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

Mr J’s complaint about the Child Support Agency
The Child Support Agency caused Mr J distress, affecting his relationship with his family and partner,
because they failed to remove his details from their computer system when they found that he was not
the man they were looking for. They failed to ‘put things right’ fully for more than four years.
Background to the complaint
In August 2003 the Child Support Agency (the
Agency) received a maintenance application form.
In October the Agency sent Mr J a maintenance
enquiry form, believing him to be the non-resident
parent. (In tracing the non‐resident parent the
Agency apparently chose an ‘incorrect entry’ and
wrongly identified Mr J.) Mr J did not know and
had not had a relationship with the person with
whom the Agency claimed he had had a child.
He telephoned the Agency and was assured they
would put things right. Despite that, the Agency
asked Mr J’s employer about his earnings and issued
a child support maintenance calculation.
In December 2003 the Agency confirmed that Mr J
was not the non‐resident parent and referred the
case to a specialist team to remove his details from
their system. An ‘incident number’ was raised but
no further action was taken. (The Agency told us
that a National Insurance number removal form
should have been completed and sent to the team,
but they were unable to confirm if that was done.
As no note was made on the system to tell officers
that Mr J was not the non-resident parent, his
details were not removed.) The Agency awarded
Mr J compensation of £100.
On 18 December 2006 the Agency sent Mr J two
letters: one demanded immediate payment of
£3,498 arrears; the other said that a maintenance
payment of £144 was overdue. Mr J was ‘mortified
and extremely upset’ to receive letters from
the Agency again. He rang the Agency and was
promised a call back, which he did not receive.
On 21 December the Agency sent Mr J a letter
saying they would collect the maintenance
through a deduction from earnings order. Mr J
telephoned them on 28 December to explain
they had previously accepted that he was not the
non‐resident parent. The Agency told us this was
the first time they identified that the action taken
in 2003 to remove Mr J’s details had not worked.
No one returned Mr J’s call.
On 19 January 2007 the Agency wrote to tell Mr J
that he owed arrears of £5,544, and that unless he
made arrangements to pay, they would involve
a debt collection agency. Mr J telephoned the
Agency, but they did not call him back. In February,
after the Agency had imposed a deduction
from earnings order, Mr J’s employer deducted
£213.36 from his wages (£212.36 for maintenance
and arrears, and a £1 administration fee). Mr J
telephoned the Agency on 15 February, and again
explained the history of his dealings with them. He
asked to be called back. He telephoned again on
16 February, saying he was unhappy that no one had
called him back and reiterating that he was not the
non‐resident parent. Mr J did not receive the call
back he had requested.
On 20 February 2007 Mr J telephoned the Agency
and was told that the debt collection agency had
been asked not to take any further action. The next
day the Agency’s solicitors wrote to Mr J, saying
that his failure to respond to an earlier letter from
them left the Agency no alternative but to take
enforcement action. They intended to apply for
a deduction from earnings order unless he paid
£5,610 by 28 February.
48 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009