Home >  Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.1528/97

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

First Report Session 1998-99

Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Case No. C.1528/97

Delay in making and enforcing a maintenance assessment and in deciding a claim for compensation

12.1. Mrs Y complained about delay by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in making a maintenance assessment (MA) and then in enforcing it. She also complained of delay in deciding her claim for compensation. My investigation into Mrs Y's complaint began in March once the Ombudsman had obtained comments from the Chief Executive of CSA. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by the Ombudsman's staff; but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked.

Background

12.2. CSA are responsible for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child support maintenance (CSM). They obtain information about the absent parent from the parent with care of the child. They then send the absent parent a maintenance enquiry form (MEF) to obtain a financial statement so that the amount of CSM can be assessed under a standard formula, according to the circumstances of both parents. Before April 1995, unless there was a court order in force, CSM liability started from the day the maintenance enquiry form was sent or given to the absent parent.

12.3. MAs are completed by child support officers based in Child Support Agency Centres. Mrs Y's case was dealt with by the Belfast Centre (the Centre). If insufficient information has been provided to enable a MA to be made a child support officer may make an interim MA, which is normally set at a rate higher than a full MA, thus creating an incentive for the absent parent to provide the necessary information. Before imposing an interim MA CSA must give the absent parent written notice of their intention and 14 days in which to supply the missing information. The interim MA remains payable until the information needed to make a full MA is supplied. Any voluntary payments of maintenance made by an absent parent to a parent with care, during a period when the absent parent is liable to pay CSM to CSA, are off-set against any arrears of CSM that may be owed by the absent parent. If an absent parent is self employed or is not employed then a child support officer may apply to the courts for a liability order and may subsequently seek to enforce payment of CSM through the seizure and sale of goods.

Back to top

12.4. Under section 16 of the Child Support Act (the Act) CSA carry out regular periodical reviews of all MAs. Under section 18 of the Act a person who is dissatisfied with a child support officer's decision may apply for a review by a different child support officer. If a parent remains dissatisfied he or she may then appeal to a Child Support Appeal Tribunal against the decision on review or refusal to review. Reviews are also carried out under section 17 of the Act after a change in either parent's circumstances and, under section 19 of the Act, a child support officer may, at his discretion, conduct a review without being asked to do so by either parent. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine a person's maintenance liability. This report is concerned only with the administrative actions of CSA in dealing with Mrs Y's case.

Back to top

CSA's reply to the complaint

12.5. In her comments on Mrs Y's complaint, the Chief Executive of CSA gave an account of the events in Mrs Y's case. An edited extract from that is at Appendix A. I have scrutinised the Department's papers and I am satisfied that the Chief Executive's account is an accurate summary of events. Appendix B lists and explains the abbreviations used in this report.

12.6 In concluding her comments the Chief Executive said that delays and mistakes had occurred in the handling of Mrs Y's case and that the Centre had failed to provide Mrs Y with prompt and accurate replies to her enquiries. The case had been further complicated because of the non co-operation of the absent parent (Mr X) but that could not obscure the fact that Mrs Y had not been provided with the standard of service that she had every right to expect. Her case had been referred back to CSA's special payments unit to consider compensation, particularly in the light of the Permanent Secretary's agreement in respect of lump sum payments for arrears of CSM.

