Mr T's complaint about the Child Support Agency
Jump to
In Mr T’s case, the Child Support Agency’s handling of his complaint was atrocious; they failed to reply to some correspondence, the answers they did give were not always complete, and they provided a very poor service over the telephone. What had started as a relatively simple problem (their failure to implement a scheduled increase in his child support payments) became much more complicated because they failed to ‘put it right’ at the earliest opportunity.
Background to the complaint
Mr T paid child support maintenance to Ms A and to Ms B. His case was handled by the Child Support Agency’s (the Agency’s) Bolton office. In February 2007, in accordance with the Agency’s payment schedule, Mr T increased his payments to Ms A. However, the Agency returned £22.56 to Mr T in March, because they had not taken into account the fact that his payments to Ms A were meant to increase. The Agency told Ms A that she had been overpaid by £196.59 and asked her to repay it. Mr T’s relationship with Ms A then became fraught because she did not think she had been overpaid. The Agency also told Ms B that she had been overpaid by £9.63.
On 11 April 2007 the Agency asked Mr T to repay the money they had refunded to him in March. Mr T twice telephoned the Agency. In the first call, he asked to speak to a supervisor, but the line went dead while he was placed on hold. During the second call, Mr T said that he wanted to speak to a supervisor or manager. He was told that his call would be returned but it was not. A few days later Mr T received a letter from the Agency dated 23 March, telling him about the overpayments to Ms A and Ms B, and enclosing a new payment schedule. He telephoned the Agency, saying that he had been paying in line with the original payment schedule and could not see how the overpayments had occurred. He said that as he had paid the increased amount, which the Agency had then wrongly refunded to him, that was their mistake and he should not have to pay the money again. The Agency agreed with him. Mr T asked for a correct payment schedule. He was told his call would be returned in a few days, but it was not.
On 17 April 2007 Mr T emailed the Agency to complain about the way he had been spoken to on the telephone, and that his call had not been returned as promised. He again queried the payment schedule. Mr T said that ‘this whole situation is stressful and distressing for both my partner and myself’. Mr T telephoned the Agency on 30 April, in response to a call asking why he had not made payments the previous month. He said the adviser had put the telephone down on him when he had said she was not listening to his explanation for not making payments (namely, that the Agency were still sorting out his payments). The adviser said a manager would return his call. That did not happen.
On 1 May 2007 Mr T telephoned the Agency. He said he did not want them to ask for payment while he was waiting for them to tell him what he should pay. He sent an email of complaint to the Chief Executive’s office. The Agency did not respond. On 9 May Mr T emailed the Agency again, to say that Ms A had told him that the Agency had sent him a warning letter about non-payment. He asked the Agency to confirm this. The Agency telephoned Mr T on 12 May to say that they had received his email (they did not specify which) and would look into his complaint. The Agency’s note of the telephone call said an officer would call Mr T on 14 May after 4.00pm. There is no evidence that the Agency called Mr T or responded to his complaint.
On 10 May 2007 the Agency sent a letter to Mr T requesting maintenance of £135 (there was no indication for which period or for which parent with care this payment related to). Mr T made the payment on 11 May. On 29 May he emailed the Agency asking why they had not replied to his correspondence or sent him a new payment schedule. Ms A telephoned the Agency on 9 June and was told that they had not received any maintenance from Mr T. Mr T told us that Ms A accused him of failing to pay and reduced his contact with his daughter that week.
Mr T telephoned the Agency four times on 15 June 2007. In summary, he complained that the Agency were demanding payment, not giving him a payment schedule and not returning his calls. His requests to speak to a supervisor during these calls were refused. On 17 June Mr T sent an email of complaint to the Agency’s Senior Resolutions Manager. He said his calls had not been returned and that staff had been obstructive. On 25 July Mr T wrote a letter of complaint to the Agency. He said they had not replied to his emails, and that the £135 payment had all been paid to Ms A and had not been split with Ms B. On 27 July Mr T received a letter from the Agency requesting payments for 18 June and 19 July, which did not make clear which parent with care the payments related to. Mr T telephoned the Agency, and was told that the letter was wrong and a new payment schedule would be sent out.
