11. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. We have done this, and we have found CMS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
CMS failure to follow its own processes in securing monies from a charging order it had placed on the NRP’s home
12. When we see indications of maladministration or service failure, we need to consider if these may have led to an unremedied injustice to the complainant. We must also look at what action the organisation has already taken to put things right, and whether this appears to have resolved the case.
13. In its letter dated 14 May 2018, CMS acknowledged it missed opportunities to secure money from a charging order it had imposed on the NRP’s home. This is an indication of maladministration in that CMS did not get it right and it did not follow its processes. It said at the point the NRP’s solicitor contacted it, CMS should have confirmed the money owed and made arrangements for the funds to be transferred, before these were released to the NRP.
14. Our principles of good administration say public bodies should be customer focused. They say public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it, or explain why they cannot. Our principles also expect public bodies to get it right by following their own processes. CMS’s failure to secure the money through the charging order was not customer focused (to Mrs L) and it did not get it right. This amounts to an indication of maladministration.
15. Mrs L has told us the impact of CMS’s failure meant she lost the opportunity to recover £4000, and CMS’s attempts to secure the money owed has not been successful.
16. Once the failure to secure the money owed had come to light in 2017, CMS took the following action:
· CMS imposed a deduction of earnings order on the NRP. However, the NRP left their employment before payment could be secured.
· CMS obtained further liability orders for unpaid maintenance amounts from 2009 to 2017.
· CMS made disclosure requests to the NRP’s bank.
· CMS sent bailiffs to the NRP’s property to secure the money owed. This resulted in an agreement by the NRP to pay £400 every month. However, this money was never secured.
17. CMS prosecuted the NRP at a Sanctions Hearing. They were found guilty of wilful refusal and culpable neglect. They received a prison sentence, suspended on the basis they agreed to pay £90 per week for a period of two years. CMS agreed this payment would clear the total debt from the charging order, and the further liability orders it had since obtained.
18. The actions taken by CMS to secure the payments above show it explored every opportunity, including criminal conviction, to secure the charging order Mrs L should have received in 2017.
19. Since September 2019, ongoing maintenance payments have not been necessary. Money secured by CMS since then has been used to pay Mrs L the outstanding maintenance payments she has been owed over many years. CMS has provided us with a breakdown of how the money paid to it since January 2020 has been used to pay Mrs L for what she should have received from the sale of the NRP’s home in 2017. The breakdown shows the payments which should have been secured have now been recovered. There is no longer an indication of an unremedied injustice to Mrs L, as CMS have provided evidence to indicate she has been paid all the arrears of child maintenance. In addition, any missed opportunities to secure the payment have since been explored and executed in full. We examined the extent this has addressed her impact in the complaint parts below. This is because the payment is linked to the maladministration as a whole, rather than addressing the impact on Mrs L.
Failure to collect regular child maintenance and to take all appropriate enforcement action since February 2006
20. We have addressed above Mrs L’s concern about action taken to secure monies. CMS has acknowledged, and this is confirmed by the ICE, failures in its processes and missed opportunities to obtain monies for Mrs L at an earlier date. There are indications of maladministration here. However, Mrs L’s injustice is centred on her not receiving money owed to her. We have seen how she has since received the payments she should have for the charging order. As part of the enforcement action to secure that repayment, CMS secured further liability orders for the full amount of missed payments from 2009 to 2017 and pursued a conviction for the same. The repayment plan the NRP entered into, included not only covering the charging order but also these other missed payments.
21. It appears Mrs L’s injustice from failings prior to the charging order failure, were addressed in the compensatory payment offered by the ICE for £250 (not including the £50 already offered by CMS). The ICE report does not specify the injustice which is being addressed in its financial recommendation. Instead, it links the payment to the poor service it identified in all aspects of the complaint. We have assessed the same complaint the ICE considered. We have independently reviewed these failures and found indications of the same maladministration. We note the impact of these would have reasonably caused the same impact Mrs L is currently claiming, which is stress and frustration from missed opportunities to collect the money she has been owned by the NRP over several years. We accept this stress would have worsened her health conditions. Our own severity of injustice scale recognises degrees of distress and inconvenience. The payment of £300 falls within categories two and three, which address similar types of impact. Based on the impact Mrs L has brought to us, the payment already offered appears reasonable. In addition to this, the recovery of missed payments not covered by the charging order is currently ongoing, and we have seen all enforcement up to, and including, securing a conviction of the NRP, have been explored. There is no indication of an unremedied injustice. Mrs L has already received a consolatory payment for the poor service she received.
CMS failed to respond to complaints within timescales
22. When we see indications of maladministration or service failure, we need to consider if they may have led to an unremedied injustice to the complainant. We must also look at what action the organisation has already taken to put things right, and whether this appears to have resolved the complaint.
23. CMS has told us it has a commitment to respond to the complaint, to either fully resolve or agree a resolution plan, within 15 working days. However, there will be cases that will need more time. Agreeing a resolution plan with the complainant prior to the 15 working days, allows CMS to manage the complainant’s expectations.
24. Our own principles say public bodies should be customer focused by meeting their published service standards, or let customers know if they cannot.
25. In Mrs L’s case, she first raised her complaint about the charging order failure in August 2017. CMS confirmed it was investigating the complaint in September 2017. Despite Mrs L chasing a response and escalating her concerns to her MP, she did not receive a final response to her initial complaint until 14 May 2018. On this basis, there is an indication of maladministration, as the complaint response took nine months instead of the service standard of 15 days.
26. CMS has accepted it did not respond within its usual time limits. This was further acknowledged by the ICE who felt the financial redress was not sufficient and increased the recommendation from £50 to £250. This also took into account other service failures it identified.
27. We accept Mrs L would have experienced stress and frustration, which would in turn have impacted her health, because of the poor complaint handling. This has been accepted. We would reasonably expect this to have resolved when she received the ICE investigation, which upheld this aspect of her complaint fully and increased the financial remedy for her. The £250 offered alongside a further £50 offered by CMS adequately addresses the maladministration due to delays experienced in the complaint handling. We do not see indications her injustice remains unremedied from this action.