Our view
20.Mr A is complaining to us about the actions of the CMS and the service he received after Ms B made a child maintenance claim in 2019. There are several different elements to his complaint.
21.Mr A tells us that following the submission of Ms B’s maintenance claim in November 2019 he was dissatisfied with the CMS’s communication with him. In particular, he says that he received payment schedule letters from the CMS that were threatening from November 2019 onwards.
22.The CMS wrote to Mr A on 18 November 2021 and explained that the letters he had received from November 2019 onwards were standard letters issued to NRPs, after the RP starts a claim.
23.The CMS said that these letters are not intended to intimidate NRPs like Mr A, but to outline the possible repercussions if an NRP does not make payments. The CMS said that ‘it would not be right if we did not give sufficient warning of the consequences of not paying’.
24.This view was reiterated by ICE in its report, dated 18 May 2023. ICE explained that when Ms B submitted her child maintenance application on 9 November 2019, the CMS acted in line with the Child Support Act, section 1, which states that:
(1)For the purposes of this Act, each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an absent parent shall be taken to have met his responsibility to maintain any qualifying child of his by making periodical payments of maintenance with respect to the child of such amount, and at such intervals, as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(3)Where a maintenance assessment made under this Act requires the making of periodical payments, it shall be the duty of the absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made to make those payments.
25.This means that, as the CMS is the organisation responsible for handling a child maintenance claim, it was acting in line with the relevant legislation when writing to Mr A and explaining that he was required to make maintenance payments.
26.We understand and appreciate that Mr A found these letters upsetting and considered them to be threatening. We also recognise that providing information to NRPs of the possible consequences if they fail to meet their legal responsibilities is intended to be helpful and transparent, and so is not a service failing in our view.
27.Our own ‘Principles of Good Administration’ state that ‘Public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities.’ The CMS met this requirement when explaining to Mr A what may happen to any NRP if the maintenance for which they are liable is not paid. Therefore, we cannot see any indications of maladministration in relation to this part of the complaint and so will take no further action.
28.Mr A has also complained about the CMS’s actions following the Tribunal’s decision in July 2021. He tells us that the CMS did not action and implement the decision regarding his liability for maintenance payments until November 2021, despite the Tribunal taking place in July 2021.
29.The ICE report notes that the CMS does not have any authority or control of the length of time taken for an appeal to be heard at Tribunal. This is because the administration of the Tribunal is carried out by HMCTS, which is a separate organisation to the CMS.
30.Mr A’s case was heard in July 2021; however, the CMS did not provide him with a notification about his reduced maintenance payments until 2 September 2021. This is more than six weeks after the case had been heard. ICE described this timescale as ‘somewhat excessive’. ICE also said that, following Mr A’s complaint to the CMS on 9 September 2021, it could have done more to acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 and 2 responses in October and November 2021.
31.As a result, ICE decided to uphold this aspect of the complaint and recommended that the CMS apologise and make a consolatory payment of £150. It is important to note that this consolatory payment was also intended to put right other mistakes in CMS’s service, which we consider in more detail below.
32.Having considered the frustration caused to Mr A, which was short-term in nature, we can see this is a reasonable response and in line with our ‘Principles for Remedy’ which state that ‘organisations should compensate people appropriately’. We have not seen any indications of a direct financial loss from CMS’s delay, as once implemented the change was backdated to the relevant date.
33.Mr A has raised two further concerns with us. Firstly, he says that the CMS did not notify him that his payments would be reduced following the Tribunal’s decision, resulting in overpayments. Secondly, he tells us that he was given incorrect and confusing information when he contacted the CMS by phone in September 2021 about these overpayments and their recovery. As both of these issues are so closely linked, we will consider them together.
34.The Tribunal decision led to a retrospective reduction in Mr A’s maintenance liability for the period between 16 November 2019 and 1 March 2020. This decision automatically meant that for this specific period, Mr A had partly overpaid Ms B. Mr A was paying Ms B directly at this time, rather than through CMS’s ‘Collect and Pay’ service.