On 10 August 2007 Mr T sent another email, further to a telephone call from the Agency informing him that they had sent his payroll details to an unknown party. He complained that the officer had refused to give further details. He asked what information had been released, and whether the Agency were trying to enforce a deduction from earnings order on his employer. On 13 August the Agency confirmed to Mr T that they had been trying to place a deduction from earnings order, and were investigating the data protection breach. On 14 August the Agency sent Mr T a revised payment schedule. He owed arrears to Ms A, which he paid, but on 5 September the Agency telephoned him chasing the payment. (During the call the Agency realised that Mr T had paid the arrears but that they had incorrectly split the payment between Ms A and Ms B.) Mr T emailed the Senior Resolutions Manager to complain. On 7 September the Agency told Mr T that as the mistake was theirs, they would pay the remaining arrears to Ms A.
On 10 September 2007 the Agency told Mr T that an error by Royal Mail had led to the disclosure of his personal details and that the Information Commissioner had been informed. On 21 November Mr T sent the Agency what was his eighth email of complaint, having been telephoned about a maintenance payment that he had in fact already paid. He also complained that he had not received any information about the investigation of the data protection breach. On 7 December the Senior Resolutions Manager apologised to Mr T for the poor service he had received. He said the Agency were investigating his complaints and the allocation of his payments. On 12 December Mr T emailed the Senior Resolutions Manager to say he was unhappy with the letter of 10 September and to ask why the Agency had been pursuing a deduction from earnings order.
What we investigated
Mr T complained to the Ombudsman in July 2007. We investigated his complaints that:
- the Agency had tried to enforce a deduction from earnings order when there were no arrears;
- staff were unhelpful, rude and obstructive;
- when the Agency provided his personal details to an unknown party they did not take appropriate action to deal with the incident; and
- the Agency failed to deal effectively with his emails and telephone calls of complaint, and had not taken action against staff who had behaved inappropriately.
Mr T said that the Agency’s actions had led to a breakdown in his relationship with one of the parents with care. He was frustrated and annoyed by the Agency’s treatment of him; he had not received a full response to his complaint and had spent time and effort trying to resolve things. Mr T wanted someone held accountable; he also wanted good customer service and complaint handling incorporated into the Agency’s procedures; an apology for the way his case was handled; and a payment for his correspondence costs.
What our investigation found
The Agency failed to implement an increase in Mr T’s payment schedule, and when he tried to sort out what he owed by asking for a new schedule, they took too long to provide it. The Agency incorrectly allocated payments of maintenance to the parents with care, and wrongly told them they had been overpaid. There would have been no need to attempt to implement a deduction from earnings order if the Agency had acted correctly. When judged against the Principles of Good Administration, the Agency did not ‘get it right’ and they repeatedly failed to ‘put things right’.
Although the Agency told Mr T about the breach of the Data Protection Act, they gave him very little information, and took over a month to explain to him why the breach had occurred. All of that was very poor service and amounted to maladministration.
The Agency’s complaint handling was atrocious. They failed to provide an adequate service during telephone calls, and badly handled Mr T’s emails and letters (in failing to provide substantive answers, or to respond at all). The Agency also failed to respond to Mr T’s complaints or to investigate the actions of staff. Their actions fell so far short of the standards of ‘Being customer focused’, as set out in the Principles of Good Administration, as to amount to maladministration.
Because of the Agency’s maladministration, Mr T’s relationships with both parents with care were strained; he suffered distress, inconvenience and frustration; and incurred unnecessary correspondence costs. All of that could have been avoided, if the Agency had responded more appropriately to Mr T’s complaint.
We concluded our investigation in September 2008 and upheld the complaint.
Outcome
The Agency accepted our recommendations and agreed to:
- pay compensation of £450 to Mr T (on top of £50 already paid);
- pay him £20 for his correspondence costs; and
- arrange for a senior officer to send him a written apology.
