Independent Case Examiner

9. Mr S complains about aspects of the service he received from the ICE in relation to an investigation it undertook between February 2021 and when it issued its final response in May 2023.

10. He specifically complains the ICE’s investigation failed to:

• provide a robust response to his concerns regarding the delay he experienced when CMS was recalculating the payments he needed to make to the receiving parent, in relation to his private pension contributions

• to consider the additional points he raised on 16 September 2021 to its investigation, when it agreed it would on 5 September 2022 when the case was allocated to an investigator

• consider any evidence he provided, or offered to provide, and only considered information provided by CMS.

11. Mr S also raises a number of concerns in relation to the service he received from the ICE when it was looking at his complaint. He specifically complains the ICE:

• did not acknowledge that Mr S drew its attention to his disability (dyslexia)

• rejected his request for an extension to provide a response/challenge to the final report

• failed to keep him updated on his complaint. Mr S says he feels he should have been more involved, and ICE should have spoken to him about how he has been impacted by the issues he is complaining about.

12. Mr S says the delay in CMS completing the changes regarding his pension had an extremely detrimental impact on the relationship he had with the receiving parent and his son. He also says the failures in the ICE’s investigation has meant that he has been left with no explanation as to why CMS took so long to action the change and this has caused him further distress and frustration.

13. Mr S says the failings in the ICE’s investigation mean that he has been denied a robust explanation of all of the issues he experienced with CMS in terms of its actions and omissions, and CMS has not had to take accountability for its errors and the impact these caused.

14. Mr S would like the ongoing issues to be resolved.

15. In January 2020, Mr S contacted CMS to request payments he made to private pensions are taken into account for his maintenance calculations.

16. In December 2020, CMS reviewed Mr S maintenance calculations and reduced his payments, taking into account his pension contributions. This was after several communications between Mr S and CMS.

17. In February 2021, Mr S raised his complaint about CMS to ICE, as he remained unhappy with how CMS had dealt with his case.

18. In May 2023, ICE completed its investigation to Mr S’s complaint.

21. We have carefully reviewed the available correspondence concerning this issue. This statement does not seek to recount every exchange between the parties or every piece of evidence we have considered.

22. Rather, the analysis below summarises the evidence and correspondence that we consider material to our decision. This is because the ICE has already produced a detailed chronology of events and correspondence.

Private pension contributions

23. 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.

24. Mr S complains to us that ICE did not provide a robust response to his concerns about delays by CMS in reviewing his pension contributions.

25. When ICE defined the scope of its investigation on 15 April 2021, it explained it could not consider matters relating to maintenance calculations or pension contributions because these were subject to legislation and had a separate statutory review and appeal process.

26. ICE set out the complaint points it would investigate, which did not include CMS's handling of the pension contribution issue.

27. In a letter on 18 April Mr S subsequently explained to ICE that his concern was not the calculation itself, but what he considered to be CMS's poor handling of the pension contribution matter and delays in reaching a decision. However, ICE appears to have maintained the original complaint scope and did not agree to include this as part of its investigation.

28. It later investigated and reached findings on the complaint points it had agreed to consider.

29. We have not found a failing in how ICE investigated the complaint points it agreed to look at. That said, we can see Mr S was also raising a separate concern about CMS’s administrative handling of his request for his pension contributions to be taken into account.

30. This was not a challenge to the calculation itself, which ICE correctly explained had a statutory review and appeal route.

31. Rather his letter of 18 April 2021 set out his concern about how long CMS took to action the request and the impact Mr S says this had.

32. It is not clear why ICE did not consider this administrative aspect, as it was distinct from deciding whether the maintenance calculation was correct and appears to have been something ICE could have looked at. We also note that, due to the passage of time, ICE no longer holds records showing what consideration, if any, it gave to this aspect of Mr S’s complaint.

33. During our correspondence with Mr S, this has remained an important and unresolved complaint point, and he has told us of the impact the delay had on his relationship with the receiving parent and his child.

34. We will not be able to establish why ICE overlooked at this point, but we consider there was a missed opportunity for ICE to either tell Mr S it was not going to look at this point and why if this was the case. Alternatively, we consider ICE may have misunderstood the nature of what Mr S was asking it to look at, and its importance to him.

35. Given this, we have considered CMS’s handling of the pension contribution concerns, to assess whether ICE not addressing this issue made any material difference to the outcome of Mr S’s complaint.

