Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.87/97
First Report Session 1998-99
Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Delay in obtaining child support maintenance
Matters considered:
Mrs X complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to obtain child support maintenance (CSM) from her former husband, Mr X, for over four years. She also complained that CSA had not compensated her for the loss of CSM arising from their mistakes.
Summary of case
Mrs X applied for CSM in April 1993. CSA sent a maintenance enquiry form to Mr X in May; when it was not returned, they made an interim maintenance assessment (IMA) effective from 19 May. They realised much later that the IMA was invalid on two counts: the effective date was wrong, and the warning period had not elapsed when they had made it. Mr X continued to be un-cooperative and CSA took enforcement action by means of a liability order. Action by bailiffs to levy distress was unsuccessful. On 14 February 1996 a county court granted CSA a charging order absolute on Mr X's property. However, before CSA could consider applying for an order for sale they realised that the IMA was invalid as the effective date was wrong. On 16 April 1996, using legislation which had come into force on 16 February 1995, CSA amended the effective date of the IMA to 16 February 1995. CSA tried to take enforcement action by means of a second liability order but in early 1997 they realised that the IMA effective from 19 May 1993 had been the subject of a procedural error as well as having a wrong effective date. CSA then decided that that meant the IMA effective from 19 May 1993 should have been cancelled and not amended. It was March 1997 before CSA had in place a valid and enforceable IMA and the arrears of maintenance that accrued before then cannot be enforced. On 10 February 1998 CSA made Mrs X an ex gratia payment of £298, comprising £200 as compensation for the gross inconvenience she had suffered, £20 to reimburse her out-of-pocket expenses and £78 to reimburse her for the fees that she had paid in 1993. CSA took the view that they could not consider paying her any further compensation until they had made a full maintenance assessment. CSA are continuing to attempt enforcement action.
Findings
CSA's mistakes led to a four year gap during which Mr X's liability to pay CSM could not be enforced. That represented a financial loss for Mrs X. I also found numerous other shortcomings in CSA's handling of the case.
Remedy
CSA awarded Mrs X ex gratia payments as follows: £200 for the inconvenience she had suffered; £20 for her out-of-pocket expenses; £78 to reimburse her for the fees she had paid; £7,032.38 in recognition of loss of CSM; and £1,376.60 for the late payment of that sum.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
|
