Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

2. Miss L complains about the CMS and its failure to communicate and take enforcement action in her case from 2018. She says it missed opportunities to take enforcement action against the non-resident parent (NRP) and over the past 20 years she has not received the maintenance payments to which she is entitled. Miss L also says CMS asked her 20-year-old daughter to take a DNA test at the request of the NRP, allowing a delay his compliance with making payments.

3. Miss L says this has caused her financial hardship and stress. She says she is in significant debt, not having the financial contribution from the NRP. Miss L says that it has had a serious impact on her daughter’s mental health, with the NRP denying paternity as a delay tactic.

4. Miss L would like systemic improvements from CMS so that it is more sensitive to claimants’ circumstances. She says CMS needs a change in policy and guidance, allowing it to take more enforcement action, especially against those who are self-employed. Miss L is also seeking compensation from CMS in the amount of the outstanding arrears owed by the NRP.

5. Miss L’s made a claim for child maintenance to the Child Support Agency (the CSA) on the 26 April 2007. This was for maintenance for her daughter from Mr A. The claim closed in May 2015 as the CSA was replaced by the CMS, and so her case was effectively transferred. At that time, Mr A owed Miss L £3,202.50 in unpaid maintenance.

6. The new case was opened with CMS on the 11 October 2015. Mr A had another claim against him for support of another child and had periods of unemployment, and therefore CMS’s calculations of what he needed to pay Miss L fluctuated.

7. The claim was set up as direct pay, which is where parents make private payment arrangements between themselves, but due to Mr A missing payments, this was transferred to collect and pay beginning on 30 January 2016. A collect and pay arrangement means CMS will obtain maintenance on behalf of the Parent With Care (PWC), and this arrangement attracts fees.

8. The arrears of £3,202.50 were transferred from the CSA to CMS on 24 September 2016. Mr A continued to miss payments, and so on 19 January 2019 CMS wrote to Mr A and informed him that it was obtaining a liability order for the arrears of £5,995, which accrued between May 2007 and October 2015.

9. On 10 January 2019, CMS wrote to Mr A and informed him that it was applying for another liability order for the arrears of £7,710.28 for the period of October 2015 to December 2018. The arrears included in the liability order was for monies owed to Miss L and Mr A’s other child’s parent.

10. On 26 January 2019, Mr A agreed with CMS to pay £245 a month a month by direct debit. This agreement was in respect of both cases.

11. Despite this, on 15 March 2019, CMS referred Mr A to its financial investigation unit (FIU) and the liability orders for £5,995 and £8,060.28 were granted by the courts on 11 April 2019.

12. On 16 May 2019, CMS prepared to refer the arrears owed to bailiffs but Mr A disputed the amounts included in the liability order. Any such dispute must be considered by the courts, not CMS.

13. On 13 June 2019 there was a call between CMS and Mr A. £3,905 was adjusted from the arrears in relation to Mr A’s other claim, but during this call he requested a paternity test for Miss L’s daughter. We know this was very distressing for Miss L and her daughter.

14. On 3 July 2019, CMS wrote to Miss L with a details of a payment plan it had provided for Mr A. However, she did not receive any payments as a result of this plan as Mr A continued to miss payments.

15. CMS’s FIU completed its investigation into Mr A’s income on 19 December 2019, which increased his liability for maintenance.

16. In March 2020, Miss L’s child no longer qualified for maintenance and enforcement action was stalled due to the significant wider impact to public services caused by Covid-19.

17. CMS resumed enforcement action in August 2019, registering the debt with the county court and applying for a charging order, which was granted in January 2021, followed by a referral to the bailiffs.

18. Mr A then resumed his paternity dispute in July 2021, which again stalled enforcement action. CMS then informed Mr A that the matter had to be resolved privately in October 2021.

19. In April 2022, CMS began action to secure an Order of Sale against Mr A’s property.

20. The Independent Case Examiner (ICE) completed its report on the 16 March 2023, upholding the complaint. The ICE is the next stage in the CMS complaints process. The ICE recommended a financial remedy of £175 as it recognised there had been delays from CMS in taking enforcement action. Miss L then referred her case to our Office via her MP, as CMS had not secured any payments through its enforcement action.

