CMS failed to complete the variations (looking at his ex-partners (Ms A) assets) and MRs that Mr R requested between 2018 – 2024 within reasonable timeframes
14. Initially, Mr R requested a MR in August 2018 following CMS’ rejection of his first variation application. CMS failed to progress the MR request.
15. It then appears CMS did not progress a second variation application in February 2019 to look specifically at Ms Y’s assets. CMS then did not progress two further applications in 2020 and 2021.
16. From the evidence we have seen CMS did not progress the variations application until May 2022.
17. The variation application (effective) from February 2019 was rejected on 17 October 2022. However, after details of Ms Y’s current income were obtained, the outstanding maintenance calculations and decisions since 2018 were eventually made in December 2022.
18. This was four years after Mr R initially raised his request in August 2018.
19. Both CMS and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) have acknowledged there were significant delays progressing the asset valuation variations and the MR’s raised by Mr R.
20. CMS awarded £200 for the delay and the distress caused. However, following its investigation ICE recommended a further £250 for this and other service failures (see below).
21. CMS and ICE have both acknowledged that CMS failed to progress both asset valuation and MR requests made by Mr R. Our role is to look at whether there is an outstanding injustice in relation to these issues.
22. When making financial recommendations ICE considers the following guidance Financial redress for maladministration: staff guide - GOV.UK
23. Section 4 Guiding principles of the Department for Work and Pensions’ special payment scheme states;
4.2. If it has been established/accepted that DWP maladministration occurred, the following DWP principles should underpin all decisions made in respect of the Department’s special payment scheme.
• individuals should not be disadvantaged because of maladministration:
• it is not necessary for an individual to request consideration of a special payment. The appropriateness of making a payment should be routinely considered in any attempt to rectify departmental maladministration, which may have resulted in a customer (or a third party) experiencing injustice and/or hardship 24. Section 5: Consolatory payments states;
5.9. A special payment may be considered under this category where the customer (or a third party) has suffered injustice or hardship arising from maladministration.
5.11. Consolatory payments usually range between £50 and £500, although lower or higher payments may be appropriate having considered the individual circumstances of a case, in the context of the guiding principles.
25. We have contacted ICE and it explained the total redress awarded to Mr R of £450 (£200 previously awarded by CMS) acknowledges the greatest impact in terms of distress and anxiety, with financial impact on his quality of life lasting many months/years.
26. Given, it is clear both ICE and CMS considered the impact the failings in progressing the MR and asset valuation had on Mr R, in line with its guidance, there is nothing further we can achieve (especially given Mr R has told our office he would not accept £25000). This is also in line with our principles of good administration – Putting things right.
27. It is important to note that all decisions made by CMS are open to appeal and as such issues surrounding how much child maintenance Mr R received can be appealed. From the information we have seen the delay in MR and asset valuation did not impact the money Mr R received and therefore, the injustice considered relates to the distress caused by the delay.
CMS failed to call back and provided misinformation
28. The ICE report and investigation has upheld these elements of Mr R’s complaint. It s stated Mr R was in frequent contact with CMS between 2019 and 2022 and CMS has acknowledged it did not call him back on several occasions. It also acknowledged that it gave misleading information about letters being sent to his ex-partner.
29. ICE was satisfied CMS had put right the impact Mr R had sadly experienced, where he was awarded £150.
30. As such, we are satisfied there is nothing further we can do in respect to these issues given the appropriate steps have already been taken to rectify things. Again, this is in line with DWP financial redress guidelines (see above) and our own principles of good administration.
CMS’ failure to investigate concerns regarding his ex-partners income.
31. ICE said in order for CMS to investigate Mr R’s, ex-partner misrepresenting her income, the case would need to be referred to the fraud investigation unit (FIU). If criminal activity is suspected, then it would for the FIU to gather information about the alleged offence and then decide whether the case should be forwarded to prosecution.
32. ICE identified that CMS was initially slow in referring the case to FIU. It states this should have been considered in June 2018. It says it can see FIU did make enquires with Ms Y but progress was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The FIU’s investigation eventually concluded in November 2021 which considered the appeal outcome from March 2021, and a direction was made to revisit one of the maintenance calculations which was not impacted by that (effective from 13 June 2018).
33. ICE went on to say in 2022 when work was being done to review Ms Y’s maintenance liability, CMS assured Mr R that it would consider referring the case back to FIU as his ex-partner had declined to provide information. CMS made the referral on 31 January 2023.
Mr R’s ex-partner subsequently lodged an appeal which meant no further investigation took place.
34. ICE upheld this element of the complaint, outlining CMS did miss opportunities to make robust enquires into Ms Y’s financial circumstances. However, it went on to say there is no indication CMS should or could have taken prosecution action against his ex-partner for misrepresenting her income.
35. As stated above, ICE asked CMS to apologise for the level of service failure and recommended a further £250 on top of what had already been awarded. In doing so it recognised the distress Mr R experienced, and the impact CMS’ actions had on him.
36. We will not duplicate work already carried out by ICE and we are satisfied it has followed the appropriate guidance (again see above) when putting right Mr R’s complaint. We have decided to take no further action.
37. Mr R is also seeking amounts of financial redress which we cannot achieve.
38. We would like to finish by stating how sorry we are to hear about the situation Mr R finds himself in and do not wish to dismiss the impact these issues have had on him. We wish Mr R well moving forward.