Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

5. Miss H complains CMS wrongly said she had to pay maintenance in 2021 and 2023 and, when shown she should not have been paying, CMS has refused to reimburse what she paid. She complains CMS has unfairly taken enforcement action against her when she should not be asked to pay maintenance.

6. She complains CMS’ handling of her ex-partner’s cases has facilitated coercive control by her ex-partner, and CMS has not taken action when it should investigated him for fraud.

7. Miss H tells us this has caused her a financial loss, and a great deal of avoidable stress. She has found CMS’ approach distressing as it has been unsupportive, has facilitated coercive control by her ex-partner, and has made decisions she felt were deeply unfair and has prolonged the distress and upset associated with a difficult relationship breakdown.

8. Miss H is seeking a financial remedy reflecting the distress she has experienced and reimbursement of any maintenance she should not have paid.

2020 maintenance application

11. Miss H’s complaint relates to two separate applications her ex-partner has made to CMS. Her two sons grew up with her, but since 2020 they have lived with her ex-partner. Both of her sons have now turned 16, and once a young person has left school the parent who is their main carer can only apply to CMS if they remain in full-time further education.

12. When Miss H’s ex-partner first applied to CMS in July 2020, CMS said Miss H did not have to pay. Miss H’s ex-partner appealed, and in May 2021 the tribunal decided she did have to pay. From July 2021 Miss H had to pay more than £500 month of maintenance each month. CMS added more than £6,000 of arrears to her case because she had not been asked to pay anything from July 2020 to June 2021.

13. We cannot question decisions made by a court or tribunal. Courts and tribunals are out of remit for us. It was the tribunal that decided Miss H should pay maintenance from July 2020, overruling the CMS’ original decision, and we have no power to questions decisions made in a court or tribunal.

14. After the Child Support Tribunal said Miss H did have to pay in May 2021, Miss H made further arguments why she should not pay. The focus of these arguments has been on whether Miss H’s son was in full time education. In September 2021, CMS did not agree Miss H should stop paying but in November 2022 the tribunal said she did not have to pay from that date onwards.

15. In July 2021 Miss H told CMS her eldest son would not be continuing in full time education, and she should no longer be paying maintenance for him. In September, she sent evidence he had nine hours of timetabled each week for the 2021/22 academic year in support of that claim.

16. CMS did not agree he had stopped being a qualifying child and Miss H appealed that decision. While Miss H complains CMS should have made that decision sooner based on what she was telling them, child maintenance legislation defines a qualifying child with reference to the child benefit rules. For CMS, the ongoing child benefit award was an important piece evidence.

17. Section 76 of The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations, 2012 defines a child who qualifies for maintenance with reference to section 1 of The Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006. Miss H wanted CMS to close the case because she reported her son was studying less than 12 hours per week. She was referring to the rules about what full-time education is that originate in section 1 of The Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006.

18. CMS guidance says maintenance decisions should follow child benefit decisions. Because deciding whether a child is studying full time happens as part of child benefit claims. CMS guidance and Child Benefit legislation creates the expectation that, if a parent is entitled to child benefit, they will also be entitled to claim child maintenance. This is why checking child benefit is such an important piece of evidence for CMS.

19. We can see CMS did discuss this with Miss H when she was asking them to close her claim. It explained that child maintenance will usually stop when CMS are told child benefit has come to an end. Child benefit is awarded by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Miss H told CMS she was also challenging HMRC’s decision to that her ex-partner was entitled to child benefit. Unfortunately for Miss H, HMRC did not agree child maintenance should stop at that point.

20. Looking at CMS’ guidance, it does appear that CMS could have done more to investigate this dispute. Its Decision Makers’ Guide (DMG) is internal guidance used by CMS staff when making decisions on child maintenance cases. It explains how CMS applies child maintenance law in practice.

21. Section 99008 of the DMG says it should seek evidence from the paying parent, where child benefit remains in payment but a paying parent in Miss H’s position argues it should stop. It does not appear CMS took the step of asking the paying parent if he could send evidence to support his claim your son’s education was full time.

22. CMS have missed the chance to investigate this further, we are not able to say CMS would have received evidence meaning it should have made a different decision. CMS is limited in what it can do to investigate people’s personal circumstance, while HMRC has more extensive investigatory powers.