Back to top

Later developments

12.7. On 2 March 1998 the Chief Executive wrote to Mrs Y apologising for the difficulties that she had experienced in her dealings with CSA. She said that it was open to Mrs Y to show that the payment to her of £25 for postage and telephone costs was insufficient by producing details of actual costs. She said that any evidence to show that Mrs Y's health had suffered as result of CSA's handling would also be considered. On 3 April 1998 a magistrates court made a liability order against Mr X for £6,670.48, for the period from 3 March 1994 to 30 January 1998. On 21 April the Department of Social Security told the Ombudsman's staff that CSA had authorised a further payment of £30 to Mrs Y for telephone, postage, and photocopying costs incurred in pursuit of her case, a consolatory payment of £150 for the gross inconvenience caused by the Centre's errors and delays, and a consolatory payment of £250 for the severe distress caused to Mrs Y by the Centre's mishandling of her case. On 28 May the Department of Social Security told the Ombudsman's staff that Mrs Y's case was with the CSA's bailiffs who had twice written to Mr X and who planned to visit him if he did not reply; they said that Mr X was continuing to make voluntary payments of £250 a month to Mrs Y. On 23 July CSA decided to make an extra statutory payment of £6,953.93 to Mrs Y in compensation for arrears of CSM that had accrued over the period from 3 March 1994 to 6 March 1998. (That calculation took into account voluntary payments made by Mr X to Mrs Y of £8,572.87, between March 1994 and February 1998, which were off-set against the Mr X's total arrears of CSM of £15,806.80.) They also decided to award Mrs Y an ex gratia payment of £915.14 for loss of use of those arrears of CSM. CSA said that Mrs Y had signed an undertaking that any CSM later received from Mr X in respect of the relevant period would be payable to the Department.

Back to top

Findings

12.8. Mrs Y's case was badly handled by CSA. After receiving Mrs Y's application for CSM in August 1993 there was a delay of six months before, CSA sent a MEF to Mr X on 2 March 1994. Even allowing for the then volume of work at the Centre that was a serious delay which resulted in Mr X's liability for CSM starting from a date much later than should have been the case. Although Mr X returned the MEF within two weeks the information he provided was incomplete but it was not until July 1994 that CSA asked for the missing details and it was not until 30 December 1994, in the absence of a reply from Mr X, that they imposed an interim MA on Mr X. I criticise CSA for their procrastination.

12.9. On 26 May 1995 Mrs Y asked CSA to collect CSM from Mr X on her behalf. On 22 June 1995 CSA warned Mr X of enforcement action. Although Mr X then provided his business accounts it was not until October 1995, after CSA had warned him of their intention to seek a liability order against him, that he began to co-operate further. However it took until December 1995 before CSA had gathered from him sufficient information to make a full MA. That was far from the end of the story. Although Mr X made some payments of CSM to CSA over the ensuing months they totalled no more than £280. However CSA did nothing about enforcement until 29 July 1996 (at which time CSA calculated Mr X's arrears to be £3,308.30) when they again warned Mr X of liability order action. After that CSA suspended and then stopped enforcement action even though Mr X had stopped paying CSM. Enforcement action then drifted, needlessly diverted by reviews of the MA and Mrs Y's appeal, until 30 January 1998 when CSA again warned Mr X of liability order action. CSA finally obtained a liability order on 3 April 1998. Even taking into account Mr X's lack of co-operation, and administrative difficulties caused for CSA by the review requests and appeal over the period in question, CSA's performance in seeking to obtain payments from Mr X was extremely poor. That merits my strong criticism.

12.10. CSA's handling of Mrs Y's claim for compensation was equally deficient. Mrs Y asked for compensation in July 1996 but CSA did not tell her of their decision on that application until 30 January 1998. The delay arose, in part, because of CSA's decision to defer consideration of the claim until the outcome of the reviews and appeal was known. Nevertheless CSA's conduct of the claim was appallingly slow and I severely criticise them accordingly.

Back to top

12.11. As regards redress, CSA have made (paragraph 12.8) two ex gratia payments totalling £55 to Mrs Y for costs incurred in pursuit of her case and two ex gratia payments totalling £400 for the distress, worry, and inconvenience she suffered through maladministration. CSA have also decided to make Mrs Y an extra statutory payment of £6,953.93 in respect of those arrears of CSM that accrued up to 6 March 1998, together with a payment of interest on that sum amounting to £915.14. Mrs Y should receive payment shortly. I welcome the decision to make those payments which I consider to be a very satisfactory level of compensation for Mrs Y. Mr X remains liable for the arrears of CSM that accrued up to 6 March 1998, and for any that may have accrued since then.

