16. In cases where a second-tier complaint handler (such as ICE) has already considered the complaint, our general approach is to first consider whether it carried out a fair and thorough investigation. This is to avoid repeating work that has already been carried out robustly. If we decide the second-tier investigation was inadequate then we will generally investigate further. Equally, if we conclude that the investigation was appropriate then we will generally take no further action.
17. We discussed Mr A’s unhappiness with the ICE report with him and his wife, Mrs A. They explained that they felt ICE had disregarded the evidence they had provided and advised them that it would not look at it but would instead just address how the complaint was handled – this left them feeling dismissed by the process.
18. Mr A did not raise any objections with the conclusions ICE reached regarding the actual complaints, that is, that there was a delay in providing a breakdown and that there was conflicting evidence provided by CMS. These aspects were also acknowledged by CMS so there is no disputing that they occurred. Instead, the overall disagreement from Mr A is that sufficient consideration was not given to the evidence he and his wife provided showing the wider impact this had on him.
19. The above feeds in to his unhappiness that ICE concluded the £150 offered by CMS was reasonable. Mr A believes this figure is insufficient to cover either the financial impact or the emotional and mental impact these events have had on him and his family.
20. Our Standards set out how we expect an organisation to handle complaints. They state that public bodies should take a thorough, proportionate, and balanced look into the issues before giving fair and open answers based on the facts. Our Principles say that in decision making, organisations should take account of the relevant evidence and balance it appropriately.
21. As above, CMS has acknowledged delays in providing a breakdown and that there was conflicting information offered in November 2021. ICE therefore took this into account alongside the evidence that Mr A offered to support his complaint. It ultimately concluded that the consolatory offer, alongside the apology, was appropriate to put things right. It did not conclude, as Mr A believes, that these delays and conflicting information resulted in the impact Mr A has claimed.
22. In particular, Mr A has claimed CMS’s failings meant that his ex-partner was not receiving payments she was entitled to and that several of the other impacts have stemmed from this. It appears to be true that his ex-partner did not receive the payments she should have. But ICE has set out (as did CMS) that the missed payments were due to his employer at the time and not CMS. It follows, therefore, that ICE did not consider that CMS was responsible for the effect this had on his relationship with his daughter.
23. Mr A does not agree with this conclusion and provided evidence that he believes shows his employer and CMS have been in dispute over this with each blaming the other. However, we consider that ICE had enough evidence to say that fault lay with the employer and not CMS. As outlined in its report, the employer made a bulk payment from more than one employee but did not tell CMS which parent’s cases the payments needed to be allocated to. Ultimately, ICE does not accept that the evidence provided shows that the employer sent the breakdown when it should have. It instead concluded that the opposite was true and that and was supported by the fact that CMS had to contact the employer to request this. Had that not been the case and the information had already been provided, CMS would not have had to do this as it would already have had it.
24. The evidence we have seen shows that ICE considered the information he had provided to support his position but that, having considered this, it reached a different conclusion on the impact CMS’s actions had.
25. Regarding CMS’s consolatory offer, ICE’s role is to consider whether the offer was in line with the Guide. The Manual states that, in terms of figures, payments tend to range between £50 and £500. This is what ICE reviewed when considering whether CMS’s consolatory offer was appropriate and the £150 does fall within those parameters.
26. This is clearly below what Mr A had hoped for and even expected. However, for clarity, this is not intended to compensate him for anything other than being given incorrect advice and the delays in providing a breakdown – it was not for any financial losses or additional emotional impacts Mr A claims because ICE did not find that they were a consequence of the these acknowledged failings. It was instead supposed to acknowledge that CMS had made errors and, from what we have seen, ICE has correctly established that the offer was in line with the Guide. We are aware that Mr A refused to accept this offer and can understand his justification for doing so – however, the offer was made and, in line with the Guide, appears to have been appropriate.
27. From the information we have seen, we believe Mr A’s issues with CMS lie with its calculations considering the outcomes he was seeking. As these outcomes included recalculations and reimbursement, they did not directly relate to the actual substance of the complaint we considered. This further reinforces the fact that the financial recommendation made was in line with the Guide and therefore reasonable and appropriate.
28. We know this has been a difficult time for Mr A and the issues with arrears have caused him considerable concern as well as personal issues over the years. We are sorry that this proved to be the case and acknowledge the on-going difficulties this caused him.