36. We have asked CMS for further information regarding this issue. Our review is focused on whether ICE not considering this issue cause an impact to Mr S that has not been put right.

37. We have considered the Child maintenance decision makers' guide. This is the guidance for CMS to consider.

38. This says where a paying parent makes contributions to a personal private pension provider, the amount of the pension contribution and any tax relief must be deducted from the income figure for the maintenance calculations.

39. CMS must ask the paying parent of evidence of the contributions and the onus is on them to provide this. The guidance says the preferred evidence is a copy of the annual statement for each tax year.

40. From the evidence and correspondence provided we can see CMS completed its annual review on 18 January 2020 of Mr S’s maintenance calculations. Shortly following its calculation, Mr S contacted CMS to ask his pension contributions are taken into account.

41. CMS asked for evidence of this.

42. Mr S did provide details of the pension contribution in February and March 2020, however the information he provided would not have been sufficient for CMS to amend the maintenance payments. This is because he did not provide an annual pension statement, which the guidance indicates is needed to make the adjustment.

43. On 20 May 2020, CMS decided Mr S had not supplied sufficient evidence of the pension contributions for the period April 2018 to April 2019. However, it appears Mr S was not aware of this decision at the time.

44. Mr S raised a complaint to CMS on 19 July 2020.

45. We can see on 27 July 2020, CMS wrote to Mr S in response to his complaint. Within this CMS explained it had rejected the private pension contribution on 20 May 2020 due to not enough evidence supplied. CMS explained Mr S would need to send a full year statement from both pension providers for the tax year 2019/2020. We think this is for the incorrect tax year, and CMS needed the pension payments for the tax year 2018/2019.

46. On 14 August 2020, Mr S wrote to CMS and queried why it had asked for details of the pension contributions for 2019 to 2020, when his current annual review is based on 2018 to 2019.

47. Within this letter Mr S confirmed he had made total payments for the tax year 2018/2019 of £8,000. He provided evidence of payments he made for one pension for the period March 2019 to April 2019. He also provided evidence for his other pension for the period January 2019 to March 2019. The letters from the pension providers indicate these were for the tax year 2018/2019.

48. We have considered the earlier events between February and May 2020 including but not limited to, the information Mr S was asked to provide, CMS’s decision that it was insufficient, his concerns about not getting portal notifications, being asked to provide information he had already provided, and the wider COVID-19 context. However, as this complaint is about ICE not considering CMS’s handling of the issue, we do not consider it proportionate to examine every stage of CMS’s administration in detail. We have focused instead on when the evidence shows CMS had the information it needed to decide the pension contribution request.

49. Based on the evidence we have seen we consider in August 2020 that CMS had the information it needed to re-calculate Mr S’s maintenance payments due, to reflect the £10,000 he had paid towards a private pension. It did not, and despite Mr S making a number of complaints, CMS asked for further information we do not consider was needed. It was not until December 2020 that CMS made the changes required.

50. As a result of these pension contributions CMS had calculated the maintenance payments for December 2020 and January 2021, at £53.68 a month. We note previously Mr S was paying around £502 a month. On 22 December 2020, CMS sent Mr S a letter of how it has completed its calculation and how it had calculated the maintenance payments for December 2020 and January 2021.

51. We appreciate Mr S would be frustrated with CMS’s actions and how long it took to review his pension contributions.

52. It is not clear or known why CMS did not review the maintenance calculation after it had received the evidence, we think it needed in August 2020 and continued to ask for further evidence.

53. We have contacted CMS about this, and it has acknowledged Mr S’s letter from 14 August 2020, did contain the relevant information for his pension contributions. CMS has acknowledged there was a missed opportunity to complete the change at an earlier date. Unfortunately, due to the length of time that has passed there is limited evidence available as to why CMS did not do this at the time.

54. As CMS had accepted it should take Mr S’s private pension contributions into account. This reduced his available income for calculating his maintenance payments. This therefore meant his maintenance payments would reduce. Based on Mr S’s reduced income because of his pension contributions it meant what he needed to pay over that year reduced by approximately £900.

55. Any amendment to a maintenance calculation is applied across the relevant annual review period.

56. As CMS did not make the adjustment until December 2020, there were only two payments left before the next annual review. This meant the reduction had to be reflected in those remaining payments, rather than being spread across the year. It is unfortunate this resulted in a much larger monthly reduction that would have likely been the case had CMS acted earlier. However, the maintenance payments would still have reduced in any event.

