Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Child Support Agency Cases
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
Chapter 2
DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
Child Support Agency and the Appeals Service: inadequate responses to enquiries and mishandling
Mr T completed a maintenance enquiry form in December 1997. Because the Child Support Agency (CSA) took a long time to assess his income and did not make the best use of the information which was available to them, it was over three years before they established his correct child support maintenance liability. Their handling of the voluntary payments, which both Mr T and his former wife confirmed that he had made, was particularly poor. They also on occasion responded inadequately to his queries. His appeals fared no better at the hands of the Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service), who were slow to act and who did not keep him properly informed. Although the Ombudsman did not find that they had made unauthorised disclosures of information to the other party, he found that neither body had handled Mr T’s concerns on the matter at all well. In April 2001 CSA refunded overpaid maintenance of £737.46 to Mr T and later, at the Ombudsman’s instigation, paid him interest of £22.88 for the loss of use of that money, and £170 for the inconvenience they had caused him. The Appeals Service offered him consolatory payments amounting to £200.
Back to top
Child Support Agency and the Independent Case Examiner: delay and inefficient handling
Miss E complained about the time taken by the Child Support Agency (CSA) to make an assessment and their delay in enforcing payment. She also complained that the Independent Case Examiner’s enquiry had taken too long to complete.
The Ombudsman found that when Miss E had applied for child support maintenance CSA were initially unable to proceed with her case because the non-resident parent disputed paternity. It took CSA one and a half years to establish paternity through DNA tests after Miss E had asked CSA to act for her. It then took CSA nearly a year to calculate the initial maintenance assessment by which time arrears of £5,959.02 had accrued. When the non-resident parent’s direct debit to pay monthly maintenance failed, CSA issued a deduction from earnings order to the non-resident parent’s employer, but the parent had left that employment. CSA quickly established a new employer but by then there was an attachment of earnings order in place which took priority and the employer was unable to deduct child support maintenance from the non-resident parent’s earnings. CSA started action to obtain a liability order against the non-resident parent but a delay of two years occurred before they obtained an order for the arrears of £15,697.38. Following a letter from bailiffs the non-resident parent contacted CSA agreeing to pay regular maintenance and arrears.
The Independent Case Examiner’s investigation into Miss E’s complaint about CSA’s handling of her case took over 12 months to complete. The Independent Case Examiner accepted that the case had not been handled as quickly as she would have wished and apologised to Miss E for the delay.
After the Independent Case Examiner’s intervention CSA had made Miss E consolatory payments of £125 for gross inconvenience and £300 for worry and distress, and £25 for telephone and postage cost. After the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA apologised to Miss E for their poor handling of her case and made Miss E further consolatory payments of £125 for gross inconvenience and £200 in respect of worry and distress. CSA also agreed to consider making Miss E an advance payment of the maintenance arrears once the non-resident parent had established a regular payment pattern.
Child Support Agency: delays in enforcing maintenance assessment and arrears
Dr L complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had delayed enforcing the maintenance assessment made against the non-resident parent, and that they were unable to enforce the arrears because the non-resident parent had left the country. The Ombudsman found that CSA had failed to enforce the assessment within a reasonable time. CSA accepted that they had delayed imposing an interim maintenance assessment They paid Dr L £1,496.77 in compensation for the period of delay and for the unenforceable arrears that remained.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delays and poor handling of enforcement action
Mrs W complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had taken too long to make an assessment and had failed to take effective enforcement action.
