Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

6. Mr R complained about the service he has received from CMS between July 2023 and December 2024. He specifically complained CMS

• did not follow its own process and procedure when considering if the qualifying child had left full time education. He says it failed to consider the evidence he had provided throughout the process or complete the necessary checks • failed to reimburse him £8,253.58 for the overpayment of child maintenance he made.

7. As a result of the failings Mr R said he overpaid child maintenance by £8,253.58. He explained this caused him financial burden.

8. He said the issues have impacted his mental health. He explained it created a huge amount of stress on his family, including his youngest daughter, who continued to ask why he was so low and down.

9. He also explained it impacted his working ability, as it caused frustration and worry, and was constantly on his mind. Also, that he spent a significant amount of time dealing with the issue, which impacted his work.

10. As an outcome Mr R is seeking a full reimbursement of the overpayment he made of £8,253.58.

11. This is a brief summary of events to put the complaint in context. We have not included all the details as those involved are already aware of this information.

12. In June 2023, Mr R’s ex partner Miss E applied for maintenance payments through CMS for their daughter Ms Z. This was on the basis Ms Z was over 16, but still in full time education.

13. In July, Mr R requested CMS reconsider its decision, on the basis Ms Z had left full time education. CMS determined Ms Z was still in full time education and continued with the application.

14. Mr R raised a mandatory reconsideration (MR) request in relation to the decision for him to pay maintenance. An MR is an official request to CMS to review a decision that one of the parties disagrees with, such as a maintenance calculation.

15. In August, CMS rejected the MR request and maintained its original decision. In September, Mr appealed the decision to the tribunal.

16. In May 2024, the judge adjourned the first tribunal, due to no evidence provided by Miss E.

17. Around August 2024, Mr R raised a complaint to CMS about its handling of his case.

18. A further tribunal hearing was held in October 2024. The tribunal decided Ms Z did not qualify for child maintenance. CMS closed the case from July 2023.

Consideration of a qualifying child

21. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found CMS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

22. Mr R complained CMS did not follow its own process and procedure when considering if his daughter, Ms Z had left full time education. He said it failed to consider the evidence he had provided throughout the process or complete the necessary checks.

23. ICE reviewed this element of Mr R’s complaint. It found CMS investigated Mr R’s concerns to the extent of its ability. This was on the basis that Miss E still received child benefit payments, when she informed CMS that Ms Z was in full time education. ICE found CMS had acted in accordance with its guidance.

24. ICE did partly uphold part of this complaint, on the basis that CMS could have referred Mr R’s case to its Financial Investigation Unit (FIU). The FIU are responsible for investigating allegations of criminal/civil activities that negatively impact the correct amount of Child Maintenance being calculated.

25. Furthermore, ICE found CMS could also have signposted Mr R to HMRC. It upheld Mr R’s case to this limited extent.

26. Section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991 says any person who is in relation to any qualifying child (QC) either the person with care (PWC) or the non-resident parent (NRP), may apply to CMS for maintenance in respect to that child. Therefore, by law, when an application is made CMS have to open a case.

27. The PWC is the person who would receive the maintenance payments for the child. They are generally the parent with the day-to-day care of the child. The NRP is the paying parent, who makes the maintenance payments to the PWC.

28. The ‘Decision Makers Guide’ is guidance for DWP decision makers on child maintenance. This states that a person is considered a child in relation to child maintenance if they are under 16 or if they are under 20 and are a qualifying young person. A qualifying young person is someone where child benefit is payable to and is in full time education.

29. CMS has also provided its internal operational guidance. This details the action it should take when a child leaves full-time education. This says the effective date for any child no longer in full time education is the child benefit end date. It says CMS should use payment of child benefits as a guide to whether or not a qualifying child is still a child. This is because the child benefit office uses very similar definitions of a child to CMS.

30. The guidance details HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will attempt to automatically notify it when a child leaves full time education. It also says the effect date for a QC leaving full time education must align with the date that the child benefit ends.

31. The guidance further states when a customer informs CMS a QC has left full time education. The system will check the child benefit status. This says where child benefit is shown as still in payment, it will reject the request.

32. CMS system notes show in June 2023, Miss E made an application to it for maintenance payments from Mr R for their daughter, Ms Z. The notes show CMS notified Mr R, and he contacted it, as he believed Ms Z had left full time education. The notes detail CMS confirmed it could do a child benefit check.

33. On 17 July, CMS completed the child benefit check and found the payment was still in place until September 2024. The notes show CMS also called Miss E, who confirmed Ms Z was still in full time education. Due to this the maintenance payments remained in place.

34. CMS notified Mr R, of its decision. It confirmed in its letter dated 17 July, if he considered the decision was still incorrect, he could apply for a MR.

35. On 19 July, Mr R raised an MR in relation to the decision. On 20 July, he also provided evidence of an email from Ms Z’s old school, who confirmed she had not attended its sixth form college.

36. The notes show CMS contacted Miss E, and she provided evidence of an acknowledgement of an application for another college for Ms Z.