57. As referred to above, we consider CMS could have made its decision about Mr S’s pension contributions when it received his evidence and documents on 14 August 2020.

58. CMS does not complete the decision until 16 December 2020. This is nearly 18 weeks after it received the information it needed.

59. By continuing to ask for information it did not need, there was an avoidable delay in reviewing and deciding the matter. We therefore consider there was a shortcoming in CMS’s handling of this issue.

60. We have gone on to consider the impact of this.

61. We are very sorry to hear of the impact the delays in CMS’s review of his pension had on the relationship between the receiving parent and his son. We recognise the payments reducing from around £500 a month to £53 a month in December and January, would have had a big impact on all parties involved.

62. As Mr S requested CMS consider his pension contributions, in line with its guidance it would need to have reviewed this and amended his maintenance calculations.

63. We have considered whether CMS acting sooner would have avoided the impact Mr S describes.

64. CMS took Mr S’s pension into consideration at his request, in doing so this reduced the maintenance he needed to pay by approximately £900 over the year. Even spread across the full annual review period, we consider a reduction of approximately £900 was a substantial reduction in the maintenance due.

65. Even if CMS had acted immediately after receiving the information it needed in August 2020, the review would still have taken place more than halfway through the review period. The remaining payments would therefore still have reduced significantly.

66. From the ICE report we can see it explained due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic from April 2020, most DWP staff were redeployed. This reduced CMS’s ability to complete actions within normal timeframes. We can see CMS has also explained that due to COVID-19, backlogs and demand, responses to requests were generally taking around 12 weeks to process around the time Mr S submitted all the required information in August 2020.

67. This would mean even if CMS had acted as soon as we consider it could have done in relation to the pension contribution. It may not have made a decision until around November 2020. This still would have resulted in a significant reduction of payments, to around £203 a month.

68. The delay by CMS meant the reduction was concentrated into the final two payments, before the annual review. This made the monthly adjustment for the last two months more pronounced.

69. As the maintenance due would still have reduced in any event. We cannot safely conclude the relationship difficulties Mr S describes was caused by CMS’s delay itself, rather than by the reduction in maintenance payments.

70. In relation to Mr S’s concern that ICE did not consider CMS’s delay in actioning his pension contributions, we consider ICE missed an opportunity to address this issue. However, having reviewed the substance of the matter, we do not consider this caused Mr S an unremedied impact.

71. CMS missed an opportunity to act sooner, but we cannot safely link the relationship impact Mr S describes to that delay, rather than to the substantial reduction in maintenance that would have happened in any event.

72. We therefore do not think ICE would have reached a materially different outcome had it considered this issue. We appreciate Mr S’s frustration with ICE not looking at this issue. We are also sorry to hear of the problems he incurred with the receiving parent and his son. We acknowledge this would have been a very difficult and frustrating time for him.

73. We hope our consideration of CMS’s handling of Mr S’s request to consider his pension contribution has provided Mr S with some answers and assurances of its calculations.

Additional points raised to ICE

74. Mr S complained ICE failed to add the additional points he raised on 16 September 2021 to its investigation, despite it agreeing it would on 5 September 2022 when the case was allocated to an investigator.

75. We have considered our Principles of Good Administration. This says public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it or explain why they cannot.

76. From the correspondence referred to above we can see in April 2021, ICE confirmed the complaint definition it was to consider as part of its investigation.

77. On 16 September 2021, Mr S wrote to ICE. At this time ICE had not allocated Mr S’s case to a caseworker. Within his letter, Mr S explained he had not received a response from CMS about the further concerns he raised. Mr S requested that due to CMS not engaging with him, that CMS, reviews every message, letter and telephone conversation since 1 January 2020. That it provides a response to each of these, and an explanation if they have not previously responded adequately. Also, that it provides details of how it will address any failures.

78. On 25 April 2022, Mr S wrote again to ICE. He said he has now received a further response from CMS about further concerns he raised. Mr S explained he only received this because of ‘dogged determination’. He sent ICE CMS’s further response, dated 8 April 2022. Mr S explained he is unhappy with CMS’s response and that it is ‘wholly inadequate and factually incorrect’.

79. ICE sent Mr S a letter on 19 August 2022, when the case was allocated to a caseworker to consider their complaint.

80. On 20 August, Mr S sent ICE an email to request whether it is to investigate the actions of CMS since he had originally lodged his complaint with ICE. This related to CMS’s complaint response dated 8 April 2022.

