Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

7. Mr H complains about CMS. He says CMS: • did not follow the correct procedures when it changed his case to C&P in February 2019 since he explained he always paid the correct amount of child maintenance on time • made the situation worse when it categorised his case as sensitive without his knowledge, which meant it was extremely difficult to speak to anyone about what was happening.

8. He also complains CMS did not agree to change his case back to DP and refund any collection charges once ICE had completed its investigation. He believes this should have happened because in December 2017, DWP cancelled the C&P arrangement set up in February 2016 and refunded all the collection charges. This happened after a previous ICE investigation found some failings in relation to the February 2016 C&P decision.

9. Finally he says CMS failed to adjust his account to include all of the child maintenance (CM) payments he made directly to his ex-partner whilst his case was on C&P. Instead he said it sent them to him and then told him to forward incorrect amounts to his ex-partner.

10. Mr H says due to CMS failing to follow the correct procedures when it changed his case to C&P, he was liable to collection fees even though he continued to pay child maintenance directly to Ms R.

11. He told us due to CMS categorising his case as sensitive, it accrued fees which would have been avoidable if he had known and been able to contact CMS to resolve matters.

12. He says due to CMS not recognising that it should reinstate his DP arrangement because this is what had happened following the earlier ICE investigation, he continued to be liable for collection fees and accumulated avoidable arrears.

13. He told us all of the above caused his mental health to suffer. He had suicidal thoughts and was prescribed anti-depressants and still has sleepless nights. The stress has impacted on his current relationship.

14. Mr H explained he has been left with little respect for government organisations.

15. He has experienced financial loss due to the cost of postage, phone calls, legal advice and time taken off work to correspond with CMS.

16. By making his complaint, Mr H is seeking a financial remedy: • to acknowledge the stress and frustration and impact on his mental health that he has experienced • equivalent to the costs described above.

17. Mr H is also seeking service changes to ensure that the same issues do not keep happening.

18. Mr H’s ex-partner, Ms R claimed child maintenance in July 2015 and he became liable to pay from August 2015. Initially his payment method was DP.

19. DP and C&P are the two ways in which CMS sets up payments. DP involves the non-resident parent making payments directly to the resident parent. CMS will implement a C&P arrangement in situations where the paying parent fails to make scheduled payments to the receiving payment. If a C&P arrangement is in place then the non-resident parent makes payments to CMS who then transfers it to the resident parent. In this case CMS charges a fee to both parents, whereas DP is free.

20. CMS changed Mr H’s payment arrangement to C&P in February 2016. This was because Mr H had not paid anything since the start of the case in July 2015 on the grounds that he had shared care and was not liable to pay.

21. Mr H complained to CMS about a number of issues at this time including CMS’s February 2016 decision to set his method of payment to C&P. He referred his complaint to ICE who completed its investigation in July 2017.

22. ICE upheld this part of his complaint. It found no administrative failings in the decision making process itself. Rather it found that CMS had not processed Mr H’s Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) requests disputing the calculations dated July 2015 and January 2016 before making the decision to change the method of payment to C&P. An MR request is the first stage of the appeals process.

23. In December 2017 CMS changed the arrangement back to DP. This was because it had not provided Mr H with his ex-partner’s bank details and therefore acknowledged that he would not have been able to make direct payments as scheduled whether he wanted to or not. CMS also removed any charges associated to the period C&P had been in place.

24. In April 2018 CMS sent a payment plan instructing Mr H to make monthly payments directly to Ms R from May to August 2018. This included a payment towards arrears.

25. In October 2018 Ms R said Mr H had not paid in line with the scheduled payments since he had not included the arrears payment.

26. CMS asked Mr H to give evidence of payment of the arrears payment due to Ms R and told him it could change his case to C&P if he did not show he had paid what was due.

27. Mr H called CMS and said he had already sent all the information it needed.

28. At the end of October 2018 CMS called Mr H to ask again for evidence he had paid the missing payments. It warned him again it would move his case to C&P if he did not provide the requested information. Mr H told CMS it should contact Ms R instead. He also said he had already sent evidence of payments he had made in December 2018. CMS told him this evidence did not cover the missing payments in October 2018.

