The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has faced criticism regarding significant delays and inefficiencies in securing child support payments, leaving many parents in dire financial straits. Katy, for instance, has experienced profound frustration with the system. In March of the previous year, the CMS indicated it would seek a liability order against her ex-partner, a process they estimated would take 26 weeks to conclude in court. This news brought Katy some relief, leading her to mark the date on her calendar.
However, as the anticipated court date approached, the CMS informed Katy that the order had still not been obtained. The situation repeated itself in September, when the CMS once again assured her they would apply for a liability order to recover approximately £6,000. Further compounding her distress, Katy revealed that just last month, the service admitted they were no longer confident in her ex-partner’s address, which was crucial for serving him with the necessary paperwork. Consequently, Katy now finds herself in debt, and her case has effectively been put on hold. She expressed profound disappointment, stating, “I was really upset because it just came as such a shock. I thought that I was going to get somewhere and just haven’t. I’m not sure I’m ever going to see the money.” Her ex-partner chose not to respond to inquiries regarding the matter.
The CMS has acknowledged these delays, issuing an apology and providing a consolatory payment to Katy. They attribute the protracted process to ongoing difficulties in verifying and maintaining a reliable address for the paying parent.
Another mother, identified as Susan to protect her identity due to her ex-partner’s abusive nature, shared a similarly disheartening experience with Panorama. She described the CMS’s efforts to recover overdue child maintenance as “a waste of everybody’s time… a waste of everyone’s money.” Her ex-partner ceased regular child maintenance payments five years ago, accumulating over £10,000 in arrears. The lack of financial support has forced Susan to skip meals, highlighting the severe impact on her well-being. She elaborated, “No matter how many hours I was working, it wasn’t making up for the payments that should have been coming from the paying parent.”
In Susan’s case, financial investigators at the CMS confirmed her ex-partner possessed the means to pay. The CMS subsequently initiated court proceedings, but he failed to appear. Susan was then informed by the CMS that while the court had issued a warrant, they were unable to take further action. She recounted their explanation, “They… told me they had no warrant officers,” branding the situation an “embarrassment.” The CMS has also apologized for its failings in Susan’s case, explaining that enforcement action can be complex and requires adherence to statutory processes.
Despite these individual cases, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) asserts that “continued modernisation” of the service is leading to “progressing cases more quickly and effectively.” Simon Hunter, the Director of the CMS, stated that a significant portion of the service’s 800,000 cases result in “highly satisfied” customers, and compliance has improved over the past three years. He affirmed, “We are working hard behind the scenes to try and make sure that we can facilitate regular child maintenance payments.” Hunter acknowledged that enforcement journeys, which constitute a very small percentage of their customer base, can be extensive and understand that “it can feel like it has taken a long time.” The ongoing challenges faced by parents like Katy and Susan underscore the persistent issues within the Child Maintenance Service despite these assurances.