81. We can see that on 5 September 2022, ICE wrote to Mr S and said the matters leading up to his further complaint response from CMS dated 8 April 2022 will also be covered as part of its investigation.

82. We have reviewed CMS’s complaint response dated 8 April 2022. Within this we consider there are three main issues it addresses.

83. The first issue is that CMS did not adequately answer Mr S’s concerns about the delays in reviewing his pension contributions. CMS acknowledged within its complaint response that Mr S has raised this matter with ICE to consider.

84. The second issue is that CMS sent Mr S a payment schedule, which continued beyond the date he would be required to make maintenance payments for his son. In the response CMS said on the date of the annual review, a payment schedule is automatically sent showing parents the payment due for the next year.

85. It said if there is any changes during this period, for example if the case is closed, it would send out a revised schedule. CMS apologised for any inconvenience Mr S experienced due to the automated process.

86. The third issue is in relation to CMS closing Mr S’s account. CMS explained on 12 October 2021, it closed Mr S case, backdated to 6 September 2021. It stated it was notified Mr S’s son no longer qualified for maintenance. CMS apologised for the delay in notifying Mr S of this.

87. CMS explained Mr S account was set for payment by direct pay. This is where the paying parent sends any maintenance payments directly to the receiving parent. CMS’s system auto satisfies that the payment had been made, unless it is told otherwise.

88. Within its response CMS stated as Mr S was on direct pay, where overpayments have occurred, it generally does not make refunds to a paying parent. It stated this is because the money has to be paid by the other parent. CMS explained to Mr S that he would have to recover any overpayment directly from the receiving parent.

89. ICE issued its investigation outcome letter dated 4 May 2023.

90. Within this we can see it gives a detailed background of events. ICE make reference to CMS’s complaint response dated 8 April 2022. In relation to its findings ICE makes a decision about the five complaint points as detailed in its complaint definition from April 2021. ICE does not appear to address the substantive issues detailed within CMS’s complaint response from 8 April 2022.

91. The correspondence shows ICE confirmed it would address Mr S’s further concerns raised about CMS. Its investigation report does not appear to do this. Based on this we consider ICE has not said what it was going to do, in line with what we would expect in accordance with our Principles for Good Administration.

92. Because ICE told Mr S it would consider these additional points but did not do so, we consider it did not act in line with our Principles of Good Administration. To assess the impact of this, we have gone on to consider the substance of the concerns Mr S raised. This helps us decide whether ICE not considering those points made any material difference to the outcome of his complaint.

93. In relation to the first issue of the pension contributions. We have addressed this above.

94. With regards to the second issue of the annual review. We can see on 18 January 2021, CMS completed its annual review. This detailed the payments Mr S was to make for the next 12 months. We note Mr S wrote to CMS on 23 January 2021, to explain that during this period his son would no longer be a qualifying child, due to him turning 20. The guidance states a child will qualify for maintenance, if they are under 16 or 16-19 and in full-time education.

95. As referred to above we can see CMS provided an explanation for this within its response dated 8 April 2022.

96. Within the decision makers guide, it details that the annual review is the process CMS will follow every year to ensure its calculations are based on the most up to date and reliable information. The annual review will cover the payments to be made over the next 12 months.

97. We appreciate it may have been confusing to receive details about payments Mr S was to make over the next 12 months, when for some of the period he would not be liable for the payments, due to his son not being a qualifying child.

98. Based on CMS’s response this is an automated process when it completes its annual review. While Mr S, would not necessarily pay the full 12 months, as the annual review covers the period over the next 12 months, this would always be stated in the letters.

99. In line with our principles of Good Complaint Handling, public bodies should give clear, evidence-based explanations, and reasons for their decisions. We consider CMS response is in accordance with the guidance, and it has provided an explanation as expected in accordance with our principles.

100. Accordingly, we do not consider there is an impact with ICE not looking at this issue, as we consider CMS provided correct information about it.

101. The third issue CMS refer to within its letter, is about it closing the account.

102. In its complaint response CMS confirmed it closed Mr S’s maintenance case on 12 October 2021, backdated to 6 September 2021. This appears to be due to CMS being informed the child was no longer in full-time education. From the correspondence CMS do not write to Mr S to confirm it closed the case until 6 December 2021.

103. We consider there was a delay in CMS informing Mr S, his case was closed.

104. From the evidence we have seen, it is not clear if Mr S continued to make payments. As referred to above where the account is set up as direct pay, CMS’s system auto satisfies payments, unless it is informed otherwise.