The Ombudsman found that in Mrs W’s case the non-resident parent, who was self-employed, had not provided CSA with the information necessary for making a maintenance assessment. After a delay of about six weeks CSA had imposed an interim maintenance assessment but he still did not comply and, after some confusion, CSA referred the case for enforcement. They obtained a liability order in good time but then failed to consider using CSA’s powers to appoint an inspector to obtain information from the non-resident parent or applying for a garnishee order. After a delay of over five months CSA arranged for bailiffs to attempt to levy distress against the non-resident parent. That failed and, after further delays, CSA warned the non-resident parent that they might instigate committal proceedings. He then became employed for a period. CSA ceased enforcement action and obtained some payments of child support maintenance through a deduction from earnings order on his employer. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s delays and omissions in handling her case had caused Mrs W considerable inconvenience. CSA had made her a consolatory payment of £100 with a further £15 for expenses when the Ombudsman first intervened. They agreed to pay Mrs W a further £100 for inconvenience.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: failure to collect child support maintenance
Mrs M complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had failed to collect maintenance due to her. The Ombudsman found that CSA had been slow to make an interim maintenance assessment and a deduction from earnings order. Over the next five years, CSA failed to keep abreast of the non-resident's employment status and as a result missed opportunities to obtain child support maintenance for Mrs M. They also failed to act on information given by Mrs M and the then Member and misled the then Member about that. Until prompted by the Ombudsman, CSA failed to take proper account of the non-resident parent's war disablement pension when calculating his liability. The Ombudsman found that CSA had failed to obtain child support maintenance when they had the opportunities to do so, which had led to Mrs M’s home being repossessed sooner than it would otherwise have been. CSA apologised to Mrs M. They made her a consolatory payment of £800 in recognition of the gross inconvenience and severe distress they had caused her, and they awarded her an ex gratia payment of £5,858.32 for the child support maintenance she had not received as a result of their maladministration, £1,033.52 interest for loss of use of that money and £60 for her out-of-pocket expenses.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: mishandling of a claim to child support maintenance
Mrs U applied for child support maintenance in December 1993, and told the Child Support Agency (CSA) that she believed that the non-resident parent was working while claiming benefit. The Ombudsman found that CSA had ignored her allegation and failed to take effective action to pursue the non-resident parent when his benefit claim ended in May 1994. They also ignored evidence of the non-resident parent’s income which they had received from the Benefits Agency in June 1996. They imposed an interim maintenance assessment in October 1996 and referred the case for enforcement in January 1997. Although the Member and Mrs U made a number of enquiries about the progress of the case, CSA did not obtain a liability order until March 1998. CSA also failed to record a new address for the non-resident parent, which Mrs U had given them, and instructed bailiffs to visit him at his previous address. The bailiffs’ action was therefore ineffective. CSA did not monitor the bailiffs and their action continued until December 1998. In September and October 1999 a CSA officer visited the non-resident parent who agreed to make payments towards the arrears. CSA made Mrs U a consolatory payment of £100 together with £15 for expenses in recognition of the inconvenience caused by their delays. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s management of Mrs U’s case had been very poor. CSA acknowledged that they had failed to use the evidence they had received in June 1996 and made a maintenance assessment effective from that date. They made Mrs U an advance payment of child support maintenance of £913.75 with £58.73 interest, and £150 for the inconvenience she had suffered. They also made a further advance payment of £304.28 with £33.97 interest after recalculating the deductions due from maintenance in respect of benefits already paid to Mrs U.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: misdirection of both the parent with care and the non-resident parent about their jurisdiction
Mrs H complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had misdirected her and the non-resident parent about the effect on her court order of the initial maintenance assessment.
When CSA made the initial maintenance assessment, they sent Mrs H and the non-resident parent notice of that assessment. The Ombudsman saw that CSA had subsequently recorded that they had sent formal notices to both parents, explaining that the maintenance assessment superseded only those provisions in the court order that related to child maintenance. He found no evidence that CSA had misdirected Mrs H on that point.
In April 1994 Mrs H applied to a court to have her court order set aside. In July 1995 CSA wrote to Mrs H telling her that her court order had been cancelled. The Ombudsman accepted that Mrs H may have taken that to mean that all of its provisions had been rendered unenforceable. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Chief Executive apologised for the poor drafting of that letter. The Ombudsman found that Mrs H had not suffered a financial loss as a result of CSA’s letter and, while the Ombudsman criticised CSA’s reasoning for not awarding Mrs H a consolatory payment, he found no grounds for asking CSA to consider making Mrs H a special payment.
