| |
Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - November 1997 - April 1998 > C.1501/96
Full Text of Selected Cases
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Delay in obtaining child support maintenance
12.1 Mrs X complained through a Citizens Advice Bureau that the Child Support Agency (CSA)'s mishandling of her application for child support maintenance (CSM) had prevented her from receiving CSM between 1993 and 1995 and that the arrangements for recovering arrears from the absent parent (AP) did not adequately compensate her for that loss.
12.2 In August 1996 one of my Directors reported the results of his investigation of a previous complaint by Mrs X about CSA's mishandling of her case (C.1128/95). The investigation into the present complaint began in November 1996 once my predecessor had obtained comments from the then Chief Executive of CSA. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by my staff; but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked.
Investigation
12.3 In a letter to the Member of 28 August 1996, the Citizens Advice Bureau asked how Mrs X was to obtain CSM of £3,539.99 due for the period 10 February 1994 to 2 November 1995, which would have been paid at the proper time had it not been for the maladministration by CSA identified in report C.1128/95. They said that CSA had sought payment from the AP at £2.40 a week but that the level of his earnings prevented that. In her comments on the complaint, the then Chief Executive said that payments of CSM continued to be collected regularly from the AP by means of a deduction from earnings order (DEO), which was for the maximum amount recoverable under the legislation, and to be passed on to Mrs X. There had been occasions when the AP's employer had been unable to deduct the full amount because the AP's earnings had been too low, but any shortfall had been carried forward to the next deduction.
12.4 CSA's papers show that on 13 March 1996 they told Mrs X that they were amending the DEO to £57.29 a week – that is £54.90 regular CSM and £2.39 towards the arrears due. On 22 March they received £175.27 under the DEO, which they paid to Mrs X on 2 April. On 24 April they received £235.16, which they paid to Mrs X on 3 May. On 7 May they recalculated the AP's regular CSM liability as £46.40 a week from 19 October 1995, and the arrears for the period 10 February 1994 to 2 November 1995 as £3,558.63. On 13 May they amended the DEO to £46.40 a week regular CSM and £4.80 a week towards the arrears. On 22 May they received £286.45 under the DEO; they paid that to Mrs X on 3 June. They received £262.09 on 24 June and paid to Mrs X £222.15 on 3 July and the balance of £39.94 on 8 July. On 23 July they received £204.80, which they paid to Mrs X on 1 August. On 29 August they received £229.82, which they paid to Mrs X on 9 September.
Back to top
12.5 On 12 September the Member wrote to the then Chief Executive asking her to consider Mrs X's case further because CSM arrears of more than £3,500 had accrued during a period when CSA should have been in a position to obtain payment from the AP, but had not done so due to maladministration. The Member suggested that CSA had a responsibility to compensate Mrs X in view of the lack of payment from the AP at that time. On 24 September the Chief Executive replied that £46.40 a week CSM and £4.80 a week towards arrears was being paid to Mrs X regularly and that, although she might not be happy with the rate at which the arrears were being collected, CSA had to make sure that that the AP was left with a certain level of earnings after payment of CSM.
Back to top
Findings
12.6 The report into case C.1128/95 identified maladministration by CSA during the period from March 1994 to October 1995, when they finally managed to assess correctly the AP's liability for CSM. CSA had calculated that the CSM arrears owed for the period 10 February 1994 to 2 November 1995 exceeded £3,500. It is probable that, had CSA acted without maladministration, Mrs X would have received most of that money at the time it was due. CSA were recovering the arrears from the AP at a rate of £4.80 a week, which, unless increased, meant that it would take more than 14 years for full payment to be effected. The question was whether, in addition to fulfilling their present statutory obligations to Mrs X and the AP regarding collection of CSM, CSA should take steps to compensate Mrs X for the delay in collection caused by their maladministration.
12.7 The approach which I, like my predecessor, consider correct has been accepted by Treasury Ministers before the then Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It is that a person who has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration should as far as possible be put back in the position he or she would have been in had the maladministration not occurred. Collection of arrears of more than £3,500 at £4.80 a week could hardly be said to be putting Mrs X back into the position she would have been in but for CSA's mistakes and delay; she had lost the use of a significant part of her income over a period of almost two years. I therefore asked the then Chief Executive if she would consider making an immediate payment to Mrs X of the amount of CSM which CSA could have collected for her in the absence of maladministration (less arrears already paid), to be recouped from the arrears payments to be made by the AP. I also asked if, in recognition of the loss of use to Mrs X of that sum up to the date of payment, CSA would consider paying interest on it on an ex gratia basis.
12.8 A number of other complaints had been referred to me which led me to seek redress on a similar basis, and it was necessary to pursue discussions on the point at some length with the Department of Social Security. In February 1998 the Department agreed in principle to make immediate payments to parents with care of the amount of CSM which they would have obtained in the absence of maladministration, and to pay interest for loss of use of the money. That agreement was reached on the understanding that CSA would seek agreement from the parent with care that such payments would subsequently be recovered from any payments made by the AP towards the arrears. (The interest payment would not be subject to recovery.)
Back to top
12.9 CSA have since informed my staff that the arrears of CSM currently outstanding in Mrs X's case amount to £3,683.17. They will therefore be making Mrs X an ex gratia payment of that amount and a further payment in the region of £520 by way of interest (the precise figure will depend upon when payment of the principal sum is made to Mrs X). In addition, they will make a payment of £81.72 by way of interest on the sums already paid by the AP towards the arrears. Mrs X should receive payment shortly. I understand that she has signed an undertaking that any money later received from the AP in respect of the relevant period will be payable to the Department.
Conclusion
12.10 Payment of CSM due to Mrs X was significantly delayed as a result of maladministration by CSA. CSA have now agreed to advance her the money owed, with interest. I regard that as a highly satisfactory, if belated, outcome to a justified complaint, which will be of considerable benefit to others in like circumstances.
23 March 1998
Back to top
Previous < Contents
Short text of this investigation
|
 |
