DNA Test
22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
23. Mr W complained CMS did not follow the correct process for chasing his ex-partner for a DNA test date. He explained it did not send her formal reminder letters at each stage of her non-engagement. It did not send CellMark a contact number for his ex-partner.
24. ICE reviewed this element of Mr W’s complaint and did not uphold it. It found CMS took longer than Mr W had hoped to deal with the case. It stated the time taken for the DNA test were issues beyond CMS’s control. ICE explained Miss A’s DNA test arrangements were a matter between her and Cellmark.
25. ICE found the 40 working day timescale was not a binding one and, in any event, this overran by two days, when CMS closed Mr W’s case with it.
26. We have considered CMS guidance of the decision makers guide. This sets out guidance CMS should follow if disputed parentage is raised. The guidance sets out that parentage can be assumed in some circumstances. None of these circumstances existed in Mr W’s case for parentage to be assumed.
27. The guidance states the maintenance calculation cannot be completed until the parentage dispute has been resolved. CMS will need to invite all parties to take a DNA Test.
28. CMS has provided its internal operational guidance for parentage dispute. This says when there is a parentage dispute, DNA testing can only be done through CMS contracted provider, which is Cellmark.
29. The internal guidance details that both parties involved should be asked several questions about parentage and any evidence in relation to this.
30. This guidance also sets out the process for CMS to follow if it is to action a DNA test. This includes obtaining consent from the receiving parent for their contact details to be provided to Cellmark. If consent has been obtained, CMS should obtain payment for the DNA test. Once payment is made CMS should send all the details to Cellmark. This includes the parties name, address, telephone number and date of birth.
31. CMS’s guidance details the date when the results are due is 40 working days from when it sends the parties details to Cellmark for the DNA testing.
32. The guidance states if the result is not available by the result due date, Cellmark will provide an email update. It confirms Cellmark will allow an extension to the due date in certain circumstances.
33. If a result or update has not been provided by the due date, the guidance states CMS should contact Cellmark to find out why.
34. We have considered CMS’s contact notes in full. However, we have not referenced every contact or everything that was discussed. We have only referenced those that are relevant to the complaint point.
35. From CMS’s contact notes we can see it opened a case for Mr W on 7 September 2023. This was following an application by his ex-partner Miss A.
36. On 11 October, CMS spoke with Miss A. She explained she is going through DNA testing to confirm if Mr W is the father.
37. The notes show on 12 October, CMS sent a letter to Mr W. On 17 October, CMS spoke with Mr W. He advised he is going through the court to do a DNA test. CMS explained it would go through a questionnaire about parentage, and if it is disputed it would offer a DNA test. It was explained to Mr W as he was not on the birth certificate, it would not progress the case until the DNA test process was completed.
38. CMS spoke with Miss A on the same day. During this call it was noted Miss A wished to carry on the case with CMS and to do the DNA testing through them, rather than through solicitors.
39. The notes show CMS contacted Mr W back on the same day to inform him of the above. Mr W explained he had already paid for a DNA test privately through his solicitors.
40. Following this contact the notes show CMS spoke with both Mr W and Miss A about the DNA testing.
41. On 13 November, CMS spoke with Miss A, and she confirmed she wishes CMS case to remain open and will complete the DNA testing via CMS.
42. On 16 November, CMS spoke with Mr W, who confirmed he would complete the parentage questions. He explained he wanted the DNA test done as soon as possible.
43. We can see on 17 November, CMS completed the required parentage questions with Miss A and obtained her consent for her contact details to be passed onto Cellmark.
44. The notes show on 20 November, CMS spoke with Mr W. During this call Mr W consented for the DNA test. He also completed the parentage questionnaire, including providing his consent to pass on his details to Cellmark.
45. On 21 November, Mr W paid for the DNA test. The notes show on 22 November CMS sent the referral to Cellmark.
46. On 24 November, Cellmark confirmed they had received the referral and provided its reference number.
47. On 29 November, CMS spoke with Mr W who confirmed he had arranged his DNA test for 2 December. He explained he was frustrated as following him speaking with Cellmark, they informed him, that Miss A had not yet booked her appointment. Following this we can see CMS made two attempts to call Miss A but were unable to get through. The notes show on 30 November, they spoke with Miss A, and she confirmed she had tried to book the DNA test, and she is waiting for the facility to get the kit. She explained once they have the kit in, they will contact her.
