Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mrs C complains that it took CMS too long to calculate her maintenance payment in September 2022. She also complains about delays in CMS’s completion of her variation applications and delays in responding to her queries about the variations and conflicting information about delays. Mrs C complains that CMS’s communication about what arrears the paying parent owes her and the rate the repayments they make to her has been poor.

4. Mrs C says CMS’s actions have caused her distress and financial difficulty.

5. In coming to us, Mrs C would like CMS to improve its service and would like CMS to calculate her payments correctly.

6. On 28 May 2022, Mrs C made an application for child maintenance.

7. On 22 August, Mrs C complained to CMS about its delay in making an initial maintenance calculation. CMS did not raise this as a dissatisfaction as it should have.

8. CMS completed the initial maintenance calculation on 4 September. It issued a decision notification including mandatory reconsideration (MR) rights, the next day.

9. Mrs C sent a complaint to CMS on 5 September in which she requested a MR. CMS again did not raise a dissatisfaction as it should have done. Mrs C disputed the income used for the initial calculation. She provided evidence that the paying parent had additional income. Between then and late March 2023, both parents provided evidence relating to the paying parent’s income and CMS raised variations to deal with this. Mrs C complained to DWP about delays throughout this time.

10. By March 2023. Mrs C wanted CMS to refer her case to its financial investigations unit (FIU). CMS explained it would need to complete the variations first before it could refer to the FIU.

11. CMS told Mrs C that once the variation action was complete, it would refer the case to FIU, which it did in March 2023.

12. On 3 April, CMS issued two decision notifications. The first for the unearned income variation (dividend income) effective from 6 June 2022. The paying parent’s liability increased from £27.47 to £127.43. The payment plan in this letter explained that the paying parent should pay £1,880.48 per month from 28 April 2023.

13. The second decision notification was for the variation for income from assets, effective from 14 December 2022. The paying parent’s liability increased from £127.43 to £140.91 based upon his total weekly income of £947.07. The payment plan in this letter told Mrs C the paying parent should pay her £1,992.42 per month from 28 April 2023.

14. On 17 April, DWP’s complaints team responded. It offered a consolatory payment of £75 in recognition of the standard of service she had received. CMS signposted her to ICE.

15. CMS issued a revised payment plan on 19 April 2023, which told Mrs C that the paying parent would pay her £411.97 from 8 May. A week later Mrs C called CMS to chase an update about the FIU investigation and expressed concern about the negotiated amount of arrears. CMS explained that arrears negotiation was a discretionary decision based upon the paying parent’s conversation with the caseworker.

16. Mrs C asked for a call back from a manager, which CMS did not action.

17. On 29 April, Mrs C sent an email in which she complained about the reduced level of the monthly payments, and that she was not given the chance to make any representations about the arrears negotiation.

18. CMS explained it was sympathetic to the financial situation of both parents and although it could not revise a calculation unless circumstances change, it would be as flexible as possible in reaching a payment agreement. It explained that agreements must strike the right balance between the paying parent's circumstances and the needs of the receiving parent and the children. It added that any agreement is measured on its sustainability without negative impact towards any party. This is to ensure that the paying parent maintains the agreement. It apologised for missed call backs.

19. ICE considered Mrs C’s complaint. It explained that as part of its intervention DWP had recognised that:

• it caused confusion about the payment schedules • it delayed in completing changes to the backdating of the initial effective date, meaning the paying parent was unable to pay the correct amount.

20. ICE told Mrs C that DWP had agreed to provide a formal apology and award her an additional consolatory payment of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience its poor service had on her. Mrs C did not accept the offer.

23. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing.

24. In cases such as this, where a second-tier complaint handler, such as ICE has reviewed the complaint, we first look to see if it has conducted its investigation properly, made fair and reasonable decisions and provided clear explanations. That is because we see no need to re-investigate a complaint that has already been investigated thoroughly and fairly.

The relevant standard

25. Our complaint standards say organisations, such as ICE, should give complainants fair and open answers to their questions based on the facts and the organisation responsible should take full accountability for mistakes identified. Investigations should be thorough, yet proportionate.

26. They add that, wherever possible, organisations should explain why things went wrong and identify suitable ways to put things right for service users. Additionally, if appropriate, organisations should take action to make sure any learning is identified and used to improve services.

27. ICE agreed with Mrs C that it would look at:

• the significant delay before CMS completed the initial maintenance calculation in September 2022 • CMS’s delays in completing her variation applications • CMS supplying her with conflicting information and failing to return calls, as agreed • no updates from the FIU of any progress • the amount of unpaid child maintenance owed to her, or rate at which repayments should be made.

Delay in maintenance calculation and variation application

28. We asked Mrs C to explain why she remains concerned about this aspect of her complaint and what she is not happy with about ICE’s investigation.

29. Mrs C said she is unhappy that ICE did not explain how the delays occurred and what it was going to do to stop this happening again in the future.

30. In its investigation report, ICE explained that following its intervention, CMS acknowledged its delays in completing changes to the backdating of the initial effective date. ICE was satisfied its offer of an additional £150 was appropriate and in line with DWP’s guidance on remedy.

31. It is not clear from the ICE report what Mrs C hoped it to achieve for her as a result of its investigation. But it is evident from its opening remarks that its focus was on putting things right for her in line with DWP’s financial redress guidance – and this is what it did focus on.