105. CMS’s decision makers guides states a reimbursement is the repayment of money to the paying parent, for overpaid maintenance, which has already been paid to the receiving parent. The guidance states it is not an automatic right for paying parent to receive a reimbursement. It sates this should be on an exceptional basis as CMS do not hold the funds.

106. The guidance further states on direct pay cases, CMS should ask the paying parent to contact the receiving parent to request any reimbursements for overpayments. CMS should only consider reimbursement when the receiving parent will not make the payment.

107. From CMS’s correspondence we can see it informed Mr S, he would need to recover any overpayments from the receiving parent. We consider this is in accordance with the guidance as his case was set up as direct pay.

108. As such, we do not consider there is an impact with ICE not looking at this issue, as we consider CMS provided correct information about it, and ICE would not have asked CMS to have taken any further action, even if it had looked at this. Accordingly, we will not take any further action regarding this complaint on this basis.

ICE consideration of evidence

109. Mr S complained ICE did not consider any evidence he provided or offered to provide, and only considered information provided by CMS.

110. ICE issued its response on 22 November 2024, setting out the evidence considered and its findings.

111. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling says organisation should be ‘open and honest when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should give clear, evidence-based explanations, and reasons for their decisions’. It also says they should ‘Investigate complaints thoroughly and fairly, basing their decisions on the available facts and evidence, and avoiding undue delay’.

112. We recognise Mr A’s dissatisfaction with ICE’s decision. We understand his frustration that ICE confirmed it did not need any evidence Mr S had.

113. ICE when completing its investigation has full access to all CMS’s systems, letters and notes. We can see it refers to this within its correspondence.

114. From the evidence we have seen this is consistent with that considered by ICE. ICE explained its reasoning and the evidence it relied on, within its investigation report. This is in line with our principles. We have found no failings in its handling of this matter.

ICE consideration of Mr S’s disability

115. Mr S complained ICE did not acknowledge he had drawn its attention to his disability (dyslexia).

116. From the correspondence we can see when Mr S wrote to ICE on 3 January, 24 January and 26 February 2021, he informed it that he had dyslexia. Within the correspondence he explained that his written communications are often not as exact as he would hope and ask that ICE make allowances for this.

117. ICE sent Mr S a letter dated 15 April 2021, where it set out its complaint summary. Within this it stated if Mr S requires any special requirements, for any reason such as dyslexia, to let them know.

118. From the further correspondence we have not identified Mr S requested any reasonable adjustments or special requirements from ICE.

119. We have considered our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. This says public bodies should understand and respect the diversity of their customers and ensure fair access to services.

120. From the correspondence we can see that Mr S did inform ICE he had dyslexia. ICE within its correspondence ask Mr S if he required any reasonable adjustments or special requirements. We have not seen any evidence to indicate Mr S informed ICE he required any adjustment. We note when ICE issued its decision, Mr S requested that this was sent to him via email. Initially ICE could not do this but did eventually make the adjustment.

121. Based on the above, we consider ICE acted in line with our principles by asking Mr S to let it know if he needed any adjustments and making an adjustment when he later asked for the decision to be sent by email. We have not seen evidence that Mr S was prevented from accessing ICE’s service or pursuing this complaint because of how ICE responded to his dyslexia. We therefore do not consider there is a failing in relation to this issue.

Extension

122. Mr S said ICE rejected his request for an extension to provide a response/challenge to the final report.

123. ICE issued its investigation report dated 4 May 2023. Within this it stated if Mr S identifies any factual errors, which impacts the findings or any new evidence he needs to provide this within three months. ICE sent this in the post to Mr S.

124. Mr S responded to ICE on 21 May, to explain as he is away studying, he has only just picked up its letter. He requests because of this the timescale to respond starts from 21 May. He also asks for a further extension to respond to its investigation. Mr A explained the matter had been ongoing for some time, and it will take him time to respond.

125. ICE respond on 30 May and confirm it is happy to use the date of 21 May, as the response start date. It advised Mr S it will only consider extending the timeframe if the reason provided is reasonable. It stated if Mr S needs more time to consider the findings, to contact it closer to the end of the three-month timeframe.

126. On 16 August, Mr S writes to ICE and requests an extension to respond to its investigation. Mr S explained he has not been able to respond due to his fulltime commitments with his university studies.

127. ICE respond on 17 August, to explain it had granted an extension until 21 August, but could not grant a further extension. ICE explained it deals with a number of customers who are also in fulltime education and are able to respond within the three-month timeframe. ICE also explain it has provided details of how it can escalate the matter to PHSO.