Conclusion

12.12. As a result of maladministration by CSA Mrs Y lost entitlement to CSM over a significant period, received an inadequate collection service, and had to devote much time, effort and expenditure in taking up her case with CSA. As matters stand I regard the ex gratia payments totalling £8,324.07 that have already been, or will shortly be made to Mrs Y, together with the apologies given to her by the Chief Executive, as a most suitable outcome to her fully justified complaint.

25 August 1998

Back to top

Appendix A

Edited version of the Chief Executive's account

1. On 31 August 1993 Mrs Y applied for CSM as a private client. [She said that Mr X made voluntary payments of maintenance to her of £40 a week for her two children and that she did not wish to use CSA's collection service.] Due to the volume of outstanding work at the Centre a MEF was not sent to Mr X until 2 March 1994.

2. On 17 March Mr X, [who was self employed] returned the MEF but details of his housing costs and his business accounts were needed in order to calculate a MA. Despite reminders this information was not provided. [On 24 August the Centre's business team was asked to warn Mr X of the issue of an interim MA but they did not do so until 6 December.] On 30 December an interim MA [of £113.93 a week effective from 29 December] was imposed.

3. [On 26 May 1995 Mrs Y asked the Centre to enforce collection of CSM from Mr X on her behalf.] On 22 June the Centre advised Mr X that enforcement action was being considered. His business accounts were received in July but further information about his housing costs remained outstanding. [On 5 October Mr X agreed with the Centre to pay CSM of £40 a week and in December he provided the Centre with further information.]

4. On 3 January 1996 the full MA was finally completed and both parents were advised of the new liabilities and the amount of the arrears [of £4,094.] Later in January Mrs Y sought a review of the full MA under section 18 of the Child Support Act 1991 (paragraph 12.5). Further information was requested from Mr X and as that was not received, the review was completed on 28 June using the best evidence available. Mrs Y appealed against the resulting MAs.

Back to top

5. On 29 July and again on 29 August the Centre advised Mr X that the Agency intended to apply for a liability order (paragraph 12.4.) However on 13 September enforcement action was suspended as both periodical and change of circumstances reviews (paragraph 12.5) were required before enforcement would take place.

6. On 30 August Mrs Y applied to the Centre for compensation for delay in enforcement and for the distress that she said that she had been caused. Consideration of that claim was delayed pending completion of the appeal and outstanding reviews. On 21 February 1997 the change of circumstances review was completed.

7. On 19 February 1997 the Chairman of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal adjourned a hearing in order to give Mr X an opportunity of responding to Mrs Y's appeal. Despite reminders the Agency's Central Appeals Unit were unable to elicit a response from Mr X and on 29 July the Child Support Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the case to CSA for the MA to be recalculated in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

8. On 2 September the outstanding periodical review was completed and on 29 September the MA was also revised as directed by the Child Support Appeal Tribunal.

9. On 27 January 1998 a review under section 19 of the Child Support Act 1991 (paragraph 12.5) was completed to correct Mr X's self-employed earnings and income from rent. On 30 January pre-litigation checks were completed and the amount of CSM outstanding from Mr X, [after taking into account voluntary payments of £3,434.29 made by Mr X to Mrs Y and CSM payments of £280 made to CSA,] was calculated as £11,659.06. That same day CSA sent Mrs Y a compensatory payment of £25 for excessive telephone and postal costs.

10. [On 1 February Mrs Y told her Member that she had returned to the Centre the compensation payment of £25 which she said did not cover the cost of telephone calls, stamps and stationery which she had recorded as £49.94.]

11. On 2 February the Centre sent a notice of the intention to seek a liability order to Mr X. Mr X failed to respond and the case was referred to the Field Office to obtain an order. [On 9 February Mrs Y told the Centre that since 15 August 1996 Mr X had made voluntary payments to her of £250 a month.]

12. A court date of 3 April 1998 has been set for the hearing of the liability order application.

Back to top

Appendix B

Abbreviations used and their meaning

Back to top

Previous < Contents

Short text of this investigation

Last updated: 26 April 2006