29. CMS called Mr H called in November 2018 and said again he had not paid the arrears payment in October 2018. He confirmed he had only paid his weekly CM liability in October 2018 and not any arrears.

30. In February 2019 CMS wrote to him to say he had not paid as scheduled from October 2018 until January 2019. It said if he could not provide evidence of paying the right amount in the next two weeks, it would implement C&P.

31. In February CMS recorded that Mr H had not made payments in line with the scheduled payment plan and moved the case to C&P. CMS wrote to him to tell him and to explain that he now needed to make payments to CMS rather than directly to Ms R.

32. Mr H called CMS and said he had always paid in full and on time. CMS wrote to him in March 2019 explaining why it had made the C&P decision. He responded saying CMS had not told him to pay an arrears payment. He wrote again saying he would continue to pay the same payments as previously directly to Ms R.

33. In June CMS wrote to Mr H setting out the arrears he then owed. He disputed the arrears and asked CMS to check his accounts. CMS asked him to provide proof of payments made if he wanted to dispute the outstanding balance. Mr H said he had always paid Ms R directly and would not pay collections fees.

34. In July 2019 CMS categorised his case as sensitive after he had threated to harm himself during a telephone call to CMS.

35. In the same month, Mr H spoke to CMS and said he would provide evidence of his payments if it wrote to him and asked him.

36. Mr H called CMS in August 2019 to say it should not be collecting payments from him since the ICE decision in July 2019 had told CMS to change the decision. ICE’s decision dated July 2019 referred to the C&P decision dated February 2016, rather than the later decision dated February 2019.

37. Also in August 2019, Mr H sent a letter setting out payments he had made between August 2017 and July 2019 but did not provide any bank statements to evidence the payments.

38. In September 2019, Mr H complained to CMS about the C&P decision dated February 2019.

39. In December 2019, CMS removed Mr H’s case from the sensitive category.

40. CMS responded to his complaint in January 2020. It explained to him why it changed the case to C&P and did not change its decision.

41. In April 2021, Mr H told CMS he had continued to pay Ms R directly and had sent it bank statements to show the payments he had made. CMS considered the bank statements and adjusted his account accordingly. He remained in arrears because of the collection fees and enforcement charges he had not paid.

42. In November 2021 CMS asked for bank statements to show payments Mr H had made directly since March 2021. On receipt of these statements, CMS made a further four adjustments to Mr H’s account. He still remained in arrears due to non-payment of collection fees and enforcement charges.

43. In January 2023 CMS asked Mr H to send proof of all the direct payments he had made since April 2022 but said there would still be arrears for non-payment of collection fees and enforcement charges.

44. In April 2023 Mr H confirmed to CMS that he had paid £600 to Mrs R for arears due before the change to C&P in February 2019. CMS agreed to change the outstanding balance accordingly, but the collection fees and enforcement charges remained outstanding.

45. Mr H continued to pay directly. In February 2024, CMS received bank statements from him showing payments he had made for the period of January 2023 to February 2024. At this stage it agreed to change the case back to DP and removed the collection fees for the period June 2023 to February 2024.

46. Mr H complained to ICE about CMS’s decision dated February 2019 to change to C&P. He also complained that CMS had not taken into account any payments he had made to Mrs R directly since CMS had changed to C&P. ICE completed its investigation in April 2024. It did not uphold either of these two complaints.

Decision dated February 2019 to change to C&P

49. Mr H says CMS should not have made this decision because he had always paid the correct amount of child maintenance on time.

50. We have first considered the relevant standards and evidence to establish what should have happened.

51. Prior to the introduction of the Child Maintenance Decision Maker’s Guide (the DMG): Volume 2 Maintenance calculations in October 2020, the Pensions Law Decision Makers Guide: Child Maintenance Service: Policy Law and Decision making guidance’ (PLDMG), 2017 set out the guidance for CMS. This latter guidance is relevant in this case.

52. PLDMG explains that collection and enforcement fees became payable under certain circumstances in 2014. This included collection fees charged to both parents if a C&P arrangement is in place.

