Child Maintenance Service

CMS

3. Mr N complains CMS agreed to put things right after a complaint about its actions between February 2017 and June 2018 by engaging with him about the amount he owes. He says it has failed to meaningfully implement this action because he still does not understand how it calculated this amount.

4. He says the claimed failings mean it took much more time and effort than it should to deal with simple issues, and this has caused him stress and sleeplessness.

5. By bringing his concerns to us, Mr N would like CMS to explain how it has reconciled his child maintenance account.

ICE

6. Mr N complains ICE agreed to also consider two additional concerns in its report – CMS was collecting debts which the Child Support Agency (CSA) agreed were not payable and CMS unreasonably switched his case to ‘collect and pay’ (the system to collect money) – but then it failed to investigate them.

7. He says this means it will take longer for these issues to be considered than it should have.

8. He would like ICE to acknowledge it should have considered these issues and apologise for not doing so.

9. Mr N historically paid maintenance for two children through the CSA. In 2017 its successor agency, CMS, took over the responsibility for monitoring and/or collecting maintenance payments.

10. Over the following year Mr N disagreed with various maintenance and outstanding debt calculations issued by CMS because he felt it had not taken into account his financial circumstances or all of the payments he had made to the mothers of his children. Ultimately, these disagreements resulted in Mr N making complaints to CMS, and on 26 February 2019 he escalated the complaints to ICE.

11. On 31 May the CSA wrote to Mr N to say it had identified £1,294.62 of unpaid maintenance from 2005. This was separate from the maintenance that was already being collected by CMS. Mr N said this debt had been resolved when he had reconciled with the mother during 2004. The CSA said the debt had only been suspended, and when it had recently contacted the mother to ask whether she would like the suspension to be lifted, she agreed.

12. Mr N had been making payments to the mothers of his children directly, but from March 2020, CMS considered that Mr N had stopped making direct payments. This meant, as far as CMS was concerned, the amount Mr N owed continued to grow.

13. In January 2021 Mr N spoke with ICE about the case history. The ICE investigator noted Mr N was concerned about the calculation of his maintenance, about the debt which had been recently ‘found’ by the CSA and about CMS’s belief he had stopped making direct payments. These issues were discussed again the following month.

14. In March ICE spoke with Mr N to explain the case history had been completed and would now move on to conclusions. Mr N spoke about the payments he said CMS did not believe he had been making for the past year. The caseworker told Mr N this could be an issue he brought to CMS once ICE had reached its conclusions.

15. On 6 April ICE completed its investigation and issued its report. It upheld some elements of Mr N’s complaint and recommended CMS: • apologise to Mr N and pay him £250 for failings it identified in both CMS and the CSA’s actions and • complete an up-to-date account breakdown to explain how it had calculated the debt and engage with Mr N to discuss this.

16. CMS wrote to Mr N on 27 April to apologise for the standard of service he had received from both it and the CSA and to request Mr N’s bank details to arrange the payment.

17. On 4 May a CMS caseworker identified that although Mr N’s two cases showed total collection charges of £1,096, it should have been £252. A collection charge is when CMS collects and forwards the child maintenance. CMS sent Mr N a detailed breakdown the same day. On 17 May CMS sent Mr N a further copy of the breakdown. CMS assigned a caseworker to discuss the breakdown with Mr N.

18. On 6 July CMS rang Mr N about the debt owed, and they spoke for 90 minutes. The call focused on whether his pension payments could be considered in calculating maintenance and whether he owed the sum of £1,294 transferred from the CSA. On 13 July, Mr N confirmed he had posted bank statements showing his pension and maintenance payments so CMS could consider these in calculating his maintenance payments. During this call he raised a verbal complaint about this debt being transferred.

19. CMS rang Mr N about his complaint two days later. The complaint handler explained the CSA suspended this debt when he reconciled with the mother. They noted the CSA would not have the power to write off the debt at that time. They said when Mr N separated from the mother again, the debt would have been no longer suspended. The complaint handler closed the complaint as Mr N said he did not want to escalate it at that time. This was because he was still gathering evidence to support his view it had been written off.

20. On 28 July the caseworker rang Mr N. They explained they could see direct payments to the mother on the bank statement Mr N provided. The dates of the payments were illegible, so Mr N gave these verbally. The caseworker requested more statements to see direct payments and pension payments since April 2021. Mr N talked about the complaint that had just been closed. He said in 2017 the mother confirmed there was no past debt owed during a court case about access rights. It was only when the CSA told her there was debt owed and asked her if she wanted it, she said she did. He said he now wanted to escalate it.

21. The same day CMS arranged for the complaint closure letter to be resent by post, as it identified it held no email address for Mr N, so he would not have received it. That complaint is now under consideration by ICE.

