Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

7. Mr D complains that CMS did not follow the correct process when putting a DEO in place in March 2021. He says it failed to tell him (as the PP) and the RP about its plan and that although both RP’s contacted CMS to say they wished to continue with Direct Pay, it still went ahead with the DEO.

8. He also complains that CMS delayed escalating his complaint in May 2021.

9. He says CMS’s actions put him into debt and caused financial hardship because he was left without enough money each month. He says this has caused damage to his relationships with his children and their mothers, as well as affecting his mental health.

10. He would like all money deducted by the DEO to be refunded, an apology and £5,000 compensation.

11. When a child’s parents separate, they must agree child maintenance between themselves. They can do this directly in a private or ‘family based’ arrangement, or if they cannot agree, they can ask CMS to calculate the amount. CMS offers two types of child maintenance arrangements. There is Direct Pay where CMS calculates the payable amounts and the parents work together to arrange those payments. The second is the Collect and Pay service where CMS collects the payments directly. The first arrangement is free of charge, but the other involves paying costs to CMS.

12. In January 2017, a mother of one of Mr D’s children, Miss A, applied to CMS for Mr D to pay maintenance. CMS wrote to Mr D and advised he was responsible for maintenance payments of £19.32 a week to be paid directly to Miss A using the Direct Pay service.

13. In November 2019, Miss A wrote to CMS saying she thought she was being underpaid maintenance. CMS began considering moving the case to Collect and Pay. CMS wrote to Mr D to explain this and asked him to provide proof of the payments he had made.

14. Mr D spoke with CMS and advised he had been paying £80 to Miss A and also to Miss B, the mother of another of his children, as part of a private arrangement. CMS explained it could add the additional payments to his case as part of a private arrangement but there was a shortfall in payments that he needed to make up.

15. CMS noted that he was expected to make monthly payments of £531.72 but he had only been making payments of £320, a £211.71 underpayment. Due to this, CMS decided to move to Collect and Pay. It wrote to Mr D, Miss A and Miss B explaining the new payment plan and saying it would start a DEO.

16. In February 2020, CMS updated its records to show that Mr D had not worked since November 2019, as per information from HMRC. This meant the DEO was cancelled but the case was flagged meaning it would restart whenever Mr D found new employment. This happened in September.

17. On 25 November, CMS wrote to Mr D saying it did not have evidence he had paid the maintenance he owed and it was going to recover the arrears.

18. CMS issued a new payment plan in January 2021 and in February received confirmed employment details for Mr D. In March, it noted he had been making payments in line with the payment plans and set up a new DEO. It wrote to Mr D on 2 March to confirm this.

19. Mr D challenged this DEO and gave evidence to show he had been making payments in line with the payment plans. CMS was unable to contact Miss A so adjusted the balance of unpaid maintenance based on the evidence Mr D provided.

20. Due to this, CMS completed a new maintenance calculation and shared this in May. It did not remove the DEO as it had still recorded unpaid maintenance of £1,778.43.

21. Mr D again challenged the DEO and provided more evidence.

22. In May, Miss B made an application for maintenance for her two children. As a result, CMS made a new maintenance calculation to replace the private arrangement.

23. CMS chose to start a third DEO and also responded to a complaint Mr D had made with his MP in the meantime. It explained why it had started the DEO and why that would continue until the arrears were cleared.

24. Mr D engaged in complaints correspondence with CMS from this point until he approached the Independent Case Examiner (ICE investigates complaints about CMS) in September 2021. ICE did not uphold his complaint about maintenance. It decided that CMS had properly started the original DEO as Mr D had failed to make payments in line with the payment plans.

25. ICE did uphold his complaint that CMS had failed to properly escalate his complaint. But, it decided that the £100 CMS offered for the inconvenience this caused him was reasonable and appropriate.

The DEO

28. The Guidance sets out the actions CMS can take and processes it should follow for payments. Chapter 49 clarifies that where CMS has made a calculation, the RP can apply to CMS to collect the amount payable. If this happens, CMS must then decide whether it believes that without collection action, payments will not happen.

29. Where records show a parent has missed one or more payments in the past six months, CMS will use its discretion to decide whether this means the PP is unlikely to pay. It does this by evaluation of the available evidence and if necessary, by gathering further evidence.