23. We can also see that, because Miss H had arrears due to only being asked pay maintenance once the May 2021 when tribunal decided she should have begun paying a year earlier, she had not overpaid when the November 2022 when tribunal said her liability stopped in September 2021. This means that, if CMS had decided to close the case when Miss H wanted it to, CMS would still have asked her to continue making payments, because she would still need to clear the arrears. We consider this further below.

24. The ICE recognised that CMS had caused Miss H avoidable frustration by not doing more to investigate the information she was giving in both the first and second applications. It recommended a financial remedy of £300 in recognition of the frustration this caused.

25. We can see Miss H was disappointed CMS did not do more to look into what she was saying and wanted a more thorough look into what she and her ex-partner were saying, to find out more about her sons’ situation. We can see this was a disappointment for her in what she told us.

26. We also cannot see that CMS would have found it could make different decisions if it had asked more questions. We cannot see this would have led to CMS providing explanations that would have significantly changed how Miss H felt about the service it was providing, or about having to pay maintenance to her ex-partner.

27. As noted above, CMS are typically led by HMRC’s assessment about whether a parent is entitled to claim child benefit. This was the key factor that meant CMS’ decision would not have changed until the tribunal said it should. We can appreciate that will be a disappointing decision for Miss H, as she had evidence in the form of what her son’s timetable showed. Considering this, we think the financial remedy of £300 is an appropriate remedy to put things right.

Reimbursement

28. Following the November 2022 Child Support Tribunal decision, Miss H complained CMS needed to refund the maintenance she overpaid. CMS refused to do so because it did not agree it had made a mistake.

29. When CMS looked at Miss H’s request for a reimbursement, CMS told her it would not be considering a reimbursement because it did not agree CMS error had caused her to overpay. It did not agree it should have closed the case down sooner than it did. Miss H was frustrated by this, as she felt CMS were wrong to keep the case open.

30. Section 59019 of the CMS DMG explains the first thing CMS should consider after someone has asked for a reimbursement is whether it made a mistake. It appears this is why CMS looked at that point. However, we can also see there was no overpayment to be reimbursed.

31. While the November 2022 Child Support Tribunal decision meant Miss H’s did not have to pay maintenance after September 2021, the payments she did make cleared the arrears that had been added to her account when the May 2021 Child Support Tribunal decision said she should have been paying from July 2020.

32. We cannot say CMS should have reimbursed the payments Miss H made. Section 41B of the Child Support Act 1991 says people who overpay may be entitled to a reimbursement, but the evidence shows Miss H did not overpay.

33. When the ICE made its decision, it said that CMS’ records showed Miss H had overpaid £2,790.38 by January 2023. This is what the ICE could see when it looked at the complaint. When CMS later updated its record of payments, it could see Miss H had missed a number of payments in 2022. She made a final payment in January 2023 that cleared the arrears and meant that, after the November 2022 Child Support Tribunal decision had been implemented, she owed no more at that point and had not overpaid.

34. CMS recorded Miss H making two further payments of £100 a month after January 2023, and those were overpayments. It is not clear what led to those payments, as CMS were not asking Miss H to pay at that stage. Miss H seems to have made those payments after finding out she no longer needed to pay maintenance. These payments reduced what she needed to pay after her ex-partner made a second claim in March 2023. We consider the handling of that claim below.

Investigating fraud

35. Miss H also felt CMS should have taken action against her ex-partner for making a fraudulent application. She was frustrated when CMS her it would not be taking action against her ex-partner after her claim was closed in 2023, and when she disputed that she should be paying in 2025.

36. Where the CMS finds evidence of fraud, it may need to consider actions it will take against the person responsible. CMS does not have powers itself to sanction a person because it has been misled or prosecute a claim of fraud. CMS cannot make a decision that someone has committed fraud, as this is a criminal matter and only the courts can say someone has committed a crime. However, we are aware that in some cases DWP will refer possible cases of fraud to the police or Crown Prosecution Service.

37. CMS would need good reason to consider suspect possible fraud. In this case, while Miss H feels government departments have been misled and she has lost out as a result, we do not see that she gave CMS good reason why it needed to do more to consider this was a possible fraud case.

