Memorandum submitted by the Independent
Case Examiner (CS 21)
Summary
The general principles set out in the White
Paper are supported as is the emphasis in the White Paper on face
to face contact and increased use of the telephone. There are
a number of areas however where further clarification is needed
or where careful drafting of legislation is required to avoid
ambiguity.
The intention to introduce penalties for supplying
false information etc. may well lead to further administrative
complication. It is difficult to comment without knowing what
penalties are intended. Our experience of the Agency's handling
of the present limited range of penalties shows that they need
to be workable and consistently applied.
We agree that the Agency should not charge for
its services to private clients until it can show a good level
of customer service. In cases where it is arranging maintenance
for state benefit clients, we doubt that service charges should
be levied at all.
Given the proposal to disregard income from
savings and investments, careful consideration will need to be
given to the way in which Parents with Care can challenge the
complex financial arrangements on the part of Non Resident Parents
which can result in unrealistically low or nil assessments.
We understand why the White Paper proposes that
applications for exception are dealt with by officials; but this
will undoubtedly provide opportunities for inconsistently applied
discretion, something which leads to many complaints to the Independent
Case Examiner under the present scheme. A great deal of further
thought needs to be given to drafting legislation on this issue.
The "late payment penalty" is reminiscent
of Interim Maintenance Assessments which have been notoriously
unreliable in securing co-operation and which have increased the
amount of uncollected debt which the Agency reports; and it is
not real debt! The fact that the late payment penalty is real
debt will be more understandable to Agency customers.
The Agency has a system presently of "upfront
loans" which go some way to compensating PWCs who wait inordinate
amounts of time for maintenance. It is hoped that this provision
will remain and that the impact of the new legislation on the
compensation scheme will be identified.
In conclusion, the Independent Case Examiner
considers that the new legislation must be accompanied by good
public information, a sound information technology infrastructure
and adequate staff training if it is to be successfully implemented.
CHAPTER 1: A
NEW CONTRACT
FOR CHILD
SUPPORT
1.1 The general principles set out in the
White Paper are supported as is the analysis of the problems in
the present system. In the two and a half years since the Independent
Case Examiner's office was set up, we have seen many complaints
which show that the system is in urgent need of reform.
1.2 The Independent Case Examiner is in
favour of a much simpler formula believing that it will remove
much of the scope for administrative error and will lead to less
delay, one of the principal causes of the complaints which we
see.
1.3 We see positive advantages in CSA customers
being able to anticipate the level of maintenance assessment they
are likely to have to pay. Some are shocked to find out the level
of assessment when it is calculated; and considerable arrears
have often built in the interim period.
1.4 Simplification of the formula alone
however will not in itself solve the Agency's problems. Many of
the complaints we receive could have been resolved earlier by
more proactive customer contact. In this context the emphasis
in the White Paper on face to face contact and the Agency's increased
use of telephone contact will much improve customer service.
1.5 The Independent Case Examiner's latest
annual report sets out a number of areas where administrative
improvement is required, much of it in advance of the new legislation.
Not least is a requirement to continue to improve the Agency's
capacity to acknowledge, address and resolve the problems which
their customers describe to them.
CHAPTER 2: FAIR
MAINTENANCE FOR
ALL CHILDREN
2.1 The new rates of maintenance, as a proportion
of net income should lead to more accurate, speedier and transparent
assessments. And the result should be more acceptable to the majority
of Non Resident Parents leading to better compliance.
2.2 The proposal to focus maintenance on
the needs of the child rather than taking account of the needs
and income of the Parent with Care will address the concerns of
those Non Resident Parents who have said that they resent supporting
the lifestyle of their former partner.
2.3 Phasing arrangements are essential to
the smooth implementation of the new legislation. However, it
must be clearly explained and promptly actioned if the complaints
which we have previously seen about phasing are to be avoided.
CHAPTER 3: MORE
HELP FOR
CHILDREN
3.1 Introduction of a child maintenance
premium is supported . The measure may encourage Parents With
Care to co-operate with CSA. Furthermore the proposal also addresses
the concerns of Non Resident Parents who have resented the fact
that some of their maintenance does not flow directly to their
child. Also welcome is the proposal to ignore child maintenance
when calculating Working Family Tax Credit since complaints have
been received from Parents With Care whose Family Credit has been
badly affected by both the unpredictable impact of the maintenance
assessment and the uncertain maintenance flow. The move to more
face to face dealings with Parents With Care is also welcomed.