24. Before we decide whether we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this with both CMS and ICE and have not found any signs anything went wrong.

CMS

25. ICE recommended CMS pay Mr N £250 for the various service failures it had identified when it considered his complaint. These failures included delays in transferring the suspended CSA debts owed to CMS. It went on to recommend ‘in view of your continued dispute of the unpaid maintenance, CMS complete an up-to-date account breakdown so you can see how the arrears [debt] amounts have been calculated and engage with you to discuss these’.

26. Mr N told us he did not consider CMS had carried out the recommendation. He told us he did, eventually, receive the £250 payment, and CMS sent him statements and appointed a caseworker to discuss these. But he is still in dispute about the debt owed. He felt by October 2021 the CMS caseworker and he had almost reached an agreement. Shortly after this, however, Mr N says the caseworker made allegations Mr N was conducting a fraud, and ‘undid’ much of the work he had done. This meant both the amount previously owed and the payments he was expected to make increased.

27. CMS and ICE considered the recommendation met because CMS prepared the audit and discussed it with Mr N.

28. Our principles say public bodies should do what they say they are going to do.

29. On 27 April 2021, CMS wrote to Mr N accepting the failures identified by ICE and its recommendations. We note this letter was sent to Mr N’s previous address and not returned to CMS until 18 June. On 24 June CMS reviewed the returned correspondence and noted there was no sign a member of the public had opened the letter. They asked for the letter to be re-issued, although Mr N told us he did not receive this letter. We considered whether CMS had complied with the recommendations as it said it would do.

30. The letter explained in 2004 the CSA suspended the debt when he reconciled with his child’s mother. The case closed in 2005. (We note they had a further child in 2006 and, at some point after this, separated again.) CMS said once the CSA identified the suspended debt, it contacted the mother about this and she asked it to collect it. CMS explained the debt was suspended in 2004 as there was no provision under the child support law for the CSA to write off child maintenance debt. It said an audit of Mr N’s child maintenance accounts would be prepared and sent shortly. After this, a caseworker would contact Mr N to explain the audit.

31. CMS sent audited accounts to Mr N on 4 May. The accounts explained how much maintenance was payable to each mother and when. They also included statements setting out how it had arrived at figures for maintenance due, the income it recorded for him, maintenance paid and collect-and-pay charges. This meets the recommendation to give an up-to-date account breakdown. Mr N told us he saw these statements but did not agree with how some of the figures had been calculated.

32. At this point there were three things Mr N had raised which could alter the debt owed: • Mr N’s complaint about the transferred CSA debt • whether or not all of Mr N’s direct payments had been considered in calculating the debt owed and • the calculation of the maintenance due, bearing in mind Mr N’s income and his pension payments.

33. We can see why Mr N had reason to believe this debt was not payable, as the CSA was very late notifying him it was no longer suspended. The transferred CSA debt had been dealt with in the 27 April letter, and CMS later gave a verbal explanation on 6 and 15 July. ICE also explained why this debt was due in its report, noting the CSA had taken a long time to identify the debt.

34. When Mr N spoke to the caseworker in July, we can see the caseworker asked him for bank statements to show direct payments he said he had made, which were not shown on the statements. The caseworker explained this would also help to show proof of his pension payments.

35. We can see CMS gave Mr N up-to-date statements and discussed these with him at length. It also told him what evidence he needed to support his challenge to some of the figures and to help it calculate his ongoing maintenance. CMS did what it said it was going to do and these actions are in line with the ICE recommendation.

36. Mr N told us of his disappointment that he was still unable to agree on the debt owed to CMS following these events. He said he felt the caseworker had almost reached a point when he agreed on the calculation by October 2021. On 28 October Mr N was set a payment plan asking him to pay just £1 per month to each mother for the next five months. He told us he believed the debt owed would be cleared at the end of this period. (We note this does not appear to be the case, and the amount owed increased).

37. Mr N submitted a further complaint to CMS on 3 February 2022. In this complaint he said the £1 per month was solely towards the previously suspended CSA debt, which had been escalated to ICE for consideration.

38. We recognise Mr N has found it challenging to deal with CMS and its predecessor, the CSA. He did not feel his complaint resolved much, as he still does not agree with the maintenance calculations or the amount of debt owed. While Mr N might never agree with CMS, we saw no indication CMS did anything wrong when it implemented the action to put things right it had agreed with ICE.

ICE

39. Mr N complains ICE agreed to investigate additional elements to his complaint about CMS, but when he received its report, it had not done so. The additional elements were CMS was collecting the debt owed that the CSA agreed was not payable and CMS unreasonably switched his case to collect and pay.

40. ICE said it had told Mr N which elements it had agreed to investigate in March 2019, and it did not agree to expand the scope of its investigation.

