22. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.
CMS’ initial decision
23. Mr E complains that CMS did not take appropriate action in 2020 when he provided evidence his daughter was employed, and so not eligible for child maintenance.
24. On 12 February 2020, Mr E provided CMS with the letter from his daughter’s secondary school which confirmed she no longer attended from 31 January 2020.
25. This letter appeared to be enough evidence for CMS to consider whether or not Mr E’s daughter should still be eligible for child maintenance. And for this reason, CMS checked with HMRC as to whether his ex-partner was still in receipt of child benefit. HMRC said it was still payable until September 2020. This information, along with a conversation CMS had with Mr E’s ex-partner, in which she said her daughter was still in education, meant it decided that she was still eligible for child maintenance. As such, it did not close the case.
26. The case later went to tribunal and the judge considered the letter from the school and said ‘the appellant attended and confirmed is evidence that his daughter… left full time education on 31/01/2020. This tribunal accepts that evidence (letter from the school) and it is verified by [the] school’. CMS did not attend the hearing and so the decision was made final ten days later.
27. We considered whether CMS should have closed the child maintenance case when Mr E first provided the letter from the school and whether it took appropriate action to look into the matter.
28. In line with our Principles, CMS should have properly balanced the evidence and considered everything that was relevant to the case. It should have ignored irrelevant information and explained its decisions to Mr E.
29. In response to the complaint, CMS explained why it did not close the case. ICE did not uphold the complaint. Mr E feels ICE did not offer enough financial compensation.
30. When CMS received the letter from the school, it checked with HMRC to see if child benefit was still in payment. This is because child benefit also ends when a child leaves full time education and enters work.
31. Mr E disputed the response CMS received so CMS contacted his ex-partner. The response suggested Mr E’s daughter would still be eligible for child maintenance. And so accordingly, CMS did not close the case. It explained this to Mr E and gave him his appeal rights which he went on to exercise.
32. The Tribunal did make a different decision, but by the time of the tribunal, child benefit had already ended and CMS did not attend the hearing. So it is difficult to say if the tribunal considered the case on the same merits that were presented to CMS.
33. It appears that at the time, CMS made its initial decision, it did consider and weigh up all of the relevant evidence. This included what Mr E provided as well as other information that CMS proactively sought out. It then gave Mr E an explanation for its decision. This is what we would have expected in line with our Principles.
34. We appreciate that Mr E feels aggrieved because he knew that his daughter had left education, but CMS did not know that categorically and it could only rely on the evidence it had collected. And on balance, that evidence suggested his daughter was still eligible for child maintenance.
35. Mr E followed the appeal route which ultimately resolved the issue. And that is the purpose of the appeal so there is nothing left her for us to consider.
Post tribunal decision
36. Mr E complains that CMS did not act on the tribunal’s decision in 2021 that L was not eligible for child maintenance in a timely manner.
37. In May 2021, the tribunal decided that the child maintenance case should be closed from 1 February 2020. But for unknown reasons, CMS was not made aware of this decision. So we cannot attribute any delay in implementing the directions at that point to CMS.
38. However, on 31 July 2021, Mr E shared the decision with CMS. And it became clearly responsible for following the tribunal directions form that moment onwards. CMS should have done what the Tribunal directed it to and closed the case. But it did not do this. CMS acknowledges this error.
39. There was no action on the case until 18 February 2022. At that point, CMS wrote to Mr E following an annual review and told him he needed to pay child maintenance to his ex-partner. Mr E contacted CMS on 7 March and said it should already have closed his case. Mr E sent CMS several messages to the same effect in its online portal in March, April and May.
40. On 18 May, Mr E sent CMS bank statements of payments he had been making to his ex-partner until February 2020 (when his daughter left education). He said he continued making cash payments after that (he later retracted this).
41. CMS closed the case on 13 June, effective from 1 February 2020. It made Mr E aware of this on 8 July.
42. It seems CMS should have closed the case in early August 2021 (allowing time for it to manually complete the process). It did not actually do so until 13 June 2022, around 10 months later.
43. That said, this had no real impact on Mr E until February 2022, when CMS wrote to him and said he needed to make payments. Mr E then had contact with CMS over the next few months to resolve the issue. So all in all, there is a period of around four months where Mr E was impacted by CMS’ error.
44. Mr E says CMS’ errors as a whole caused him significant distress and anxiety and made him feel very low for an extended period of time.
45. We agree that Mr E would have experienced distress because of CMS not closing the case and telling him he needed to make payments in February 2022. However, we note that Mr E already had a tribunal decision which said the case should have closed from February 2020. So ultimately, it is fair to say that he knew he did not need to make any payments. And although he initially claimed to CMS that he had been making cash payments to his ex-partner, he has told us this did not happen. So there was no financial impact or loss of money which could have also caused distress. We also know that CMS did not take any enforcement action or put any significant pressure on Mr E to make payments.
46. We do not wish to downplay what Mr E told us, but it seems the impact on him is that he had to tell CMS a few more times that the case should be closed as per the tribunal decision. This undoubtedly would have caused distress but it does not seem to be life changing or long lasting to the point where Mr E could not live a normal life.
47. CMS ultimately offered £150 in financial compensation for this issue and ICE felt this was appropriate.
48. The relevant guidance, DWP financial redress for maladministration, 2012, states that financial remedy usually ranges between £50 and £500. In this case, ICE agreed with the financial remedy that DWP had already provided. It makes recommendations based on what it sees in similar cases and in line with the DWP guidance.
49. Financial remedy can be anywhere between £50 and £500 it was for ICE to recommend what it felt was appropriate. In this case, it felt £150 was. We see no reason for it to go outside that range – for instance because the impact was particularly severe or long-lasting. Whilst we acknowledge that the issue DWP and ICE identified were distressing for Ms O, financial remedy in line with the relevant guidance has already been provided. We therefore consider that enough has been done to put things right.