Child Support Agency

3. Mr L complains the CSA has failed to do what the Court of Appeal said it should do. He says the CSA has calculated a maintenance figure based on him working more than 48 hours per week.

4. Mr L says the CSA’s actions have caused his relationship to break down and end. He says his health has been affected by stress, which caused him to have to take time out of work. He complains of being placed under unnecessary financial hardship.

5. Mr L asks us to obtain evidence of the CSA’s calculations to prove his point, which he says will then allow him to take legal action against it.

6. Mr L has two children. He had to pay child maintenance for them. This issue is a historic one, dating back to 2003.

7. Mr L’s CSA calculations have been amended and reviewed on a number of occasions. The aspect that is relevant to this complaint relates to calculations that a Tribunal considered in 2005 and 2006. According to these calculations, the Tribunal said Mr L’s account was in arrears and granted a liability order and an order for sale application to recover the amounts he owed.

8. The CSA suspended the balance on Mr L’s account in January 2012 after the children’s mother asked it to do this. The CSA wrote off the balance in April 2019 and has not asked Mr L to pay anything since 2012.

9. Mr L approached his MP in July 2019 with his complaint about the fact that the CSA had based its calculations on a working week of over 48 hours. He then asked the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) to consider his complaint as the second tier of the CSA’s complaints process.

10. ICE issued its report on 28 April 2022. It did not uphold Mr L’s complaint.

13. Mr L complains about the figure the CSA said he needed to pay from around November 2003 onwards. He says the CSA wrongly based its calculations on him working more than 48 hours per week. He complains this is at odds with the 48-hour Working Time Directive and therefore questions the validity of what the CSA had asked for.

14. There are clear steps for disputing child maintenance calculations. The guidance that was relevant at the time, covering both before and after 2003, explains that if either parent does not agree with the assessment the CSA has made, they should ask it to carry out a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR). This gives the CSA the opportunity to revisit the evidence and make a fresh decision if needed. If they remain unsatisfied, the customer can then appeal at a Tribunal.

15. The law says we cannot investigate complaints that could have been resolved via the courts unless we could not reasonably expect the complainant to take legal action.

16. It is clear that Mr L is, and was, aware of the steps available to him. As he has already followed the established appeal route in relation to other complaints about the CSA’s calculations, we see no reason why he could not have taken the same steps in relation to his concerns about the 48-hour issue.

17. Mr L went through MR. His case then went to a Tribunal hearing on 12 April 2005.

18. He was entitled to ask the Tribunal for permission to appeal its decision to the Commissioner. He could do this if he could show there was a legal error in the Tribunal’s decision-making. If this was the case, the Commissioner could set the decision aside and direct a new Tribunal to either decide the outcome of an appeal or make the decision the initial Tribunal should have made itself.

19. Mr L asked for permission to appeal. This was initially refused on 20 July 2006, but the Commissioner then allowed the appeal on 12 December. The Commissioner said the Tribunal’s decision of 12 April 2005 had gone beyond what it was allowed to consider and told the CSA to recalculate Mr L’s income in a different way. The Commissioner made its decision on 11 January 2007 and explained Mr L could again ask for permission to appeal against its decision. As before, this would only be possible if there was a legal matter he wanted to appeal against.

20. Mr L asked for permission to appeal on 17 March 2007. This was the first time his appeals mentioned the 48-hour Working Time Directive and his complaint that the CSA’s calculations meant he would have to work more than that number of hours per week. The Commissioner refused Mr L’s appeal request because this matter (and other, equally newly introduced matters) was not related to the case as it had been heard up to that point. Because of this, no legal error could have been made and so Mr L did not have a valid reason to appeal.

21. Mr L seems to have written directly to the Court of Appeal after this. The Court of Appeal refused his request to appeal on 30 July because the Commissioner had not made a legal error. Despite this, Mr L got an oral hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice to apply to appeal again.

22. The hearing took place on 2 October. The court decision explained that the judge could not find any reference to, or reasoning for, the point Mr L’s appeal was based on (the 48-hour issue). Because of this, the judge said there was no legal error for the Court of Appeal to consider. This meant Mr L’s case could not go to appeal. The judge told Mr L to go back to the CSA if he felt its calculation decision was incorrect.

23. This brings us back to the starting point of MR. MRs should be requested within one month of when the calculation is made. Although late applications may be considered, the significant amount of time that has elapsed since this means the CSA is unlikely to consider such a request now. This likelihood is even lower because Mr L’s account was suspended and then closed from 2012 onwards, at the request of his ex-partner.

24. There is a specific appeal route for disagreements like this. Mr L has shown he is aware of and has engaged with these. It is not clear why he did not appeal this specific aspect of the calculation sooner. It might not be reasonable to expect Mr L to do this now, but it would have been reasonable for him to do so at the relevant time.

25. In any case, because there is, or was, an opportunity for Mr L to deal with this matter via a legal route and it was reasonable for him to do this, we cannot consider his complaint further. We realise this is likely to be disappointing for Mr L.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr L’s complaint about the Child Support Agency (CSA). We were sorry to hear about the concerns he raised and the problems he has experienced, particularly given the length of time involved.

2. We consider Mr L could have taken legal action on the matter he brought to us. Because of this, we will not consider the complaint further.