128. We can see on 18 August 2023, Mr S provides further details of why he requested an extension and requests ICE reconsider the extension. On 21 August Mr S writes to ICE to challenge its decision. He explained he has taken time out of his studies over the weekend to respond and highlight some basic concerns with ICE’s report.

129. We have considered our Principles of Good Administration. This says public bodies should treat people fairly and consistently, so that those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way.

130. We appreciate Mr S’s frustration and upset that ICE did not grant him an extension to challenge its investigation. We understand ICE had been considering his matter for nearly two years.

131. We can see ICE informed Mr S of the time period to respond to its investigation. It also extended the time, to take into account the delay in Mr S viewing the document, due to ICE sending it in the post.

132. ICE did not grant Mr S a further extension. There is no requirement for ICE to grant this, and we can see it has explained the reasons behind its decision, that it has other customers in similar situations. We consider this is in line with our principles of it treating people fairly and consistently. As such we are unable to say there is a failing with ICE’s action in relation to this issue.

133. We have also considered that, although ICE did not agree to a further extension, it signposted Mr S to PHSO if he remained unhappy with its final decision. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say organisations should give people clear information about what they can do next if they remain dissatisfied. We consider ICE did this by explaining the route available to Mr S after its investigation had concluded. This was the correct route for him to follow if he wanted the matter considered further.

Update on the complaint

134. Mr S complained ICE failed to keep him updated on his complaint. He said he feels he should have been more involved, and ICE should have spoken to him about how he has been impacted by the issues he is complaining about.

135. We appreciate Mr S’s frustration with ICE not involving him with its investigation or updating him regularly. We acknowledge this may have added to Mr S’s distress about the complaint.

136. Our Principles for Good Administration say public bodies should aim to ensure customers are clear about their entitlements. This includes what they can and cannot expect from the public body.

137. It also says public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it or explain why they cannot.

138. From the correspondence provided we can see when ICE confirmed it would take on Mr S’s case it agreed the points of complaint it would look at.

139. On 19 August 2022, the allocated caseworker at ICE wrote to Mr S. They confirmed they would examine all the evidence supplied by CMS and any information Mr S had provided.

140. On 5 September Mr S asked ICE, whether it would contact him for further information to assist in its investigations. ICE responded on 13 September.

141. It explained it is not routine to contact clients for further information during its investigation. ICE explain this is because the evidence it receives from CMS contains all correspondence they have had with the relevant parties. ICE stated should anything arise that it needs to discuss with Mr S then they would be in touch.

142. ICE is a separate independent organisation from the organisation who the complaint has been raised about (CMS in this case). It investigates complaints and reviews the evidence independently.

143. The correspondence shows ICE confirmed what it was to review and what evidence it was to consider. It also confirmed it would contact Mr S if it needed further information. ICE has to remain impartial towards both parties. Based on this we consider ICE has set out what it was to do and what Mr S can expect. This is in accordance with our principles. Accordingly, we do not consider there is a failing with how ICE has conducted its investigation or involved the parties during its investigation.

144. From the correspondence provided, we can see within the introductory letter sent by ICE on 19 August 2022, it confirmed it would update Mr S every eight-weeks. From the correspondence provided we can see ICE provide updates on 13 September 2022, 3 November 2022, 12 January 2023, and 3 April 2023. We note the update from 3 April, was following Mr S sending ICE an email on 3 April requesting an update.

145. We note while there have been updates, these have not been exactly every eight-weeks, as ICE confirmed it would provide. We are therefore not assured ICE has acted in line with our principles of doing what it said it would do.

146. We appreciate Mr S having to chase ICE for an update would have added to his frustration. It also would have taken up time to chase ICE.

147. Our Principles for Remedy say, ‘Public bodies should promptly identify and acknowledge maladministration and poor service and apologise for them.

148. From the correspondence with ICE we can see it apologised for the delay in issuing its final response. We consider this is in line with our principles for remedy. Based on this we believe ICE has done enough to put right this delay, in line with our principles. Because of this, we do not need ICE to take any further action.

Summary

149. We recognise the frustration and distress Mr S has experienced in dealing with these matters.

150. We hope our investigation has provided Mr S with an explanation as to what happened and assurances regarding CMS’s calculations.

151. We hope this clearly explains the reasons why we will not be considering the complaint further. We would like to thank him for bringing his concerns to our attention.