32. Nonetheless, ICE did provide a narrative on what happened, including the various complaints, appeals and variations, including noting the delay in CMS not writing out to the paying parent about a variation for some six months. So it did, indirectly, provide an explanation as to why things took as long as they did and this was in line with our standards.

33. Neither ICE nor CMS seem to have been able to explain why some of the delays occurred, for instance, regarding the September 2022 variation. From Mrs C’s perspective – and from the point of view of learning from mistakes – it would have been ideal had they done this. But sometimes, this is simply not possible.

34. We considered whether us investigating this point further would result in a good outcome for Mrs C. Certainly, it would not result in any recalculations – only CMS and the tribunal service can do that. It could result in the service improvements she seeks if we saw a reason to recommend them - but to do that, we would have to be able to determine why the delays happened. As CMS and ICE have been unable to do so, it is unlikely that we would be able to do this – at least not in a proportionate or effective way.

35. All this considered, we have decided not to investigate this further. That is in no way a reflection on what went wrong, or us condoning the delays, which were clearly incredibly frustrating for Ms C.

CMS failure to call her back and its confusing letters

36. Mrs C told us she remains unhappy that ICE did not explain why CMS did not reply to her complaints or why it did not call her back. Mrs C wants to know why the letters are so confusing. She says CMS acknowledged they are confusing, but it has not updated or changed them to make them easier to understand.

37. ICE noted that CMS had apologised for not responding to her complaints. ICE explained that CMS apologised for not ringing her back and said it was improving the way it captures and monitors call back requests to make sure it honours them. ICE found that this, and the offer of £75, was appropriate. We agree. We think this was a proportionate, outcome-focused way of trying to resolve the complaint about call backs, in line with our standards.

38. Again, it is not always possible – or proportionate – to try and find out why something happened as it did. A lot of the time, things like missed call backs are the result of individual human error.

39. In its investigation report, ICE explained that since it agreed to look at Mrs C’s complaint in June 2023, CMS had sent out various notifications in relation to the maintenance calculation and the variations. ICE explained that during its intervention, CMS agreed that it had caused confusion about the payment schedules. CMS offered a further apology and an additional £150 to recognise its poor service.

40. We do not consider that CMS and ICE said that the letters themselves were confusing; rather that the payment schedules had been confusing. To that end, we do not currently see a need for CMS to amend the letter templates as Mrs C has implied it should. Even so, clearly, these letters could have been better, and CMS apologised and offered £150 to acknowledge the confusion caused. We consider ICE appropriately identified where mistakes happened and looked to see what CMS had done to acknowledge its mistakes and try to put them right. This was in line with our standards.

Arrears and the rate at which they are paid

41. We asked Mrs C what it was about the ICE’s investigation into this she remained unhappy with and why. She told us the calculations are incorrect and the paying parent has ignored a number of changes and payments. Mrs C says she remains unaware of the amount of child maintenance the paying parent owes her or the rate at which they should be paying her.

42. Mrs C went on to say that she does not think it is right for her not to have any say in the discussion about arrears when at all the other stages, both parties are involved, and both get a chance to respond.

43. ICE explained in its report the calculations CMS sent to her from April 2023. It also explained that on 29 April 2023, CMS received an email from her, in which she complained about the reduced level of the monthly payments and that CMS did not give her the chance to make any representations about the arrears negotiation. Mrs C was not happy that CMS had agreed the paying parent could pay the arrears over five years.

44. If Mrs C does not agree with the maintenance calculation there is an established appeal route for that. It is open to Mrs C to ask CMS to provide her with a breakdown of the latest calculation and ask it to include the arrears owed to her. That, rather than the complaints procedure, is the appropriate route for her to pursue in respect of the calculations.

45. In terms of the arrears negotiation, ICE was correct to say that this is a matter between the paying parent and CMS. Mrs C says ICE did not outline whether there was a policy or legislation to support this.

46. We consider ICE could have gone into more detail about why CMS did not involve her in its decision making. We have therefore, provided some additional information that we hope Mrs C finds useful.

47. CMS’s decision maker’s guide provides information about arrears, how it should collect them and provides information about the debt steer.

48. The debt steer is a policy-based framework for arrears negotiation. CMS should consider the circumstances of the case but is not obliged to involve the receiving parent in its decision making. The main aim is to get on-going maintenance payments flowing and to recover arrears as quickly and reliably as possible.

49. While we think ICE could have explained this better, in the round, its consideration of Mrs C’s complaint was in line with our standards, and its response on this point was not so far lacking that it would amount to maladministration.

50. We appreciate how distressing Mrs C has found CMS’s delays and poor service. We also appreciate her frustration with the paying parent and the circumstances she has found herself in.

51. Having looked at how ICE investigated her complaint, we are satisfied it provided her with a thorough, impartial, evidence based and proportionate response which was in line with our complaint standards.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs C’s complaint about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We have seen no indication that anything went wrong with how the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) investigated the complaint and in turn, with its conclusions.

2. Given that a thorough and fair investigation has already taken place, we have decided not to investigate her complaint about DWP. We were sorry to hear of the circumstances surrounding the complaint and we acknowledge Mrs C’s distress at DWP’s delays, complaint handling and maintenance calculations.