Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP - the ...

Mr D’s complaint about the Child Support Agency
In Mr D’s case, the Child Support Agency’s poor record keeping had a far-reaching impact. Although
they recognised, relatively quickly, that he was not the man they were looking for, they continued to
pursue him and to cause him a great deal of distress for a long time because they had not removed his
details from their computer system.
Background to the complaint
In March 2004 the Child Support Agency
(the Agency) incorrectly identified Mr D as a
non‐resident parent, after inputting the wrong
National Insurance number into their computer
system. They sent Mr D a maintenance enquiry
form, which he returned marked ‘return to sender’.
He received a further form and telephoned the
Agency several times to try and resolve things.
The Agency traced Mr D’s employer (he was in
the armed forces), obtained his income details
and calculated his liability for child support
maintenance. Mr D telephoned the Agency on
11 May to say that he was not the non‐resident
parent. The Agency made enquiries of the
parent with care and accepted Mr D was not the
non‐resident parent. In June they started to remove
his details from their computer system, but a
system fault prevented them from doing so.
In July 2004 the Agency apologised to Mr D
for this ‘unnecessary and upsetting intrusion
into your life’, and paid him compensation of
£100. In December the Agency wrote to Mr D
saying that he owed £1,692.55 in maintenance
arrears and warned him they may impose a
deduction from earnings order. Mr D said this
correspondence started his girlfriend’s breakdown
of trust in him.
In January 2005 the Agency sent a deduction from
earnings order to Mr D’s employer. In February
Mr D’s solicitors wrote to the Agency: they were
considering Mr D’s position with regard to damages
for the hurt to his reputation, distress, and extra
expense incurred. Mr D’s superior asked the Agency
to withdraw their demand for payment of the
maintenance arrears. The Agency then cancelled
the deduction from earnings order.
In March 2005 the Agency apologised to Mr D’s
solicitors for not having dealt properly with Mr D’s
case, and gave assurances that the computer
system was being corrected to remove his details.
They also said that a compensation payment
was being considered. On 10 March the Agency
refused Mr D a compensation payment. They
acknowledged the inconvenience they had caused
him, but required evidence of the legal costs he
had incurred before they could make that decision.
The Agency said that on 23 March and again on
4 April they raised the matter of the fault with
their computer system with their service provider.
(The Agency were unable to say when and how
they eventually removed Mr D’s details from their
system successfully.)
In April 2005 Mr D took on a specialist operational
role in Iraq. On 12 April the Agency sent him two
further letters, including a schedule of what
maintenance payments he was to make and
when, and in May they asked Mr D’s employer
for information. Mr D said the situation became
more frustrating and inconvenient with each letter.
Each time he had to discuss the matter with his
superiors, solicitors, family and girlfriend, which was
time consuming and stressful. He said that the latest
correspondence had caused a total breakdown of
trust with his girlfriend. In July Mr D’s solicitors told
the Agency that their expenses up to 16 June 2005
were £193.72. The Agency did not respond.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 45