have called Mr L when it should have, there are many instances of it making agreed calls.
Overpayments
27. When the CMS reassessed Mr L’s liability in January 2017 it told him he may have overpaid, and it would consider refunding any overpayment. The rules around reimbursing overpayments are set in section 41(B) of the Child Support Act 1991. This says the CMS has discretion to reimburse people who have made an overpayment. It does not automatically make a reimbursement, and it follows that before making any reimbursement, the CMS must first establish whether an overpayment has been made.
28. After looking at the evidence sent to the CMS by Mr L, and the receiving parent, the CMS decided Mr L had overpaid £259.30. It told him this in a call on 20 April 2017. Mr L highlighted additional payments he thought should be counted and the CMS agreed an additional £295.27 should count towards the overpayment on 7 September.
29. We carefully reviewed this evidence and found only one further transaction that the CMS may have considered as maintenance payments, which was not included in the amount it agreed to refund. This was a payment of £100 Mr L made in December 2015.
30. We could not find an explanation of why the CMS did not agree to refund that figure in its letters to Mr L, but a call note from 21 March shows it discussed this with him. The CMS told him this payment appeared to be for Christmas gifts rather than regular maintenance. It noted the amount of the payment was inconsistent with other payments, as well as being made on 14 December. It was then followed by what appeared to be a regular maintenance payment on 29 December. Based on the circumstance in which this payment was made, the CMS was not persuaded the £100 was towards child maintenance.
31. We would expect the CMS to make evidence-based decisions when considering the evidence of Mr L’s maintenance payments, in line with our Principles of Good Administration. We understand Mr L is adamant that this payment was not a gift, but we do not see anything to suggest the CMS made a mistake in considering all the evidence available to it, including the factors we identified in the paragraph above. In our view, it was reasonable, and in line with both the Act and Our Principles for the CMS to conclude the £100 payment Mr L made in December 2017 was for gifts and should not be refunded.
32. Mr L told us he would not have sent money for gifts in this way, but we are not persuaded this is evidence that the CMS’s judgement, that the payment was different to his regular maintenance payments and appeared more likely to be related to Christmas, was flawed. We appreciate Mr L continues to disagree with the CMS’s view, but this in itself doenot mean it failed to act in line with applicable guidelines and standards. We have not seen any evidence that shows the CMS’s decision was not made in a fair and reasonable manner.
The CMS’s financial remedy
33. In August 2020, the CMS wrote to Mr L to say it wanted to make a £50 payment to him in line with the recommendations in the ICE’s report from 22 June. It said this was in addition to the £25 it had wanted to pay in March 2017 when the CMS accepted it had not called him back, meaning it would pay £75 in total.
34. This payment was intended to remedy the frustration and inconvenience caused by missed call backs, and also for the delay in escalating his complaint between 22 May and 12 October 2018. We note the ICE also found failings relating to the assessment of Mr L’s liability between October 2013 and February 2015, but it appears it thought these had already been remedied with the recommendations it had made in an earlier report.
35. The ICE and the CMS use the DWP’s Financial Redress for Maladministration 2012 guidance when thinking about what would put right the impact of mistakes. This says an apology and explanation of why things went wrong is usually appropriate to put things right, and in some circumstances steps should be taken to prevent similar problems arising in the future. It also says that decisions should be made after fully considering the evidence.
36. The CMS’s records show it did sometimes provide apologies and explanations, and it sought to put things right by agreeing a further call back at the time. However, this did not happen on each occasion. In our view, the CMS and the ICE have not acknowledged the number of agreed calls Mr L did not receive in any of its complaint responses, so it does not seem they recognised how frequently this occurred. The £75 financial remedy the CMS agreed to pay, following the ICE’s investigation, does not go far enough to put right the frustration and inconvenience Mr L experienced as a result of repeated missed call backs. It is also clear the CMS has not acknowledged the number of times agreed calls to Mr L did not take place in any of its complaint responses.
37. The DWP’s guidance says it should consider the individual’s personal circumstances and the impact maladministration had on them, and this is what we consider when we apply Our Principles of Remedy. We have not seen any evidence missed call backs affected Mr L’s finances. The CMS notes reflect that he was upset and angry on some occasions when he spoke to its caseworkers, or managers, following a missed call back. They also reflect that he was looking to arrange call backs at times that were convenient for him to be at home. We appreciate this means he may sometimes have changed his plans to be at home, but we think it also shows the impact of the stress, inconvenience, and wasted time was limited.
38. Taking into account the number of missed call backs and the cumulative impact they likely had on Mr L, in a situation where his concerns were not progressing, the £75 financial remedy the CMS planned to pay does not demonstrate that it fully considered the impact its failings had on Mr L. We therefore recommend it increases that financial remedy.