23. Miss L complains about the CMS and its failure to communicate and take enforcement action in her case from 2018. We can see that the ICE has looked at the complaint and found failings in the way CMS delayed in making a referral to the bailiffs and progressing further action with the Order of Sale.

24. We can see that CMS did take action through securing liability orders, but did not manage to secure any payments through bailiff action. CMS then applied for an Order of Sale in 2022, but there were delays on its part in progressing this further.

25. We can see that ‘Volume 6 – Collections and Enforcement (Chapters 49-95) Chapter 79: sanctions’ of the CMS ‘Decision Makers Guide’ explains that in England and Wales, there are three options available for the CMS to pursue the NRP through the magistrates’ court where they have failed to pay the outstanding liability order balance. These are known as sanctions.

26. Only one of these sanctions can be imposed on a paying parent at a time. Sanctions may be considered appropriate where it can be confirmed that the paying parent has the ability to pay but is unwilling to pay.

27. We can see that it was in line with the above guidance for CMS to pursue one sanction at a time. However, there were several delays in taking forward that action, including not informing the NRP that it would not consider his paternity dispute as it related to arrears only, rather than ongoing liability for maintenance.

28. Therefore, we agree with the ICE that there were failings by CMS in progressing enforcement and not keeping Miss L informed. This is not in line with the DWP’s Customer Charter, which says it will:

• ‘do what we say we will do • try to understand your circumstances • follow processes correctly’

29. Miss L also says that CMS allowed the NRP to request a DNA test, therefore delaying enforcement action. We understand Miss L’s frustration, as a dispute of paternity prevents CMS from proceeding with any action. We understand this was personally very upsetting for Miss L and her daughter, and we are sorry to learn that her daughter remains particularly hurt and upset about this.

30. CMS is obliged to consider challenges to paternity in line with its ‘Decision Makers Guide’. We understand that the NRP’s delay in taking the test caused frustration, and we can see that CMS made a mistake here. At this point CMS should not have considered the request for paternity as its ‘Decision Makers Guide’ Volume 5 - Reviews and Appeals (Chapters 42-48), says,

‘If a NRP disputes paternity on an arrears only case, regardless of which scheme the arrears accrued, the NRP should be advised to seek independent legal advice’

31. We can see CMS eventually did this but, as explained above, we agree that there were delays in the handling of its enforcement procedure which were not in line with its guidance or charter.

32. As explained above, the ICE has recommended CMS offer Miss L £175 as a consolatory payment to put right its service failures in delaying enforcement action and not keeping her updated. We contacted CMS for an update regarding ongoing action, as the ICE noted that no action had occurred with the Order of Sale from 2022.

33. CMS informed us that the Order of Sale has been processed and completed. Miss L received all outstanding arrears owed to her on the 15 March 2024. Therefore, we think ICE’s recommendation is appropriate, as Miss L’s maintenance case is now closed, so there is no financial loss to her. Where the emotional impact is concerned, we can see the apology and £175 offered is appropriate action to remedy the avoidable frustration and distress caused by CMS’s mistake, in line with our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’ and our ‘Principles for Remedy’.

34. The evidence available to us indicates CMS made mistake in is handling of Miss L’s maintenance case, but we can now see that it has now done enough to put things right. As such, we will take no further action. We know these events have been distressing for Miss L and her family, so we hope we have clearly explained how we have reached our decision in this case.

1. We have carefully considered Miss L’s complaint about the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). We are sorry to learn the reasons for Ms L’s complaint, and the financial hardship she describes as a result of problems with her claim for child maintenance. It is clear from what she has told us that she remains very frustrated and upset. After reviewing the evidence provided by Miss L and CMS, we can see that although CMS made a mistake it has already done enough to put right the impact that error caused. As such, we have decided to take no further action, and we will explain our reasons in this statement.