48. Between 30 November and 13 December, we can see there are several calls between CMS and Mr W. Within these calls Mr W, raised concerns about Miss A not booking the appointment for the DNA test, and requests CMS chase her up.
49. On 13 December, Mr W called CMS. He explained he was upset, as Cellmark informed him Miss A’s DNA test will not be completed until January, and he is not prepared to wait. On the same day CMS attempted to contact Miss A but were unsuccessful. The notes show it were to explain she needs to urgently book the DNA test before 28 December. CMS noted if no appointment is made it may close the case.
50. The notes show on 14 December CMS successfully spoke with Miss A. She explained she had contacted the clinic to book her test. She stated due to issues at the clinic all the appointments have needed to be re-scheduled. She explained the clinic is to contact her when the appointment can take place. She confirmed because of Christmas the appointment is likely to be the end or start of the new year. We can see CMS confirmed this to Mr W on the same day.
51. On 22 December, CMS speak with Miss A. She explained why an appointment had not been booked and confirmed this was out of her control.
52. Throughout December and January, we can see there are further calls between CMS and Mr W, where he expresses his frustration at the delay in Miss A arranging an appointment.
53. On 12 January 2024, CMS make several attempts to call Miss A but are unsuccessful. Miss A later calls back and explained she is waiting for the clinic to contact her regarding the test, and she cannot do anything until then.
54. CMS also speak with its internal team for parental disputes. They stated the 40 days is 40 working days and is a guide only. They confirm at the moment the case is on 34 days from when the referral was sent. The note also details that Mr W is to be advised Miss A is being compliant and the circumstances regarding the test are beyond her control. We can see CMS update Mr W on the same day. CMS confirm it did not need to send Miss A reminders letters, as these are only when someone is not compliant.
55. On 18 January, CMS note it is to call Miss A on 29 January, to check if she has arranged an appointment.
56. On 22 and 23 January, Mr W calls CMS to inform it that Cellmark has told him, the clinic does not have the contact details for Miss A. He requested CMS call her about this. On 23 and 24 January, CMS attempt to contact Miss A but are unsuccessful. CMS sent a text message asking for her to contact it.
57. The notes show on 25 January, Miss A contacted CMS to explain she wanted the case closed.
58. On 26 January, CMS wrote to Mr W informing him Miss A, no longer wanted to receive maintenance through CMS from him and he no longer needed to make payments from 17 October 2023 (the start date of the case). The following day, CMS sent a further letter, where it told Mr W the case could not continue because they were unable to confirm he was the parent of the child.
59. We appreciate how difficult and distressing this situation would have been for Mr W. We understand he was trying to find out as quickly as he could whether he was the father of the child. We appreciate how frustrating the process would be.
60. We know Mr W was not disputing he was the father, but that he did not know due to emails he had previously received from Miss A. From his account we understand why this would have been an extremely uncertain and distressing time for him.
61. In accordance with CMS decision makers guide, CMS could not assume parentage, as the following circumstances did not apply. These include the alleged parents being married at the time of conception, the father being named on the birth certificate, DNA test already completed, parental order made naming the parents, the child was conceived by assisted reproduction or there was a court declaration naming the parents.
62. As a parentage dispute had been raised, and CMS could not assume parentage, in line with its guidance CMS were correct to offer a DNA test to resolve the dispute. CMS could not complete its calculations or close the case until this issue had been resolved.
63. The evidence of the contact shows CMS followed its guidance of completing the questionnaires, obtaining consent for the test and for it to pass on the relevant details to Cellmark. In accordance with its guidance CMS could only instruct Cellmark to complete the DNA test.
64. We can see once CMS had completed the questionnaire with Mr W and Miss A, and Mr W paid for the test, CMS sent the required information to Cellmark on 22 November. Cellmark confirmed receipt on 24 November. This is in line with CMS’s guidance.
65. The guidance refers to the DNA test being completed within 40 working days. From when CMS sent off the test, this would be up to 22 January 2024. From the evidence we can see from when CMS sent off the test, it was in regular contact with both Mr W and Miss A. We acknowledge there was a problem with Miss A completing the test and this appears to be delayed. However, this was not due to the fault of CMS, and was circumstances outside of anyone’s control.
66. There would be no reason for CMS to send warning letters, as according to the evidence we have seen the delay were outside of Miss A’s control and she had explained this to CMS.