35.Where an overpayment has been identified, the CMS will ‘offset’ the extra amount paid against on-going maintenance payments. This is explained in more detail in Chapters 58 and 59 of the CMS’s ‘Decision Maker’s Guide’. In Mr A’s case, his payments were reduced from £177.94 per month to £133.58 per month, as set out in the notification provided to both parties on 2 September 2021.
36.This notification clearly shows that his payments had been offset following the overpayment. However, there is no documented evidence which shows that CMS had explained this process to Mr A, either in writing or over the phone when he contacted CMS.
37.Mr A called the CMS on 16 September 2021. Unfortunately, the recording of the call is no longer available, so we have not been able to listen to it. However, there are written notes from the call and these show that Mr A and the call handler discussed a revised schedule and that attempts could be made to recoup the overpayment at a faster pace. The notes do not indicate whether Mr A was given any clear instructions during the call on what he should pay.
38.As the ICE report notes, this is significant because if he had been provided with this information during the 16 September call it is highly likely his case would not have been changed from Direct Pay to ‘Collect and Pay’ shortly after.
39.Mr A was moved to ‘Collect and Pay’ as it is unclear whether he had made his scheduled payments, a matter which was confused by CMS’s decision as to how to recover the overpayments. In Mr A’s case, his payments were revised back to Direct Pay, shortly after he provided the relevant evidence to show he had made payments.
40.On the basis that the evidence suggests the CMS did not adequately document or explain to Mr A how the overpayment would be recovered, we can see that it did not act in line with the DWP ‘Customer Charter’ commitments as referenced below. In addition, the ICE report found that Mr A had not been given accurate information during his telephone call with the CMS on 16 September 2021 and had been misled about his payments.
41.As a result, the ICE upheld these aspects of Mr A’s complaint and subsequently awarded a consolatory payment of £150 in recognition of the service failings it had identified, as explained previously.
42.The DWP ‘Customer Charter’ says that it and its agencies, including CMS, will ‘provide you with the correct information decision [or] information’ and ‘say sorry and put it right if we make a mistake’. The evidence available to us indicates that the CMS did not always act in line with this commitment. Therefore, we can see there are indications of maladministration in this part of Mr A’s complaint.
43.The ICE report recommended £150 as a consolatory payment in recognition of the service failings by the CMS. The DWP’s ‘Financial redress for maladministration’ Guide describes consolatory payments as ‘a special payment […] where the customer has suffered injustice or hardship arising from maladministration’. The guidance explains that consolatory payments usually range from £25 to £500, and Mr A’s payment of £150 is within these limits.
44.We have reviewed our ‘Severity of Injustice’ scale, which is set out in our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’. This scale helps us to determine what is an appropriate level of financial remedy and includes taking into consideration the financial amount already offered by the organisation in question.
45.In our view, the failure to provide clear and accurate information to Mr A created an impact of frustration and distress that we consider to be at Level 2 on our scale. With this in mind and having considered the steps CMS has taken to put things right, we can see the financial remedy and apology already given are proportionate and in line with both the DWP and CMS guidance, and with our own guidelines. We therefore considered why Mr A does not feel this is enough to put things right.
46.Mr A told us that he is dissatisfied with the treatment he has received from the CMS, and he does not believe the £150 and apology recognises the impact these events have had on him. He says the CMS’s actions have had an impact on his finances and have affected his mental health.
47.We appreciate Mr A’s frustrations, particularly in relation to the information he has received regarding his maintenance liability. We have not seen any indication of financial loss, given that the overpayments were offset by the CMS in his later payments, as explained in our above.
48.We have not seen any evidence of other financial loss or difficulties that, on the balance of probabilities, we might say were caused by the CMS errors we have identified.
49.We know that this period has been very stressful for Mr A and have listened to what he told us about the emotional impact caused by CMS’s mistakes. He has not shared with us any evidence of harm to his mental health that shows CMS needs to take further steps to put right a greater impact than it has already identified, and the £150 and apology already provided is intended to recognise that its errors clearly caused him avoidable distress.
50.Looking at the payment recommended, we are satisfied that the CMS has provided an apology and a proportionate financial remedy, which recognises the poor service Mr A received and put right the impact that poor service caused.
51.Therefore, we will take no further action in relation to Mr A’s complaint. We know he continues to feel frustrated by these events, so we hope that we have clearly explained how we reached our decision in this case.