37. CMS completed its MR consideration on 4 August. The notes from this detail it completed a manual child benefit check and payment was extended to 4 September 2023. The notes detail it considered all other aspects. CMS rejected the MR on the basis the child benefit was still in place. We can see CMS notify the parties. The letter included the action to take if they wanted to appeal the decision.

38. Mr R contacted CMS on 6 September, to query if the child benefit had ended. This is due to CMS previously telling Mr R, the child benefit end date is September 2023. The notes show CMS informed Mr R, the child benefit had been extended to 2 September 2024.

39. The notes show on 21 September, CMS received Mr R’s notice of appeal to its decision. The detail for the appeal is on the basis that there is no evidence to back up the claim Ms Z is still in full time education. Mr R provided the previous evidence from Ms Z old school. Also, an email from Liverpool City Council. This email suggested contacting the school for the information.

40. Mr R further contacted CMS on 26 September, to request it investigate whether Ms Z was still in education. There is no evidence CMS took any action.

41. The next contact is in April 2024, where Mr R informed CMS that Ms Z was working. During this time Mr R informed CMS that the system had informed him to contact HMRC if he believed the child benefit payment is incorrect. Mr R explained he had done this but not heard anything back.

42. The case notes show CMS checked the child benefit system and the payments were still in place until 2 September 2024. We can see CMS also sent a letter to Miss E requesting she inform it whether Ms Z has left full time education. There are no further notes regarding this. We can see CMS send out letters stating that Miss E had confirmed there had been no change and Ms Z was still in full time education. Therefore, the maintenance payments continued.

43. On 7 May, Mr R attended a tribunal hearing. The judge adjourned the hearing to enable Miss E to provide evidence to confirm whether Ms Z is in full time education. The notes show Mr R informed CMS of this fact. He also provided further evidence to CMS of email correspondence from the college it had been stated Ms Z had applied to. The email correspondence stated they do not have a student by the name or date or birth given. The notes detail Mr R confirmed he had also provided this evidence to the child benefit office.

44. CMS completed its annual review in July 2024. Following this Mr R contacted CMS, where he stated Ms Z was not at college. Mr R raised a MR in relation to the annual review. Mr R provided the evidence he had previously submitted of the contacts with the relevant colleges.

45. The notes show on 17 July, Mr R contacted CMS for an update. The notes detail it informed Mr R it will review his evidence provided, but if the child benefit payment is still in place, it would be difficult to accept Ms Z is not in full time education. During the call Mr R also confirmed he had spoken to the child benefit office as well.

46. CMS completed its MR consideration and rejected it. The notes from this confirmed it considered what Mr R had said and evidence provided. The notes detail that evidence provided does not mean Ms Z did not attend college, just not the one Miss E listed. CMS complete a further child benefit check, and the payment is still in place until September 2024.

47. We can see following this Mr R is in further contact with CMS about its decision and also raises a formal complaint about the service he has received. There are several contacts from Mr R to CMS during this time about the issue.

48. In October, Mr R attended the tribunal. We have listened to a recording of the hearing. Miss E did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence. CMS explained it is stuck with HRMC’s findings of the child benefit.

49. During the hearing the judge concluded that while the evidence Mr R had provided was probably the best he could expect to provide, it is not compelling. However, the judge went on to conclude that on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any other contrasting evidence they were satisfied as of 17 July 2023, Ms Z was no longer in full time education.

50. As a result of this CMS closed its case as of 17 July 2023.

51. We appreciate how frustrated Mr R would have been with this situation. We acknowledge all the effort he went to try to establish whether Ms Z had left education or not. We understand Mr R annoyance with making the maintenance payments that were not necessarily due.

52. The evidence shows when Mr R has raised concerns to CMS about Ms Z not being in full time education, it has acknowledged these and completed a child benefit check. This is the action it would be expected to take in accordance with its own operational guidance. Based on this we consider CMS has followed its correct process.

53. We acknowledge Mr R had provided evidence to indicate Ms Z was not attending the college stated. As CMS noted, Ms Z could have attended a different college. We recognise it would be very difficult for Mr R to prove she was not attending all the colleges in the area.

54. CMS’s guidance is clear that the end date for the child being in full time education is the same as the end date for the child benefit. While the child benefit was in place, it would be difficult for CMS to make a different decision.

55. The tribunal coming to a different decision, does not automatically mean CMS made a mistake when it made its previous decisions.

56. The judge commented that the evidence Mr R provided was not compelling and the decision they made was on the balance of probabilities, rather than on the basis of conclusive or definitive evidence.

57. This does not demonstrate that CMS acted unreasonably in relying on the information available to it at the time, in particular its reliance on the ongoing child benefit. It also explains why the tribunal was able to reach a different conclusion without this in itself indicating there had been failings in CMS’s earlier decision making.

58. The law says the Ombudsman ‘cannot question the merits of a decision without maladministration by a government department of other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority’. This means we cannot make an organisation cancel or change a decision it is entitled to make, unless we can see it did not follow its guidance or processes in reaching that decision.

59. We consider CMS followed its internal guidelines when it made its decisions and as such, we are unable to say its actions amounts to maladministration.