38. A parent is entitled to apply to CMS if they believe they could be entitled to receive child maintenance. Even when the Child Support Tribunal concludes they are not entitled to receive maintenance, this would not be a reason for CMS to consider action against the applicant. We recognise the communication both parents had with HMRC may be more significant here, but HMRC are not part of this complaint.

39. We know Miss H was incredibly frustrated CMS did not agree to do more to explore action that could be taken against her ex-partner in light of the impact his claims had on her. We were sorry to hear that she experienced this as coercive control and that, for her, these events prolonged the damaging emotional toll of her relationship with her ex-partner. She told us about the difficulties her ex-partners abusive and controlling behaviour caused her. We appreciate this was emotionally very difficult for her. We believe it was reasonable for CMS to tell her it would not be doing more to look at possible fraud.

Second maintenance application

40. Miss H was alarmed when her ex-partner made a second application to CMS in March 2023, and CMS told her it was considering what she may need to pay. Her ex-partner said their sons were both in full time education again, and living with him. CMS did not agree Miss H needed to pay for her eldest son, as the Child Support Tribunal had looked at his study in the 2021/22 academic year and said he was not in full time education. But it asked her to pay £403.20 a month for her youngest son. It had calculated her liability each month was around £480, but reduced her payment because she had previously overpaid by £200.

41. In June 2023, CMS decided Miss H should be paying maintenance for her eldest son, as her ex-partner had sent additional evidence showing he may be in full time education. Paying maintenance for both her sons added more than £250 to her monthly liability, but CMS thought his education stopped and removed him from the maintenance case in September 2023.

42. From March 2023 onwards, CMS was again led to say Miss H had to pay maintenance because it could see her ex-partner was receiving child benefit. Miss H complained both CMS and HMRC were being misled, particularly in relation to her eldest son’s studies. She told CMS her ex-partner had enrolled him at night school to increase the number of hours he was studying but her son was not actually attending.

43. The law that gives us the power to investigate complaints, the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967, says we should not investigate complaints that could have been taken to court, unless we can see it was not reasonable to expect a person to have appealed.

44. We would expect a person to appeal a dispute about paying maintenance. It is not our role to make decisions about whether the CMS has applied child maintenance law correctly. Weighing up the evidence she was presenting and applying child maintenance law is for the Child Support Tribunal to do, and not us.

45. Miss H told us she did not appeal the decisions CMS made from March 2023 onwards as she felt it was better for her to pursue this through the complaint process. She told us the appeal that was decided in her favour in November 2022 was the end of a slow and stressful process, and her mental health meant she needed to manage the stress and anxiety associated with this. She pointed out the appeal had not put things right for her, as the tribunal could not decide to reimburse any maintenance she had overpaid.

46. We can appreciate making an appeal would have added to Miss H’s stress and the appeal process does take time. Miss H had been able to close the first case by getting a tribunal judge to look at her eldest son’s situation. Bearing in mind CMS never accepted it had been wrong to set up the case, and it was a tribunal appeal that led to the case being closed. We think Miss H would have needed to consider making another appeal was an important option for her even if the appeal process would involve waiting around a year.

47. Unfortunately, making a complaint would not lead to CMS changing a maintenance calculation in the way Miss H wanted. In 2023, DWP’s Complaint Procedure ‘You cannot make a complaint to challenge a benefit decision (this is known as a ‘mandatory reconsideration’) or appeal against a benefit decision, overpayment decision, child maintenance assessment or sanction.’ Once CMS has looked at a mandatory reconsideration it gives a person appeal rights.

48. Miss H said CMS also told her she could not make an appeal if she was making a formal complaint. It would not have been correct to tell her this, as the complaints and appeal processes are for different issues. When Miss H received a response to her complaint in December 2023, she could see CMS were not examining whether her ongoing case could be closed. She received numerous decisions from CMS from March 2023 until the case was closed in January 2025, any of which might have been appealed.

49. Having considered all of this, we do not think we can consider whether CMS should have made a different decision. The particular issue she wants us to decide looks to be one the tribunal could make a decision on, but which we cannot make a decision on. Her preference to pursue things via the complaint process reflects that this seemed more manageable and we can understand how important it was she try and manage the stress of dealing with CMS. Unfortunately getting maintenance calculations changed does require challenging CMS’ actions and is not something we can do.