The Ombudsman found no evidence that CSA had misdirected the non-resident parent about the court order.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: incorrect closure of case; alleged unfair treatment and delay in reaching financial redress decision
The Child Support Agency (CSA) incorrectly closed the parent with care’s application on the grounds of the ill-health of the non-resident parent (Ms W). They decided to re-open her case but took almost five months to tell Ms W that they had done so, and the delay in making a maintenance assessment caused Ms W to accrue considerable arrears. After Ms W showed CSA a copy of her consent order, CSA decided not to collect the arrears that had accrued before the consent order was made, leaving Ms W to pay £39.40 arrears. The Ombudsman found that Ms W had benefited from CSA closing her case, as it had delayed the start of her liability for child support maintenance, that CSA’s decision not to write off all of her arrears was not unreasonable, and that CSA had not treated Ms W unfairly in pursuing her for child support maintenance. He found that, although CSA had explained how they had treated her change of circumstances (a decision which a child support tribunal upheld), they had not dealt as well as they might with Ms W’s subsequent questions about that matter. However, he did not find that CSA had unduly delayed their decision to award Ms W a consolatory payment for inconvenience. CSA apologised for their poor handling of Ms W’s case and awarded her a further £150 in recognition of the distress they had caused her.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: mishandling of a claim to child support maintenance
Mr G applied for child support maintenance in May 1993. In 1998 the Independent Case Examiner found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had made a number of errors and delays in handling Mr G’s case, including imposing a defective interim maintenance assessment. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s handling of the case had not improved from 1998. They had delayed completing a periodic review due in April 1998 and dealing with Mr G’s application for a departure from the standard assessment formula. In 1999 their attempts to apply to the court for a liability order had been marred by mistakes and an order had not been obtained until February 2000. In February 2000, an employer confirmed that the non-resident parent had been employed by them since October 1997 and CSA revised the maintenance assessment from that date. However, they did not investigate whether the information might have had an effect on the earlier maintenance assessments. They imposed a deduction from earnings order in June 2000. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s handling of Mr G’s case had been very poor over a long period of time. As a result of the Independent Case Examiner’s intervention, CSA had made Mr G consolatory payments amounting to £250 and had paid him £30 for costs and advance payments of maintenance and interest amounting to £3,857.84. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA paid £250 for the severe distress caused to Mr G, a further £2,389.48 in advance payments and interest and an ex gratia payment of £708.40 for lost entitlement to maintenance resulting from the defective interim maintenance assessment. CSA also undertook to make further advance payments with interest when they had calculated the impact of the non-resident parent’s change of employment status on the maintenance assessments, and an additional £50 in recognition of further inconvenience caused to Mr G during 2000.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delays in handling a child support maintenance application and mishandling of enforcement action
Having sent the non-resident parent (Mr X) a maintenance enquiry form, the Child Support Agency (CSA) were slow to progress Ms B’s application for child support maintenance. Mr X was self-employed, unco-operative and without obvious assets. Although CSA had obtained a liability order, the Ombudsman found there was insufficient evidence to suggest that CSA could reasonably have been expected to have forced Mr X’s compliance before Ms B withdrew her authorisation, 18 months after making her application.
When Ms B re-applied in 1996, CSA were slow to pursue Mr X when he did not respond to the maintenance enquiry form and took two years to calculate an interim maintenance assessment. In March 1999 they obtained a second liability order against Mr X and, in August 2000, they obtained a third liability order. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s handling of the liability orders had been confused but found insufficient evidence to suggest that CSA could have successfully enforced payment of Mr X’s liability but for that maladministration.
The Ombudsman criticised CSA for their poor handling of enforcement action against Mr X and for the delays and errors they had caused in Ms B’s case. CSA apologised to Ms B and made her consolatory payments totalling £250 for gross inconvenience and £30 for out-of-pocket expenses. They obtained legal advice on further enforcement action against Mr X and gave assurances that they would pursue that advice as a matter of urgency, and that they would look again at making Ms B an advance payment of child support maintenance if they were able to obtain sufficient compliance from Mr X to satisfy the terms of their advance payment scheme.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delays and errors
The Ombudsman identified a number of shortcomings in the way the Child Support Agency (CSA) had handled Mr R’s case and upheld his complaint. The Ombudsman found that CSA had failed to carry out the periodic reviews of Mr R’s maintenance liability which were due in April 1994 and April 1996. A periodic review wrongly conducted in 1997, and made with effect from 6 February 1995, led to a reduction in Mr R’s maintenance liability. That meant that he had overpaid maintenance. In February 1999 CSA carried out a change of circumstances review which led to a further reduction in Mr R’s weekly maintenance liability. However, CSA applied that reduction from February 1998, instead of February 1999; which made it appear that a further overpayment had arisen. CSA did not discover the error until June 1999, and, in attempting to correct it they wrongly input into the child support computer system a nil assessment effective from February 1998. That assessment was implemented, which made it appear that yet another overpayment has occurred. CSA calculated that Mr R had overpaid by £3,287.46 and adjusted Mr R’s weekly payments so as to offset the overpayment over a period of time. CSA did not discover the error over the nil assessment until June 2000, at which point they calculated that Mr R had been undercharged by £2,903.32 for the period 10 February 1998 to 9 February 1999 and that he owed arrears of £766.98. CSA imposed a deduction from earnings order requiring Mr R to pay regular maintenance plus £12.41 per week towards his arrears.