60. We do however acknowledge there were circumstances where CMS could have done better during its contact with Mr R. As highlighted by the ICE report CMS could have informed Mr R at an earlier opportunity or during its further contacts, for him to raise the issue with HMRC, as to whether the child benefit claim was correct. Also, CMS could have referred the matter to its FIU team, to investigate any fraudulent claims.

61. Based on the above we consider there is an indication of a shortcoming by CMS.

62. However, we do not know the impact of this, which ICE also state. This is because the evidence shows Mr R confirmed to CMS in April 2024, he had previously contacted HMRC. When CMS completed a further child benefit check in July 2024, the payment was still in place. This would indicate that even if CMS had signposted Mr R earlier to contact HMRC, that it would not have changed the outcome here.

63. In relation to an FIU referral, due to the nature of the investigations and the demands on its service, these can take up to two years to complete. It is therefore unlikely the results would have been known, or CMS would have been in a position to take different actions, prior to the tribunal hearing.

64. Therefore, we cannot say CMS not referring Mr R to HMRC or the matter the FIU, would have changed the outcome, of his case.

65. That said, we consider this would cause additional stress and frustration to Mr R. We consider this is what ICE has asked CMS to compensate for.

66. ICE required CMS to provide Mr R with a consolatory payment of £75.

67. CMS’ guidance ‘Financial redress for maladministration’ sets out the instances CMS should make payments where there has been maladministration on its part. Any payments made come from public funds and are typically small.

68. Section 5.11 explains that such payments usually range between £50 and £500.

69. ICE’s recommended payment of £75, falls within this range. It is therefore reasonable to say it has acted in accordance with the applicable guidance. We think what it did recommend reflected the frustration and distress the misinformation caused Mr R.

70. In summary, the evidence available to us indicates that CMS could have done better and provided Mr R clearer information with the action he could take. We consider ICE has already taken appropriate steps to put things right. As such, we will take no further action.

Reimbursement

71. Mr R complained CMS failed to reimburse him £8,253.58 in overpaid child maintenance.

72. ICE within its findings did not uphold this part of Mr R’s complaint. ICE found no fault in CMS’s decision making in relation to any reimbursement. In carefully considering the available evidence, we have reached the same view.

73. Under section 41b of the Child Support Act, reimbursement is not automatic and is only appropriate where an overpayment is caused by a CMS error.

74. We have also considered the decision makers guide regarding reimbursements.

75. This states this is a repayment of money to non-resident parent (NRP) for the overpaid maintenance which has already paid out to the person with care (PWC). And ‘it is not an automatic right for NRP to receive a reimbursement.’

76. The guidance further states when considering a reimbursement CMS must ensure that:

• ‘the NRP has asked for a reimbursement • the overpayment was caused by a CMS error (for example the CMS failed to act on information given to them) • any reimbursement is only from the date they were told about the change (the notified date).’

77. The guidance also states on direct pay cases CMS should ask the NRP to contact the PWC to request the reimbursement payment. CMS should only consider reimbursement when the PWC will not make the payment.

78. From the notes we can see Mr R initially contacted CMS on 7 October 2024, to notify it of the tribunal decision and request a reimbursement of the overpayment.

79. CMS concluded a reimbursement is not appropriate. It found while the tribunal reached a different decision, it did not mean CMS’s original decision was incorrect. The notes state CMS had followed the process at the time to determine if the child was a qualifying child. It found there was no CMS error for the reimbursement to apply.

80. CMS informed Mr R of its decision and also confirmed it within its complaint response.

81. We acknowledge Mr R’s frustration regarding CMS’s decision about not to reimburse him for the overpayments made. We appreciate how annoying it would be for him to make the payments he did when they were not due and not be able to get the money back.

82. As set out above, we consider CMS acted in line with its guidance when determining that Ms Z remained a qualifying child based on the information available to it. While the tribunal reached a different conclusion later, this does not indicate that CMS’ earlier decisions were incorrect or that there was fault in the decision making.

83. As we are unable to conclude there are any indications of failings that led to the overpayment being caused by a CMS error. We therefore cannot conclude that CMS should reimburse Mr R for the overpayment that has occurred.

84. We understand this has been frustrating for Mr R, and that CMS matters can often be confusing. This in itself does not mean the CMS made a mistake and should have done anything more. If Mr R remains unhappy regarding the overpayment, it remains open to him to seek recovery from the receiving parent

85. We are sorry we have not been able to assist him in the way he hoped when he brought his complaint to us. We hope that our report clearly explains how we have considered his concerns and reached our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). We were sorry to hear about the frustrating experience and the distress this situation has caused him and his family.

2. In relation to Mr R’s complaint about CMS not following its processes when considering whether his daughter had left full time education, we consider it did follow the guidance with the process it followed. While there were occasions where CMS could have provided clearer information, we consider this has already been addressed and does not warrant further action.

3. With regards to Mr R’s concerns about reimbursement for the £8,253.58 overpayment, we have found no failings in CMS’ actions.

4. As such we will not be taking further action on this complaint. We explain our reasons below.

5. We recognise the impact this matter has had on Mr R and think him for bringing his complaint to us. Although we are not taking further action, this does not detract from his experience.