Mr U's complaint about the Child Support Agency and the Independent Case Examiner
Jump to
It took nearly three years, the breakdown of his marriage, damage to his relationship with his children and being told to take a DNA test, before the Child Support Agency finally admitted that they had wrongly identified Mr U as the father of two children. What is worse, the Agency were aware less than two months after they initially made the mistake that they probably had the wrong man. They offered him a paltry £350 in compensation.
Background
In June 2003 the Child Support Agency (the Agency) incorrectly identified Mr U as the father of Ms L’s two children. (The ‘real’ non-resident parent had the same surname as Mr U – save for one letter – and the same date of birth.) In August the Agency noted that they had probably wrongly identified Mr U, and identified the ‘real’ non-resident parent. However, they took no action to trace the man or to remove Mr U from their records. In June 2004 the Agency sent Mr U a maintenance enquiry form. He and his wife initially thought it was a joke.
However, in July 2004, the Agency told Mr U that he was the non-resident parent and that he was required to pay child support maintenance. The Agency received a letter from Mr U in which he said ‘I do not know any person called … [Ms L], I have never had any children with this lady … I cannot understand how my name has been brought into this matter. You cannot imagine how much trouble this has caused as I repeat I do not know this person at all or her children’. He said he found the whole episode very distressing. Mr U also telephoned the Agency, saying that he was not the non-resident parent and that his wife was talking about divorce. The Agency said they would look into it but they did not follow that up.
In December 2005 Mr U wrote to tell the Agency that the situation had caused a ‘massive problem between me and my wife’. He said he had received no information from the Agency for over a year and was owed an explanation. The Agency did not reply. Nor did they reply to letters from Mr U’s solicitors sent in August and September 2006. A further letter from the solicitors in October prompted the Agency to telephone them saying that they were investigating the matter. In November the Agency told the solicitors that Mr U would have to take a DNA test to prove that he was not the father.
In January 2007 the solicitors told Mr U that the Agency now accepted that he was not the non-resident parent, and were removing his details from their records. The Agency subsequently apologised to Mr U for their mistake and offered him £100 in recognition of the upset and difficulties he had experienced. Mr U thanked them for recognising their mistake, but pointed out that it had taken nearly three years and a solicitor to resolve matters. He asked the Agency to imagine how difficult it was to explain things to his family, adding that he and his wife had been separated for nearly three years and he considered that the Agency’s actions had led to the breakdown of his marriage. He had also lost the respect of his children. Mr U told the Agency that he found the £100 payment both insulting and amusing, and asked them to consider a payment for the ‘mess you have made of my family’s lives’. The Agency’s response was to award Mr U a further £150 for gross inconvenience. Mr U remained dissatisfied, but the Agency declined to make a further payment.
Mr U then took his complaint to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), explaining that he felt the Agency had not offered appropriate redress for the ‘destruction of my life and other people’s lives’. Having made enquiries of the Agency, ICE told Mr U that he had already received ‘the maximum consolatory payment’ from them (that was not the case), and they could not ask them to consider a further payment. ICE then wrote to tell Mr U that the Agency had agreed to explain to him why they had identified him as the non-resident parent; to apologise for the inconvenience caused; and also to consider a further payment.
The Agency duly wrote to Mr U to apologise for the distress caused and for their ‘extremely poor service’. They said they should never have involved him in Ms L’s case, but having done so they should have immediately apologised and compensated him for his inconvenience. They explained how they came to send him a maintenance enquiry form, and acknowledged they had asked Jobcentre Plus to deduct money from his benefits. The Agency said that it was unacceptable that he had to wait so long until they resolved matters, and confirmed they had removed him from their records. The Agency subsequently awarded Mr U a further £100 for gross embarrassment, humiliation and personal intrusion. He wrote to the Agency in April 2008, asking them to consider further redress, but they concluded that the previous payments were fair redress for their errors. The Member of Parliament then referred Mr U’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
What we investigated
We investigated Mr U’s complaint that the Agency had incorrectly identified him as a non-resident parent and had continued to send him correspondence, even though they had acknowledged their error. We also investigated Mr U’s complaint that ICE had not resolved his complaint, because they had not asked the Agency to consider making a consolatory payment which took account of the distress and additional mental health difficulties he experienced.
By way of remedy, Mr U sought an increase in the consolatory payments awarded to him, which totalled £350.
What our investigation found
The Agency
We found that the Agency handled Mr U’s case very badly. They failed to ‘get it right’ when they incorrectly identified him as the non‑resident parent. Despite realising this error they did not amend their records, which resulted in the Agency wrongly sending Mr U a maintenance enquiry form; making a maintenance calculation; and asking Jobcentre Plus to deduct money from his benefit. The Agency failed to treat Mr U fairly.
Having made a mistake, it was incumbent on the Agency to put things right. Although they said that they had taken action to close the case in September 2004, they used the wrong closure code and they failed to write to Mr U confirming that they had wrongly identified him. Further opportunities to put things right were missed when they failed to act on, or reply to, letters from Mr U and his solicitors. Then, having decided to investigate the complaint, they did not act promptly and made things worse by deciding Mr U would have to take a DNA test to prove he was not the father, before establishing the full facts. It took the Agency two and a half years to confirm that they had incorrectly identified Mr U. That was unacceptable. The Agency’s initial error, together with their persistent failure to put things right and their failure to reply to correspondence, amounts to maladministration.
Independent Case Examiner
The crux of Mr U’s complaint to ICE was clearly the level of redress. Given the circumstances of Mr U’s grievance, it was a serious mistake to tell him that he had received the maximum consolatory award from the Agency when that was not the case. Although ICE went on to obtain a further £100 for Mr U, that did not rectify their error. Their failure to ‘get it right’ was maladministration.
Consequences
Although we were unable to say that the Agency’s actions were the sole reason for the breakdown of Mr U’s marriage and relationship with his children, Mr and Mrs U gave us compelling testimony about the devastating effect it had had on them. The Agency’s maladministration greatly strained his relationship with his family, and caused them a tremendous amount of worry, distress, aggravation and inconvenience. The feeling that Mr U had lost the trust and respect of his family would have caused him emotional and psychological difficulties, while his powerlessness to prevent the Agency’s intrusion into his life would have caused further aggravation, worry and distress. All of this significantly impacted on his mental health and exacerbated his depression. In providing incorrect information, ICE caused Mr U further inconvenience and upset.
We upheld Mr U’s complaints.
Resolution
As it was impossible to undo the damage done to Mr U by the Agency, the only reasonable remedy was for them to make him a significant payment to recognise the injustice he suffered. We therefore recommended that:
- the Agency pay a further £9,650 to Mr U (making £10,000 in total); and
- the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commissioner send Mr U a sincere apology.
We recommended that ICE:
- pay £250 to Mr U to remedy the distress, inconvenience and aggravation they caused; and
- the Independent Case Examiner send Mr U a written apology.
The Agency and ICE agreed to implement our recommendations.