The Ombudsman criticised CSA for their poor handling of Mr R’s case. CSA awarded Mr R a consolatory payment of £200 and paid him £20 towards his out-of-pocket expenses; reduced the rate of recovery of his arrears to the minimum weekly amount of £5.30; and agreed to consider carrying out the outstanding periodic reviews for 1994 and 1996. The Director of Operations apologised for CSA’s failings.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: repeated miscalculation of child support maintenance liability; misleading advice and literature
Mr D complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had miscalculated his maintenance liability and provided misleading advice. He contended that as a result of CSA’s errors he had taken on long term financial commitments which he later had difficulty in meeting.
The Ombudsman found that CSA had repeatedly made errors in calculating Mr D’s child support maintenance liability. Following an assessment that was erroneously calculated at nil, Mr D took on long term financial commitments. When Mr D disputed a decision to revise the maintenance assessment, CSA failed to follow their appeal procedures, thus denying him a right of appeal. The Deputy Chief Executive noted that Mr D’s case had been reviewed and corrective action taken. He apologised for the service Mr D had received and CSA awarded him £60 for the inconvenience caused and to cover contact costs. The Ombudsman upheld most of Mr D’s complaint but, while he accepted that Mr D would have been influenced by the incorrect assessment when taking on long term financial commitments, he did not consider that CSA should be held wholly responsible for his decision. CSA reviewed the consolatory payment at the Ombudsman’s request and awarded a further £50.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delay in raising a maintenance assessment, incorrect interpretation of the effect of a Minute of Agreement and refusal to refund resulting legal fees incurred
The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency’s (CSA’s) management of Mr C’s case was at times very poor and at other times non-existent. In 1997, when CSA made an assessment, they ignored information, used out-of-date information and sent notification of the assessment to Mr C’s previous address. It was not until December 1998 that Mr C was aware that an assessment had been made. CSA then imposed a deduction from earnings order with undue haste, ignoring Mr C’s request for an interview to discuss his case. When Mr C told CSA that he had entered into a Minute of Agreement, they gave him incorrect advice as to its standing when there was CSA involvement and advised that the best option was to have it varied or cancelled, which was incorrect. Mr C followed that advice and incurred legal costs of £2,942.86. When Mr C later challenged CSA about the advice he had been given, they refused to refund the costs he had incurred. As a result of the Ombudsman’s intervention, CSA acknowledged that their advice to staff regarding the standing of a Minute of Agreement had been incorrect and said they would prepare new guidance. CSA refunded Mr C’s legal fees and reimbursed him for payments totalling £450 that he had made to the parent with care and which had not been offset against his maintenance liability. CSA paid Mr C £38.58 as interest on those payments and made him further consolatory payments totalling £450.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: poor handling of maintenance assessments
Ms L, the non-resident parent, complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had handled her case poorly. The Ombudsman found that there had been some delays in considering Ms L’s application for a departure and that CSA had made a number of errors, including computer entries, about the amount and operational date of the departed assessments. Ms L appealed against the departure decision but CSA wrongly included in their submission details of a family unit different from the subject of appeal. After an appeal tribunal in March 2000, CSA continued to get things wrong. It was not until the end of June that they finally discovered their errors and put matters right. CSA made other handling errors such as delaying sending Ms L a statement of her account. Worse was to follow: in checking the case afresh CSA discovered that in calculating Ms L’s maintenance assessments at the outset they had made two errors, the correction of which resulted in the calculation of substantially higher assessments. CSA agreed to defer most of the additional amounts due and to suspend collection of the rest. As a result of the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA awarded Ms L consolatory payments totalling £275, including £25 for out-of-pocket expenses.