Child Maintenance Service (CMS)

4. Mr P complains CMS delayed completing the maintenance calculation on his case. He also complains that, while he was waiting for the calculation, CMS failed to consider payments he made directly to his child and offset these against his arrears.

5. As a result of this, Mr P says he experienced a financial loss of £4,500. He also complains that the welfare of his child was put at risk through the potential lack of money during the delays.

6. By bringing the complaint to us, Mr P is seeking a financial remedy of £4,500 either as a direct payment or as an amount offset against arrears or ongoing maintenance. He is also seeking an apology.

7. What follows is a brief summary. We have not included all the details as parties to the complaint are aware of these.

8. This case concerns child maintenance paid by Mr P for his child. His case was opened in December 2023 when his ex-partner (the recipient parent) requested Mr P pay child maintenance for their daughter.

9. CMS contacted Mr P in December to set the case up. On 30 December, Mr P and a CMS caseworker discussed the arrangements for payment. The caseworker told Mr P they would arrange for a maintenance calculation to be done. CMS completed the maintenance calculation in June 2024 and informed Mr P of his weekly liability.

10. During the period from December 2023 to June 2024, Mr P had made a large number of payments directly to his child totalling approximately £4,500. He said he had been unable to make payments to his ex-partner as he was prohibited from contacting her as a condition of his bail.

11. Mr P raised concerns to CMS in June 2024 and received a response in September 2024. This explained CMS could not accept the payments made directly to his child as child maintenance contributions. He also raised a formal complaint in October 2024 and received calls in response in December 2024 and January 2025.

12. Mr P referred his complaint to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) in March 2025. He received a final response from ICE in September 2025.

Taking account of direct payments

17. Mr P complains CMS failed to consider direct payments he made to his child whilst waiting for CMS to complete the maintenance calculation. He told us he made payments amounting to approximately £4,500 and that these should have been offset against arrears which built up during CMS’s delays.

18. In its responses, DWP explained payments made directly to a qualifying child cannot be accepted as contributing to maintenance or arrears without the agreement of the recipient parent. It also explains it told Mr P to stop paying whilst waiting for the maintenance calculation as the payments would not be considered as contributing.

19. In its report, ICE did not uphold the part of the complaint relating to the direct payments to Mr P’s child. It also noted CMS’s guidance explains this sort of payment cannot be taken into account without agreement from the recipient parent, and that Mr P was advised of this during a phone call.

20. We have considered CMS’s actions in line with the DWP’s child maintenance decision makers’ guide. Volume 6 of this relates to collection and enforcement and chapter 60 concerns voluntary payments.

21. Paragraph 60001 explains voluntary payments are payments made when an application for maintenance has been made but the maintenance calculation has not yet been completed. This was the case when Mr P made payments directly to his daughter.

22. Under paragraph 60007, the guidance specifically notes that payments made directly to the qualifying child cannot be considered as a voluntary payment.

23. Taking the above guidance into account, it is clear the payments Mr P made would not meet the criteria to be registered as voluntary payments. It would therefore not be appropriate for CMS to have offset them against any arrears or ongoing maintenance.

24. We consider CMS’s decision not to do so is therefore in line with the relevant guidance. We recognise how frustrating this is for Mr P, particularly when his intentions were to provide support for his child. As the information we have seen indicates CMS acted in line with the relevant guidance, we will not consider part of the complaint further.

Delays in completing maintenance calculation

25. Mr P complains CMS delayed completing the maintenance calculation for his case. He told us the case was opened in December 2023 but that he did not receive a decision until June 2024.

26. As a result of these delays, Mr P complains he experienced a financial loss of £4,500. He says he made payments of this amount directly to his child during the six-month period to support her welfare. He argues that if CMS had carried out the maintenance calculation within 12 weeks, he would not have had to make as many payments so would not have lost as much money.

27. DWP acknowledged that the time taken to make the maintenance calculation was outside the target timeframe of 12 weeks. It made a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr P in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the delays caused him.