30. If after all of this, CMS agrees that without the arrangement then payments will not happen, it can start using Collect and Pay on a PP’s account.

31. The Guidance says that once a DEO is set up, CMS should send notifications to both the PP and their employer. It should also contact the RP to update them.

32. Our Principles explain how we expect organisations to act. To be customer focussed, they should do what they say they are going to do and make sure that customers are clear about their own responsibilities.

33. In November 2019, Miss A contacted CMS to advise he had not been paying the correct maintenance figure. He should have been paying £132.93 but she reported he was only paying £80. CMS wrote to Mr D on 7 November advising of this and asked him to provide evidence that he had been making payments or it would move his case to Collect and Pay.

34. As it did not hear from Mr D, CMS decided to move him from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay on 29 November and used a DEO. After this, it wrote to him and his employer and updated Miss A. But, in February 2020 Mr D’s employer told CMS he was no longer employed by them meaning this DEO was cancelled.

35. In September, CMS became aware that Mr D had started new employment and so could start making maintenance payments again. It wrote to him outlining that it needed to discuss a payment plan and if they were unable to do this it would have to set up a second DEO. In February 2021, HMRC confirmed Mr D’s employment and in March CMS set up a DEO as Mr D had not made payments in line with the payment plans. Again, it wrote to him and his employer and updated Miss A.

36. According to the Guidance, CMS has no obligation to tell either Mr D or the RP that it is planning to start a DEO. But, the letters it sent out in November 2019 and between September 2020 and March 2021 clearly explain CMS’s intention to move him to Collect and Pay if he did not give evidence that he had been making regular payments in line with the payment plan. CMS did not receive any evidence from Mr D so it twice introduced a DEO before a third and final DEO in May 2021.

37. Mr D states that both RP’s contacted CMS to dispute the Collect and Pay arrangement. We cannot see that this was the case. While there are several records of contact from Miss A and Miss B during this time, none of them suggest they asked not to proceed with Collect and Pay.

38. As CMS clearly explained its plan, we think it appropriately made sure that Mr D was clear on his responsibilities and it did what it said it would do. Its actions seem to be in line with both the Guidance and our Principles.

Escalating his complaint

39. ICE upheld Mr D’s complaint about a delay in escalating his complaint. CMS has also accepted the delay was a service failing and we agree with this. CMS’s service standards state that it aims to respond to a complaint within 15 working days of receiving it. Mr D submitted his complaint on 29 April 2021 and a sent another letter on 5 June chasing it. CMS did not respond to either contact until 14 July, almost 40 working days outside of its target timeframe.

40. Mr D told us he believes CMS’s actions put him in debt and caused financial hardship as he was left without enough money each month due to the costs of the DEO. He says its actions caused damage to his relationships with his children and their mothers, as well as affecting his mental health.

41. Each impact Mr D describes seem to come from the DEO itself, which he holds CMS responsible for. They do not seem to relate to CMS’s complaint handling. We fully understand that this was a difficult period financially and his relationships could have become strained. We also accept that these events could have had an impact on his overall mental health.

42. From what we can see, it is not possible to say that CMS’s delay in responding to his complaint contributed to any of these points. We accept that what is a relatively minor delay may have caused some inconvenience and frustration. But, we cannot see that it would lead to the serious impact Mr D is claiming, particularly in regard to the financial impact.

43. CMS has paid him £100 and offered an apology in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor service. We think this is enough to put right the inconvenience its poor service caused. We do not think it needs to do anymore.

1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about The Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

2. Based on what we have seen, we are satisfied that CMS properly put a Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO) in place in March 2021. There is no need for CMS to tell either the Paying Parent (PP) or Receiving Parent (RP) of its intention to do this – only that it updates them after putting it in place.

3. While we have found that CMS did delay in escalating his complaint, we cannot say that this delay had the big impact that Mr D describes.

4. We acknowledge how frustrating and inconvenient that delay must have been and think the £100 offer is enough to put things right.

5. We understand this has been an incredibly difficult and often frustrating experience for Mr D. We know he believes CMS has unfairly and illegally used a DEO that has caused him financial hardship. We empathise with his situation and our decision is in no way meant to take away from that.

6. We suggest that if he is experiencing financial hardship because of the DEO, that he contacts the Debt Management Team at CMS for support.