53. PLDMG tells us that CMS will only change a case to C&P if both parents agree to the change or alternatively if it considers that the non-resident parent is unlikely to comply with a voluntary arrangement. This means that CMS can only change a non-resident parent’s means of payment to C&P if it considers them ‘unlikely to pay’.

54. PLDMG: How to perform the unlikely to pay check says that this decision depends on the facts of the individual case. However, CMS is likely to consider a non-resident parent is not likely to pay if they: • already pay via an enforced method or have done so in the past six months • are undergoing legal enforcement action or have done so in the past six months • have missed one or more payments in the past six months • have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour over the past six months which indicates they might be unlikely to pay. For example a parent who has maintained all payments but only paid after intervention on the part of the CMS.

55. If a non-resident parent has missed one or more payments in the past six months, CMS will use its discretion to determine whether the missed payments constitute an unlikelihood to pay. For example, if a non-resident parent has missed a payment CMS must consider any available evidence to determine whether or not there was a reasonable explanation of the missed payments.

56. Where CMS finds a parent not likely to pay, CMS must inform the non-resident parent of the decision and explain why CMS has made it.

57. Having reviewed what happened in this case we consider that CMS’s decisions to apply C&P to Mr H’s case was in line with the guidance set out above.

58. Mr H was not already making payments by an enforced method or undergoing legal action. However, we consider that CMS reasonably applied its discretion here to decide he was not likely to pay. This is because he: • had missed several payments in the previous six months • agreed he had not paid the arrears payment • did not provide evidence of making the missed payments between October 2018 to January 2020. This was despite CMS asked him to provide this information on several occasions and advising him that it would change his case to C&P if he did not do so.

59. We understand Mr H feels strongly that CMS did not make this decision properly. Having considered all the available evidence above, we have not seen any indications of failings in CMS in reaching this decision and will not take further action.

Categorisation of case as sensitive

60. CMS confirmed it categorised Mr H’s case as sensitive or of ‘personal interest’ between July and December 2019. He says it was almost impossible to find a caseworker during this period who could access his case.

61. DWP has shared a screen shot of a note from the CMS system dated July 2019 which sets out the reasons for the categorisation of Mr H’s case as sensitive this time. This was because Mr H threatened self-harm and suicide which resulted in CMS contacting the police to check his wellbeing.

62. We are sorry to hear about what happened at this time and acknowledge that this was a very distressing and frustrating time for Mr H.

63. CMS: Personal Interest guidance, 9 October 2018 says that it should set a personal interest status on a case under different sets of circumstances. These circumstances include when there is a genuine threat of suicide. Once CMS has allocated this status to a case, the special client records team (SCRT) handles the case going forward.

64. CMS explained that typically, CMS agents will not tell individuals with active child maintenance cases that CMS has marked their case as sensitive, or that SCRT will manage their case.

65. This is set out in CMS: Sensitive case guidance, 23 May 2019. It says that if such a claimant calls CMS, the adviser must explain they cannot access the case details and should advise they will transfer the call to the team dealing with their case. They should not inform the customer that they are transferring them to the SCRT since they do not need to be made aware that they have a sensitive case.

66. CMS says that the above intervention is ‘likely for security and safety reasons, as some sensitive or vulnerable individuals may get more irritated knowing that their case is being handled differently’. They also say that it is unclear from the available records how Mr H found out that CMS had categorised his case as sensitive. He has not disclosed this information to us.

67. We have considered what happened here. We are sorry it was difficult for Mr H to contact the relevant team looking after his case during this period. We see that CMS’s decision to categorise his case as sensitive was in line with its guidance. We do not therefore see any indications of failings here and will not take further action.

CMS’s previous decision to reinstate a DP payment arrangement after the earlier ICE decision

68. Mr H also complains CMS did not agree on this occasion to change his case back to DP and refund any collection charges given the findings in the previous ICE investigation dated July 2019.

69. We have explained above that the earlier ICE investigation looked at Mr H’s complaint about CMS’s decision to change his case from DP to C&P in February 2016. ICE upheld his complaint but on the grounds that CMS had failed to process Mr H’s MR requests in respect of the maintenance calculations at this time. ICE said CMS should have done so before considering whether to change the case to C&P.