28. The ICE report is also clear that CMS should complete maintenance calculations in 12 weeks or less but that it took over six months in Mr P’s case. It also recommended an additional £100 payment (for a total of £200) to fully reflect the impact of the delays on him.

29. As we have noted above, both DWP and ICE noted Mr P was informed the payments he was making would not be registered as contributing to his ongoing maintenance or arrears.

30. CMS accepts that it took too long to complete the maintenance calculation. We have therefore focussed our consideration on whether the delay caused Mr P an injustice that has not already been put right.

31. We consider this can be broken down into two parts which we have considered in turn. Firstly, the financial impact and secondly the emotional impact on Mr P.

32. The financial impact relates to payments Mr P made directly to his child whilst waiting for the maintenance calculation to be completed. He says he would not have needed to pay as much if the maintenance calculation had been completed sooner. We understand why this is frustrating for him.

33. DWP and ICE both explained a caseworker informed Mr P that his payments would not count as maintenance or arrears payments during a call on 30 December 2023. We have reviewed the recording of this call along with the notes made following it.

34. We can see the caseworker clearly advised Mr P to stop making payments whilst waiting for the letter with his completed maintenance calculation. Mr P also confirmed his understanding of this during the call. He also refers to a separate previous call in which he was also advised not to pay.

35. Based on this evidence, we consider Mr P had knowledge that the payments would not be considered as part of his liability for child maintenance when he was making them. We feel it is important to acknowledge he was doing so with the clear stated intention of supporting his child.

36. We recognise that Mr P chose to continue making payments because he wanted to support his child. However, the evidence shows that CMS had advised him that those payments would not count towards his child maintenance liability. In these circumstances, we cannot reasonably conclude that CMS’s delay caused the claimed financial loss.

37. It is also important to acknowledge the additional emotional impact relating to CMS’s delays in completing the MC. Mr P told us how the delays left him feeling frustrated and inconvenienced.

38. CMS has accepted the impact relating to the failings and made a consolatory payment of £200.

39. In considering the remedy for any potential impact, we have regard to our severity of injustice scale. This outlines levels of financial remedy we consider appropriate and proportionate to different impacts.

40. Level two of the scale ranges from £120-£550. The guidance explains this level will usually include cases resulting in a degree of distress or inconvenience which will not usually have a lasting impact or any effect on the complainant’s ability to live a normal life. It also explains emotional impacts at this level will include distress, worry or annoyance which would not impact on day-to-day functioning for a period from one to two weeks to around six months.

41. We also have regard to DWP’s guidance on financial redress for maladministration. Section 5.11 of this explains consolatory payments usually range between £50 and £500 but should be made based on the individual circumstances of the case.

42. Mr P told us he experienced distress and frustration related to the delays in his case. We recognise that the delay caused Mr P distress and frustration over several months. However, the information available to us does not indicate that it affected his day-to-day functioning or his ability to live a normal life.

43. He also described experiencing this distress whilst delays on his case were ongoing, for a total period of around six months. Given the target timeframe for completion is 12 weeks, we think it would be reasonable to expect Mr P to have been frustrated with the delays for the period beyond this, so for around 3 months.

44. Given this reasoning, we consider the impact Mr P has described would fall into level two of our severity of injustice scale. We would therefore consider a payment of £200 would be sufficient to remedy the injustice related solely to the emotional impact of the delays.

45. We also consider the payment of £200 is in line with DWP’s guidance. The payment falls within the range set out in that guidance and reflects the individual circumstances considered by ICE. The ICE report also makes specific reference to the circumstances of Mr P’s case as suggested in the guidance.

46. Taking both of these factors into account, we consider CMS have taken appropriate and sufficient action to remedy the emotional impact of the delays on Mr P. Where Mr P has described an injustice beyond this relating to financial loss, we consider we are unable to link this to CMS’s actions.

47. We will therefore not consider this part of the complaint further. We recognise that Mr P is likely to be disappointed by our decision, particularly because the payments were made with the intention of supporting his child. We hope this statement clearly explains how we reached our decision. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider this part of the complaint further. We wish him all the best for the future.