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance, failure to take adequate enforcement action and failure to handle properly a subsequent complaint
The Ombudsman upheld Mrs M’s complaint that she had received a poor level of service from the Child Support Agency (CSA) over a long period of time. Although the actions of both parents had been a contributory factor, there were lengthy delays in bringing the case up to date which hampered CSA’s ability to take timely enforcement action. Both parents had given conflicting information to CSA regarding the arrangements for shared care of the children, and voluntary payments made by the non-resident parent, but CSA’s failure to give prompt and accurate attention to the matter exacerbated the problems and delayed an appropriate resolution. The problems were further exacerbated by CSA’s inadequate explanations to the non-resident parent which provided him with an excuse to withhold maintenance payments. When CSA eventually began preparations for obtaining a liability order, they discovered errors in several of their existing maintenance assessments, causing further delays for recalculation and giving rise to additional arrears. Enforcement action was again delayed by CSA incorrectly noting on their files an ‘outstanding departure application’ by the non-resident parent, even though no such application had been made. In May 1999 CSA started action to obtain a liability order, but the court hearing was first adjourned and later dismissed largely because CSA were inadequately prepared for it. Meanwhile, CSA’s handling of a departure application made by Mrs M in June 1997 was also subject to lengthy and unwarranted delays, as was their subsequent implementation of Mrs M’s successful appeal to a tribunal. Those delays led to the accrual of maintenance arrears which were significantly greater than they would otherwise have been. CSA also applied incorrect procedures to the non-resident parent’s request for a review in August 2000, causing further unnecessary delay and again giving the non-resident parent an excuse to withhold maintenance payments. CSA paid Mrs M £200 for gross inconvenience, £640.34 as interest on maintenance received late from the non-resident parent, £969.38 as reimbursement of her accountant’s fees and £30 for her out-of-pocket expenses. They also agreed to make an advance lump sum payment to Mrs M in respect of the outstanding maintenance arrears of around £8,000, together with interest on that sum.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delays and ineffective enforcement action; wrongful disclosure of information
When the parent with care, Mrs P, applied for child support maintenance in 1996, she was unable to provide an address for the non-resident parent (Mr Q). Although the Child Support Agency (CSA) tried to verify Mr Q’s address through other sources, the Ombudsman found that they had not been sufficiently rigorous in their attempts to trace him, delaying an interim maintenance assessment. They were also slow in not converting that interim maintenance assessment to a full maintenance assessment until February 2000. By then CSA had referred Mrs P’s case for enforcement action, thus giving her unrealistic expectations of the maintenance she might expect to receive. CSA also failed to investigate properly Mrs P’s allegations that Mr Q had a lifestyle that was incompatible with his declared income and did not refer his case for investigation by the Benefits Agency until after the intervention of the Ombudsman. CSA also disclosed to Mr Q the contents of Mrs P’s application for a departure after she had asked them to suspend that application and not to disclose its contents to Mr Q.