67. We have considered our principles of good administration. This says public bodies should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits.
68. The evidence shows when Mr W has raised concerns with CMS about Miss A not completing the DNA test, CMS has contacted with her, to find out what the problem is. We note when Mr W raised concerns about the clinic not having Miss A’s number, it has attempted to contact her to resolve the problem. This is in line with our principles of good administration of CMS dealing with Mr W’s concerns promptly and the action we would expect it to take.
69. CMS’s guidance allows for additional time for the DNA test to be completed in certain circumstances. From the evidence we have seen the delays were outside of anyone’s control. Therefore, it would be reasonable to extend the time limit.
70. In any event, when CMS closed Mr W’s case this was only four days outside of when the DNA test should have been completed.
71. Based on the above we are satisfied CMS followed its guidance for completing the DNA test. Accordingly, we do not consider there is a failing with this issue.
Information provided
72. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found CMS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
73. Mr W complained CMS provided incorrect and conflicting information each time he contacted it.
74. ICE reviewed this element of Mr W’s complaint and upheld it. Within its findings, it identified that CMS had mishandled his case in certain areas. It found CMS had provided inconsistent information to Mr W in response to his enquiries about the number of applications Miss A had made. Also it did not provide clear information about the timescale for the DNA testing. ICE found this contributed to Mr W’s expectation of a quicker resolution to the paternity dispute.
75. ICE recommended that CMS provide Mr W with a further apology and a £150 consolatory payment.
76. 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’.
77. From the ICE report we can see CMS provided Mr W with misinformation or confusing information regarding the DNA test and the number of applications Miss A had made to CMS on the following occasions, 3 November 2023, 6 November, 14 November, 8 December, 11 December and January 2024. We note on 8 December, CMS provided an inconsistent approach about whether to raise call backs.
78. We can also see ICE identified on 17 November and 27 November, CMS sent letters to Mr W, that did not reflect the situation and were unsuitable. ICE stated, CMS consistently used standard written notifications which did not suit the circumstances of Mr W’s case. It stated this is likely to have exacerbated Mr W’s frustration. ICE stated CMS could have replaced the letters with clerical versions using alternative wording.
79. We do not propose to detail the exact misinformation provided, as this is set out in the ICE report, available to Mr W.
80. However, the evidence available to us indicates that CMS did not always act in line with its Customer Charter with the information it provided to Mr W. Therefore, we can see there are indications of maladministration in this part of Mr W’s complaint.
81. We will address the impact and what actions CMS has taken to put this right further below.
Complaint Handling
82. Mr W complained CMS mishandled his complaint. He said it closed the first two complaints without action or a response.
83. He further explained CMS did not provide call backs as expected. He said the caseworker refused to speak with him.
84. Within the ICE report we can see it considered this issue as an additional matter. ICE found CMS had mishandled Mr W complaint and failed to account for the unusual circumstances of his case in its written communication with him.
85. ICE found while the arrangements for the DNA testing were outside of CMS control. Mr W was entitled to make a complaint to CMS about how it dealt with it.
86. ICE stated the volume and repetitious nature of Mr W’s contact was a factor in CMS’s handling of his concerns. However, it found that should not have affected Mr W’s ability to escalate those concerns.
87. We have further considered DWP’s ‘Customer Charter,’ which says DWP, and its agencies (which includes CMS) will:
•‘do what we say we will do •try to understand your circumstances •follow processes correctly’
88. We have also considered our principles for remedy, which says
89. ‘Public bodies should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits. They should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take.’
90. We can see on 8 December, CMS recorded callbacks should not be arranged due to excessive levels of contact. ICE found this was not consistently observed causing confusion. ICE considered this resulted in Mr W feeling like CMS were refusing to respond to him.
91. On 11 December, CMS did not respond to concerns Mr W had raised about the DNA process or direct him to its complaints team. On 13 December, when he contacted CMS and stated he wanted to raise a complaint, it incorrectly told him he had to do this online. ICE found CMS did not follow its internal complaints process.
92. On 3 January 2024, CMS closed Mr W’s complaint. However, there was no evidence of how it established Mr W understood the reason for this. Also, that CMS provided signposting to Mr W if he wished to escalate his concerns.