70. The most recent ICE report dated April 2024 is relevant to Mr H’s current complaint. It notes that in December 2017, CMS returned the case back to DP and refunded any charges. CMS also subsequently removed any enforcement fees. We have explained this was because CMS had not provided Mr with Mrs R’s bank details and therefore acknowledged that he could not have made any payments.

71. Mr H is of the view that given the findings in the previous ICE report and CMS’s decision to change his case back to DP in December 2017, it should do the same in this case. As such he wants it to revert the decision of February 2019 and return his case back again to DP.

72. Mr H understands the most recent ICE report has not made specific recommendations to CMS to reinstate his case to DP. However he believes this is the implied understanding of the most recent ICE decision since CMS cancelled the C&P arrangement set up in February 2016.

73. We understand Mr H is frustrated that CMS changed the C&P decision dated February 2016 but did not agree to change the subsequent C&P decision dated February 2019.

74. We have explained above why we have not seen any indications of failings in CMS’s decision dated February 2019. The relevant ICE report dated April 2024 did not find any failings here either and did not make any recommendations to CMS in respect of this decision. As such we would not expect CMS to take any further action. We will not therefore take this matter any further.

Adjustment of account in respect of payments made directly to Ms R.

75. Mr H is concerned CMS did not take his direct payments into account when calculating his arrears.

76. From the available evidence, we can see that Mr H continued to pay directly to Mrs R from February 2019 to February 20024. This is despite the fact CMS had changed his case to C&P and had told him on several occasions that he therefore needed to make his payments to CMS.

77. We have seen that on several occasions during this period of time, Mr H provided bank statements to CMS as evidence of his direct payments to Ms R and that CMS adjusted his account accordingly. However during the same period CMS charged him collection fees in line with the C&P arrangement. This is set out in PLMDG Charging: Collection Fees: Decision Making Guidance. He did not pay these costs and therefore his arrears continued to accumulate. CMS also charged him enforcement charges which related to the legal action it had taken to recover the arrears. We know from the ICE report that CMS later refunded these charges.

78. We have not seen any indications of failings here. Our principles of good administration expect all public organisations to: • make sure that is customers understand what they can and cannot expect from the public body and about their own responsibilities • treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case.

79. From the available evidence it appears that CMS complied with the above. This is because it has adjusted Mr H’s account when he presented evidence of his direct payments. Taking into account that it had advised Mr H on several occasions that he should have made these payments to CMS rather than directly to Ms R, we would not expect CMS to do more than this.

Refund of payments and request to forward to Ms R

80. We have not seen any evidence of CMS refunding payments and asking Mr H to pay them directly to Ms R during the timescale of the complaint. However CMS provided the following information which may be helpful to Mr H.

81. CMS said that on 9 December 2017, Mr H made a payment for £34.75 via standing order to CMS in line with the C&P payment arrangement. However since the case had by that date reverted to DP, the CMS system could not issue the payment to Ms R. DWP explained that instead CMS would need to refund this payment back to Mr H and advised he should pay this directly to Mrs R.

82. We understand that Mr H has experienced a significant level of upset and frustration over the last few years and this has impacted on his mental health. We hope that our consideration of his complaint reassures him that CMS acted in line with relevant guidance and standards.

1. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). We are sorry to hear about the difficulties he has experienced with his child maintenance case and the frustration and upset he has described to us.

2. Having reviewed the available evidence, we have not seen any indications of failings in the way CMS made its decision to change his case from Direct Pay (DP) to Collect and Pay (C&P) in February 2019.

3. We also do not consider there was anything in the Independent Case Examiner’s (ICE) decision which would suggest CMS should reinstate the DP payment arrangement and refund any fees and charges related to the C&P arrangement.

4. We have not seen any indication that CMS did not adjust Mr L’s account to include the payments he had made directly to his ex-partner, Ms R, whilst his case was on a C&P arrangement.

5. We have also not seen anything to suggest that, during the timescale of his complaint, CMS refunded payments he had made to CMS whilst on a C&P arrangement and asked him to pay these directly to Ms R.

6. As such we will not take further action on the above matters. We have explained our decision in more detail below.