Enforced payments

50. Miss H did not agree she should be paying maintenance for either of her sons from 2023 onwards. She did not immediately make the payments CMS were asking her to make and, in May 2023, Miss H’s ex-partner asked that she pay by collect and pay.

51. On collect and pay, CMS handles maintenance payments, instead of payments going direct from one parent to the other. CMS also charges a 20% fee to what is paid, in line with section 7 of The Child Support Fees Regulations 2014.

52. CMS’ records show Miss H did make some of the payment CMS asked her to make after it opened a second case in March 2023, but she did not pay what CMS expected. We appreciate this is because she was adamant CMS were getting it wrong.

53. Miss H felt the change to collect and pay, and the additional fees charged, were unfair in the circumstance of her case. Where CMS do not think maintenance will be paid on time, and in line with its calculations it should change to an enforced payment type. This is in line with section 4 (2) of the Child Support Act 1991, which says CMS should collect or enforce maintenance payments where it appears unlikely it will be paid in full or on time.

54. We know Miss H found it deeply troubling that she was being asked to pay maintenance. Where CMS has made a calculation, it is required to pursue payment unless the tribunals say it should change its calculation. We cannot see CMS needed to do something different in this circumstance.

55. Miss H stopped work in September 2023. In the six months she was working, from March to September 2023, CMS asked her to pay a total of £3,824.48. She had paid £2,047.48 towards this, which left £1,777 of arrears from CMS’ point of view.

56. As Miss H lost her job and had no income in September 2023, she was not asked to pay any maintenance from then on, until she started earning again in March 2024. If a parent does not have any income, they cannot be asked to pay maintenance.

57. Miss H continued to feel CMS were wrongly asking her to pay when she began work again in March 2024. CMS asked her to pay £410 a month and she declined to do so. Her arrears increased due to the missed payments in this period. When CMS closed the case again in January 2025, CMS’ calculated another £4,343.78 of arrears had to be added to her case.

58. With no payments being made towards arrears of £6,120.78, CMS agreed to a request it apply a deduction of earnings from May 2025. Although Miss H did not have to pay maintenance for either of her sons after January 2025, CMS still expected Miss H to pay the arrears on her case.

59. Miss H felt applying a deduction of earnings was unfair. She pointed out that she should not be asked to pay maintenance at all.

60. We are not in a position to say Miss H should not have been paying maintenance, as we would first of all need to see a tribunal decision considering this. There is no dispute that Miss H was not making the payments CMS expected. While we know she feels there are very good reasons why she should not have been expected to pay, in circumstance such as this CMS will have to consider an enforced payment method. This is what section 4 (2) of the Child Support Act 1991 says should happen.

61. Having looked at all the points Miss H made and what she told us, we can see she found CMS’ approach to her situation unsupportive and upsetting. We are not able to go as far as she would like in considering some of CMS’ decisions, which needed to be appealed.

62. We cannot see CMS has got things wrong in all the ways she says and, where it has, we will not be asking it to take further action. Although that is what we can see looking at the reasons Miss H told us things had gone wrong and the process CMS had to follow, we know that finding does not detract from or diminish how difficult an episode this was for Miss H, and the impact these events had on her.

63. Complaints about public services give us valuable insight into the work of these organisations and the challenges people experience when dealing with them, and we recognise this has been an emotionally challenging process for Miss H. We would like to thank her for sharing her experiences with us.

1. We have carefully considered Miss H’s complaint that she has wrongly been asked to pay child maintenance to her ex-partner and has not been treated fairly by CMS.

2. This has been a difficult and upsetting episode for Miss H. Being asked to pay child maintenance, when she did not think child maintenance law requires her to, had a significant impact on her wellbeing and mental health.

3. We have not found that we can say CMS should have made different decisions. We cannot say CMS should have made different decisions, as it followed its guidance appropriately in deciding she did need to pay. Where Miss H did not agree, she needed to follow the appeals process and ask the Child Support Tribunal to consider her evidence.

4. CMS has acknowledged it could have done more to consider Miss H’s claims she should not be paying maintenance. We understand this has caused Miss H frustration and distress. The evidence shows CMS would not have been able to make the decision to close her case that she wanted so we cannot say it had a larger impact and consider the financial remedy CMS have already paid is appropriate to put this right. We explain why we will not be taking further action in more detail below.