93. On 10 January, Mr W called CMS to request an update on his complaint. CMS informed Mr W it had been closed and he asked that a new one is raised.
94. We can see on 12 January, a CMS team leader spoke with Mr W about his concerns and its complaints process. During the call CMS did not provide details of how Mr W could escalate his concerns to its complaints team. Following this CMS closed the complaint. The notes detailed Mr W was happy with the explanation and update. ICE noted this is not supported by Mr W’s subsequent calls.
95. On 19 January, Mr W called CMS further and was told there was no open complaint. CMS incorrectly stated he could write in with his complaint to raise one. ICE identified CMS could have used the call for the new complaint.
96. From the evidence available we can see CMS did not respond to Mr W’s complaints raised as expected or in line with its customer charter. We note CMS has closed his complaint without making this clear to Mr W or explaining how he can escalate his complaint.
97. Based on this we are satisfied CMS has not acted in line with its own guidance of following the correct process. Furthermore, we do not consider it has followed the standard we would expect in accordance with our principles of remedy.
98. Therefore, we consider there is a failing with CMS in relation to this issue.
99. We will address the impact and what actions CMS has taken to put this right further below.
Impact and remedies
100. We have identified failings with CMS’s actions in relation to it providing confusing information to Mr W and how it dealt with his complaints.
101. As a result of the failings and his interaction with CMS, Mr W says he was signed off from work with stress and mental health issues. He says all he could think about was not being able to see his child. He explained he was close to ending his life because of the issues he was having with CMS.
102. He explained he was relying on solicitors and CMS to help with the paternity dispute, but CMS just made it worse.
103. Mr W further explained due to the incorrect information CMS provided to him, it resulted in his solicitor’s fees increasing.
104. When we are considering impact, we can only consider an impact we could reasonably say flowed solely and definitively as a result of an error we have identified. We cannot consider an impact which did not occur as a direct result of the error or may have occurred anyway.
105. Very sadly, the situation Mr W was in, was already a very difficult one. We understand why he would be feeling extreme uncertainty and disappointment in light of the situation he was in with his ex-partner and the unknown paternity of the child he had thought was his. We acknowledge this whole experience would have been stressful, distressing and frustrating for Mr W.
106. Any involvement with CMS in itself and in these circumstances, even if nothing went wrong, would be an understandably anxious and distressing time for Mr W.
107. We can see the situation and the timescales involved regarding the DNA test was extremely frustrating for Mr W, and we can understand why this was. However as we have not identified that CMS did anything wrong in this regard, we cannot consider any impact that occurred as a result of this.
108. Mr W has explained due to the incorrect information this resulted in him incurring increased solicitor’s fees. Mr W has provided evidence of some of his solicitor’s costs.
109. We appreciate any frustration caused by the misinformation, and we recognise this would have caused inconvenience. Based on the evidence we have seen we cannot say this resulted in increased solicitors’ costs. Mr W was already pursuing action through solicitors and therefore would have likely incurred costs in any event. It is not possible for us to say any of the mis or confusing information received, resulted in his solicitors having to do further work and increased his costs.
110. As noted above Mr W was already vulnerable and would have already been experiencing distress, uncertainty and frustration.
111. We consider the conflicting information CMS gave and its poor complaint handling will have clearly exacerbated Mr W’s distress and frustration, but we cannot say it was the sole nor main cause of it.
112. This means it is the additional stress and frustration CMS’ confusing information and poor complaint handling we consider ICE has asked CMS to compensate for.
113. ICE required CMS to provide Mr W with a consolatory payment of £150.
114. CMS’ guidance ‘Financial redress for maladministration’ sets out the instances CMS should make payments where there has been maladministration on its part. Any payments made come from public funds and are typically small.
115. Section 5.11 explains that such payments usually range between £50 and £500.
116. ICE’s recommended payment of £150, falls within this range. It is therefore reasonable to say it has acted in accordance with the applicable guidance. We think what it did recommend reflected the frustration and upset the misinformation caused Mr W.
117. We can see that the £150 offered now puts right the frustration CMS caused, in line with DWP’s own guidance and our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’. With this in mind, we will take no further action.
118. The evidence available to us indicates that CMS made a mistake in its handling of Mr W’s case but has already taken appropriate steps to put things right. As such, we will take no further action. We understand Mr W remains frustrated by CMS’s handling of his case, and we hope this statement clearly explains how we reached our decision.