CSA paid Mrs P £200 for gross inconvenience, £50 for gross embarrassment, £20 for out-of-pocket expenses and agreed to consider a payment for severe distress if she provided suitable evidence. They also gave assurances about the future conduct of her case. Mr Q’s lack of co-operation and the absence of evidence that CSA could have forced his compliance led the Ombudsman to conclude that there were no grounds for CSA to make Mrs P an advance payment of the arrears of child support maintenance owed by Mr Q.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in processing a claim for child support maintenance; failure to take effective enforcement action
The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to take effective action on Mrs C’s application once they had obtained an address for the non-resident parent and sent him a maintenance enquiry form. They were slow to chase up the non-resident parent when he did not reply and later allowed the application to lie dormant for nearly two years. Further delays and confusion followed. CSA eventually imposed an interim maintenance assessment but failed to take advantage of the positive response that produced from the non-resident parent. They also failed to take effective action to enforce the interim maintenance assessment and were slow to take action when bailiffs reached an unsatisfactory agreement with the non-resident parent. CSA paid Mrs C £250 for gross inconvenience, and £50 for out-of-pocket expenses. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention they paid her an additional £75 for gross inconvenience, and a further £25 for out-of-pocket expenses. The Chief Executive of CSA apologised to Mrs C and gave assurances about the future conduct of her case. He also said that CSA had, in the interests of improved customer service, entered into a new contract for bailiffs’ services that should allow proper monitoring of their actions on CSA’s behalf.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: failure to take adequate steps to trace non-resident parent; unreasonable delay in imposing an interim maintenance assessment and deduction from earnings order
Mrs Y applied for child support maintenance in February 1994 but has yet to receive any. The non-resident parent of her daughters filled in a maintenance enquiry form but did not give sufficient information to enable the Child Support Agency (CSA) to calculate an assessment. Although they sent him repeated warnings that they would impose an interim maintenance assessment if he did not co-operate, they did not do so until three years later. He moved employment frequently and CSA had difficulty establishing a confident home address for him, despite information from Mrs Y. The Ombudsman found that there had been long gaps between CSA’s periods of action and that they had failed to keep Mrs Y properly informed of progress. CSA awarded Mrs Y £300 for gross inconvenience plus £30 towards her postal and telephone costs in chasing up her application. They gave the Ombudsman assurances that they had located the non-resident parent and would enforce his liability through a deduction from earnings order or liability order.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: alleged inadequate redress for the effects of maladministration
Mr R complained that maladministration by the Child Support Agency (CSA) had caused him to lose his job and his home. The Ombudsman found that, although the requirement to pay child support maintenance had added to the financial pressures which Mr R was under, the loss of his property was not due to maladministration by CSA. CSA had made serious errors in their handling of Mr R’s case which added to the stress which Mr R suffered, but the Ombudsman found that those errors had not been the sole cause of Mr R’s nervous breakdown, which had caused him to leave his job. The Independent Case Examiner had investigated Mr R’s case and the Ombudsman criticised CSA for a superficial response to her recommendations until after the Member of Parliament had raised the case in the House of Commons, after which CSA had reassessed Mr R’s case. They reimbursed him for overpaid child support maintenance and paid him of £1,250 for severe distress and gross inconvenience.
Back to top
Child Support Agency: failure to secure maintenance payments for over seven years and refusal to offer compensation
Miss D complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to secure child support maintenance payments for her daughter for more than seven years. She disputed that any of the arrears due were owed to the Secretary of State in respect of income support that she had received. She also claimed that she should be compensated for a £1,000 tax free child maintenance bonus that she would have received if CSA had collected even a nominal amount from the non-resident parent. The Ombudsman found that the non-resident parent had been determinedly unco-operative, but that CSA had failed to pursue properly the opportunity to enforce a charging order on his property. CSA assured the Ombudsman that they would press ahead with court action and that, if they were successful in enforcing a full maintenance assessment, they would consider making Miss D a lump sum advance payment against the assessment. A substantial proportion of the arrears was, however, properly owed to the Secretary of State. CSA also agreed to consider compensating Miss D for the child maintenance bonus foregone if she started paid employment. They offered Miss D an additional consolatory payment of £100 for gross inconvenience (they had previously paid her £75 plus out-of-pocket expenses).
Back to top
Child Support Agency: poor handling of application for child support maintenance, failure to take efficient enforcement action, and failure to pay compensation for an unenforceable interim maintenance assessment
In December 1993 the Child Support Agency (CSA) made a mistake with the date of an interim maintenance assessment which they imposed when the non-resident parent failed to return a maintenance enquiry form. That left an unenforceable period of liability until 15 February 1995 when legislative changes enabled CSA to correct the mistake. Ms P asked CSA to compensate her for her lost entitlement to child support maintenance of over £4,000, but CSA did not properly consider her request until after the Ombudsman’s intervention. CSA agreed to compensate Ms P subject to an adjustment to offset the family credit she would not have received if child support maintenance had been in payment. CSA initially awarded Ms P £2,072.63 for the unenforceable period of liability plus £593.03 as interest for loss of use of the money. In accordance with the then Department of Social Security’s arrangements for offsetting family credit, which came into force on 19 December 2000, CSA paid Ms P a further of £468.22 plus interest of £187.34. CSA also paid Ms P £200 for gross inconvenience and agreed to consider an advance payment of maintenance when the criteria for such a payment are met.
Previous < Contents
Back to top
|
