Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Miss H alleged CMS wrongly demanded maintenance payments, refused reimbursement, and took unfair enforcement action. She also claimed CMS facilitated coercive control by her ex-partner.
Source · Ombudsman casework
PHSO Casework Decisions
4,426 published decisions
3,735 Health (NHS)
691 Parliamentary
17% upheld or partly upheld
Range: Apr 2021–Aug 2026
Published casework decisions from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. PHSO selects a subset of completed investigations for publication. These 4,426 decisions represent approximately 1.4% of the 319,011 total complaints received across the same period. Source: decisions.ombudsman.org.uk.
Organisation: Child Maintenance Service · Remove organisation filter
Decisions
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr R complained CMS failed to follow procedures regarding his child's education status and did not reimburse an £8,253.58 overpayment, causing financial and mental health strain.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr L complained the Child Maintenance Service declined to refund maintenance payments collected during a period he was not liable, causing him debt and distress.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary CMS seized student loan funds with a Lump Sum Deduction Order without providing appeal options, failing to grant agreed-upon time for evidence and delaying complaint resolution.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr O complained the CMS failed to act from May 2019 when informed his child was no longer living with his ex-partner, resulting in incorrect payments.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr R complained that CMS's consolatory payment did not adequately reflect the severity, duration, and impact of its failings, which caused him distress and financial difficulties.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr A complained the CMS wrongly said he owed arrears, leading to stress, depression, job loss, and financial hardship, and that CMS took too long to provide a breakdown.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr W complained about the CMS failing to follow the correct process for a DNA test, providing incorrect information, and mishandling his complaint, leading to stress and mental health issues.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr. E complained that the CMS did not use the correct income to calculate his child maintenance liability and delayed acting on information about his new job.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mrs R complained that the CMS failed to secure consistent arrears payments, provided misleading information, and regularly changed its position on enforcement.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Miss B complained that the CMS closed her case without collecting outstanding arrears, leaving her without access to her records.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr T complained CMS used incorrect earnings for his 2022 annual review, leading to overpayments, fees, financial difficulties, and the breakdown of family relationships.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr A complained CMS wrongly said it could arrange DNA testing, then retracted, causing distress to his children and damaging his relationship with them.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Miss A complained the CMS failed to notify her of appeal rights, made incorrect calculations, delayed tribunal information, and did not effectively recover arrears from her ex-husband.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mrs A complained the CMS failed to enforce maintenance arrears, delayed a reconsideration request, and did not respond to complaint letters, causing significant stress and financial loss.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr C complained CMS failed to promptly review his maintenance liability, didn't offer to translate a Polish court order, took inappropriate enforcement action, and ignored his income reduction, causing distress.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr H complained CMS wrongly changed his case to Collect and Pay, made it sensitive without his knowledge, refused to revert to Direct Pay, and failed to account for direct payments, causing severe distress.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Miss U complained the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) refused to reinstate arrears her ex-partner failed to pay, causing distress and loss of trust.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr R complained the CMS failed to carry out a mandatory reconsideration and asset valuation, did not provide callbacks, gave incorrect information, and failed to investigate income concerns since 2018.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr V complained CMS provided conflicting information about maintenance arrears being written off, then failed to explain his continued liability, causing him significant stress and financial hardship.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary The CMS failed to communicate effectively, did not return calls, provided inconsistent information, and wrongly moved his case to 'Collect and Pay', causing stress and financial impact.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary CSA and CMS failed to use powers to secure child maintenance debt owed since 1993, ignored communications, and risked a third of the debt becoming unrecoverable.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr R complained CMS ignored evidence of his low income, using outdated figures to calculate child maintenance, and didn't consider money his ex-wife owed him.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr A complained the Child Maintenance Service delayed providing an arrears breakdown and gave conflicting information, impacting his relationship with his daughter and causing financial and mental health issues.
Child Maintenance Service (CMS)
AI-generated summary Mr A complained the Child Maintenance Service communicated ineffectively, delayed a Tribunal decision, failed to advise of payment reductions, and provided confusing information, impacting his mental health.