41. Our principles say public bodies should follow their own policy and procedural guidance and they should do what they say they are going to do. Public bodies should also aim to make sure customers are clear about:

• their entitlements • what they can and cannot expect from the public body and • their own responsibilities.

42. ICE Service Standards say:

‘We can only consider your complaint if you have: • already complained to the agency or business • waited until they have finished their complaints procedure • received a final response from the agency or business that explains that you can bring your complaint to us if you’re not satisfied with their response • contacted us within 6 months of receiving the final response.

All the conditions listed above must apply.’

43. In March 2019, ICE wrote to Mr N setting out the scope of the proposed investigation in six elements.

44. On 24 July Mr N emailed ICE asking for an update about his complaint and mentioned there was new information. He asked how to add the new information to his case. ICE replied on 29 July, explaining Mr N could email or post the information, providing addresses for both.

45. ICE case notes show several calls with Mr N while it was considering the complaint. Mr N called ICE on 5 November. Among his questions, he asked how to add additional issues to his complaint. ICE said if they were issues that had arisen since he brought his complaint to ICE in February 2019, he should raise them with CMS first. Mr N advised he had raised the issues before this. He was told to forward the final response to ICE for review, and it would tell him if he needed to go back to CMS first. Although the case notes do not specify what complaint aspects were discussed, we can see the information given to Mr N was in line with ICE’s Service Standards.

46. On 13 January 2021 ICE rang Mr N. During this call he mentioned the CSA debt which he wanted to add to the complaint. He also mentioned it had been alleged he was not making payments when he had been. His case would have been switched to collect and pay if CMS felt he was not making direct payments as scheduled. The investigator agreed to get additional evidence for the background of the report. ICE rang Mr N again on 16 February, and the CSA debt was discussed again. The investigator informed Mr N they would continue with the case history.

47. Mr N called ICE on 1 March and mentioned he had found evidence of a final payment he had made to the CSA on 18 May 2017. On 8 March ICE called Mr N and explained the case history was finished and had been forwarded for consideration. Mr N said CMS did not think he had made any payments since March 2020. ICE told him he could return to CMS with this issue once he had the ICE report. ICE completed its report the next month.

48. The background section of the ICE report set out the following information about the CSA debt: On 31 May 2019 the CSA wrote to Mr N to inform him he owed £1,294 from 2005. Mr N wrote back to dispute he owed this, saying this had been resolved when he reconciled with the mother in 2004. The CSA replied on 2 July, giving the explanation reiterated by CMS in its April 2021 letter, detailed above. ICE commented the CSA has been unable to explain why it took so long to identify the debt, particularly as the CSA case was closed and transferred to CMS. It added there are no longer any notes or records about this debt.

49. The background also mentioned CMS considered Mr N had stopped making payments in March 2020, but Mr N had told ICE he was making payments directly to the respective mothers. In the report ICE suggested Mr N take this up with CMS.

50. On 2 May Mr N emailed ICE in response to the report. In the letter he complained that the elements about the CSA debt and collect and pay were missing. Mr N recognised ICE mentioned the £1,294, but he could not see whether this element was upheld or not. ICE replied on 24 May, confirming it had not agreed to include any further elements in its investigation.

51. We considered the correspondence between Mr N and ICE. ICE’s Service Standards explain ICE could only look at these complaint elements when Mr N had a final response from CMS suggesting he contact ICE if he was not satisfied. ICE accepted Mr N’s complaint in February 2019, and the new events happened after this, in May 2019 and March 2020. We saw no indication Mr N showed ICE he had a final response to these issues.

52. Mr N also felt ICE told him it would look at these issues. ICE told him how to deal with any new issues in November 2019. We can see Mr N discussed these matters at length with ICE during later conversations. This may be why he had the impression ICE was including them in its report, even though ICE said he needed to take these complaints through CMS first. ICE did mention both issues in its report, if only briefly. It also made a finding that there was a delay in informing Mr N about the CSA debt. The payment of £250 and the apology were intended to put this, and other failings, right.

53. In summary, ICE’s Service Standards says it should not look at any issues which have not had a final response from CMS or CSA. It told Mr N what he needed to do before it could look at the new issues, and we saw nothing to suggest it told him it added these issues to the scope of its investigation. We recognise it is frustrating that additional concerns arose after Mr N brought his complaint to ICE, but we saw no signs ICE did anything wrong here.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr N’s complaint about the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). We have seen no indication CMS did not implement the recommendation made by ICE or ICE agreed to consider additional concerns Mr N had about CMS.

2. We recognise ICE found CMS had made mistakes and has still been unable to agree on the amount of any child maintenance debts with CMS. As such, Mr N understandably feels his complaint did not achieve what he had hoped. However, he is already pursuing the correct process to resolve these new concerns.