3. Mr R complains that CMS has provided a consolatory payment which does not reflect the severity, duration and impact of its failings.
4. He says this has caused him distress and financial difficulties as well as adversely affecting his mental health.
5. Mr R would like CMS to make a payment of £25,000 and change the way it calculates and collects payments from parents.
6. Mr R has a child for whom he pays maintenance. As of August 2023, he was paying this directly to his ex-partner, Miss N, via Direct Pay. Direct Pay means that CMS is not involved in the collection and payment of the parent’s maintenance liability resulting in there being no charge to either parent. It tells one parent how much they should pay, and they pay this sum directly to the other parent. CMS assumes that all maintenance payments provided in this way are successful, unless the receiving parent tells it otherwise.
7. CMS undertook Mr R’s annual review in August 2023 and calculated his liability for the following year based on the income HMRC provided it with. It notified Mr R of its calculation and told him how much he needed to pay from September onwards. The amount CMS gave Mr R included his ongoing monthly liability plus a sum towards arrears that were on his account at that time.
8. Mr R contacted CMS in September and October after being off work sick for three weeks. He told CMS he would not be able to afford his October payment, and CMS initially gave him the impression that this would not be a problem. CMS accepts this was incorrect and it should have told Mr R that there would be repercussions if he did not make payments in accordance with the schedule.
9. CMS provided the right information later in October and it agreed with Mr R that he could make additional payments over the following three months to ‘catch up’ again. This was not standard process and so any calculations CMS sent to Mr R after this point would not include these additional three payments. CMS did not make this clear to Mr R or flag this within his records.
10. This caused complications when Mr R notified CMS of a change to his circumstances. This also occurred in October, and the change was that another child was living in his household. CMS recalculated Mr R’s liability accordingly and his ongoing maintenance was reduced. When CMS confirmed the new monthly sum due in writing, it did not include the informal additional sum to cover the missed payment. CMS did not make this clear when Mr R called to discuss the new calculation.
11. Miss N contacted CMS in November and December to say she had not received the additional sums from Mr R. Because of this, CMS arranged a change to how Mr R paid his maintenance and issued a Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO). This means the parent’s employer deducts a sum specified by CMS before paying the parent their remaining salary. CMS receives the maintenance from the employer and passes this on to the other parent. There is a charge to the paying parent for setting up the DEO, as well as charges for both parents for CMS managing the payment. Payment via DEO started in February 2024.
12. Mr R contacted CMS by phone and in writing on several occasions after this time. He queried the action taken and asked for the DEO to stop, telling CMS it was causing him to experience financial hardship. CMS declined to place Mr R back onto Direct Pay and the DEO continued.
13. Mr R asked the Independent Case Examiner (ICE, the second-tier organisation that considers complaints about CMS) to look at his complaint in September 2024. It issued its report in July 2025, upholding all aspects of the complaint. ICE recommended CMS put Mr R back onto Direct Pay, removed the collection fees from his account and refunded any already paid and removed the admin charge for setting up the DEO. DWP agreed to do this, as well as adjusting Mr R’s account to reflect a payment he made to Miss N directly in January 2024, apologising to him for its errors and making a consolatory payment of £200.
16. When 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.
17. There seems to be no dispute that CMS got things wrong in its handling of Mr R’s maintenance account. It gave him incorrect information about missing a payment, which then caused further problems when a new calculation was needed to reflect a change in his circumstance. In turn, this led to Miss N not receiving the ‘catch up’ payments she was expecting. When she reported this, CMS did not check the account records in enough detail to note how this had come about, leading to Mr R being placed onto a DEO. CMS then missed opportunities to pick up on its errors when Mr R contacted it to raise concern about the DEO.
18. ICE found CMS failed to follow the correct process when it changed Mr R from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay which resulted in a DEO. It also found CMS failed to respond to Mr R’s March 2024 complaint. ICE arranged for CMS to put Mr R back into the position he would have been in had they not occurred. It did this by effectively reversing the DEO process. CMS refunded the charges claimed for both setting up the DEO and collecting payment. Mr R was returned to Direct Pay and a payment he had made to Miss N during the time the payment change was underway was credited to his account.
19. CMS has also made a consolatory payment to Mr R in recognition of its failings. This is the focus of our consideration. Mr R believes this is not sufficient. He claims £25,000 is more appropriate.
20. DWP’s Guidance ‘Financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’ explains that there are three ‘special payment categories under which individuals can be awarded financial redress in response to DWP maladministration’. This applies to consideration of payments within CMS as CMS is a division of DWP.
21. The first of the three categories, loss of statutory entitlement, does not apply because this relates to a loss of benefits.
22. The second is ‘actual financial loss or costs’. The Guidance says that CMS can consider making a payment for this if the claimant has incurred additional costs or losses as a direct result of its failings. It notes that evidence is usually required to support a claim of this nature.
23. Mr R explained that the DEO left him with insufficient money to live off and caused him financial hardship. We acknowledge how difficult this period was likely to have been for Mr R. This does not meet the criteria for actual financial loss or costs and it does not seem he has submitted a claim for this. We checked this with Mr R to see what, if any, evidence he had provided to substantiate his claim. He has not sent this to us or explained what he sent to either CMS or ICE in support of his request.
24. The final category is consolatory payments, which may be provided where the claimant has suffered injustice or hardship arising from CMS’ errors. This is where Mr R’s case fits. The Guidance says that such payments usually range between £50 and £500.
25. CMS got things wrong with its handling of Mr R’s account over two periods. The first is between October and December 2023 with the implementation of the DEO and between the end of March 2024 and the start of August 2024 when it did not respond to his complaint letter. This totals just over six-months. We appreciate the period between October and December 2023 will have been stressful for Mr R. We recognise delays to complaint handling can be frustrating.
26. There were some matters (the addition, removal and re-addition of another child in the household, a change of employer name and pension contributions) during this time which we cannot consider.
27. We note by August 2024, CMS had told Mr R that he could apply to go back onto Direct Pay as he had made six successful payments via DEO. Despite reiterating this in September, it does not seem he made contact to arrange this.
28. Mr R says he was in financial hardship. We note a payment was unexpectedly collected from him in January 2024 via DEO because this was when his employer set it up for. CMS had asked for the payment to be sent to it by the middle of February, but it is not responsible for, or able to control, an employer’s decision as to when this should be done. Therefore, while we recognise this contributed to a difficult period for Mr R, we cannot link this additional payment to CMS’ failings.
29. The £200 CMS has paid Mr R falls within range set out in its Guidance. While not wishing to minimise the impact of CMS’ failings in Mr R’s case, we find the payment is appropriate and in line with the guidance.
30. We acknowledge that Mr R would like to receive a substantially increased payment. This in and of itself does not mean that CMS got it wrong when it made the level of payment it did. We find the £200 payment plus the action taken to cancel and refund the DEO charge, the return to Direct Pay and recognition of Mr R’s payment to Miss N, were appropriate actions. We therefore find no error in CMS’ actions in this regard and will not consider the matter further.
1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about CMS. We are sorry to hear about the frustrating and upsetting experience he has had in his dealings with it.
2. We see ICE has already identified errors in CMS handling of Mr R’s maintenance account. While we appreciate these errors must have been frustrating for him, we are satisfied the £200 consolatory payment CMS provided is in line with its guidance for making such payments. We recognise Mr R would like a larger payment. We have detailed how we reached our decision below.