CHAPTER 4: A
NEW SERVICE
THAT ENCOURAGES
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
4.1 The intention to introduce penalties
for supplying false information etc. may well lead to further
administrative complication. It is difficult to comment without
knowing what penalties are intended. Our experience of the Agency's
handling of the present limited range of penalties shows that
penalties need to be workable or they will simply lead to hollow
threats by the Agency which are then disregarded by those who
set out to evade their responsibilities. If the Agency proposes
a penalty it must be followed through.
4.2 The proposal to obtain information from
the Inland Revenue, local authorities and other sources is welcomed.
The Agency's inability to access information from such sources
in the past has been a source of frustration to many Parents with
Care who have complained to me.
4.3 Face to face discussion is welcomed.
The lack of it is something CSA customers have complained about
on many occasions. A responsive telephone service is also required
but accurate albeit concise records of such conversations must
be maintained and there must be a capacity to confirm complex
information in writing especially where this is requested by the
customer. In particular staff must be able to give accurate information
about customers accounts at the touch of a button. We believe
that the Agency cannot afford to wait until late 2001 for this
service to be available.
4.4 We agree that the Agency should not
charge for its services to private clients until it can show a
good level of customer service. In cases where it is arranging
maintenance for state benefit clients, we doubt that service charges
should be levied at all.
CHAPTER 5: DECIDING
LIABILITY AND
RESOLVING DISPUTES
5.1 The proposal to contact NRPs by telephone
is supported but it is essential that accurate records of the
conversation are kept. We already see examples of poor recording
of telephone calls and, given that a one month "dispute period"
is to follow the call, it will be of the utmost importance to
keep records. Will these be on paper or on an IT system? If the
hoped for new IT system is not ready in time (and we hear that
it may not be), what alternative arrangements are the Agency making?
5.2 The ground rules for initiating case
checks at the request of Parents With Care who may have limited
information about the circumstances of their former partners will
need to be clear.
5.3 Where changes of circumstances are reported,
we support the introduction of a 5 per cent tolerance rule rather
than a flat £10 which might have caused problems for children
whose parents were on lower levels of earnings.
CHAPTER 6: EXCEPTIONAL
CASES
6.1 We are pleased to see that exceptional
cases will be very clearly defined; and we think they should be
truly exceptional if the advantages of a simpler scheme are not
to be lost by CSA customers claiming an exception at every turn.
As we said in our response to the Green Paper[4],
NRPs have nothing to lose by claiming an exception.
6.2 Given the proposal to disregard income
from savings and investments careful consideration will need to
be given to the way in which Parents with Care can challenge the
complex financial arrangements made by some Non Resident Parents
which can result in unrealistically low or nil assessments.
6.3 We understand why the White Paper proposes
that applications for exception are dealt with by officials; but
this provides opportunities for inconsistently applied discretion,
something which leads to complaints to the Independent Case Examiner
under the present scheme. A great deal of further thought needs
to be given to drafting legislation on this issue.
6.4 By their very nature, exceptional cases
are likely to be complex. According to the White Paper, complex
cases will go straight to the Tribunal Service. Systems are needed
to reduce the delays in processing appeals to and from Commissioners
which we sometimes see.
CHAPTER 7: CONTACT
AND SHARED
CARE
7.1 The clarity of the shared care and banding
arrangements as proposed in the White Paper is supported. The
Independent Case Examiner notes that there is no plan to pursue
daytime care allowances. She had expressed concern that such arrangements
would be very difficult to administer effectively and could lead
to complaints.
CHAPTER 8: COLLECTING
MAINTENANCE AND
THE ROLE
OF THE
COURTS
8.1 The "late payment penalty"
seems designed both to encourage compliance and to compensate
CSA for the extra work involved in pursuing debt.
8.2 This proposal is reminiscent of Interim
Maintenance Assessments which have been notoriously unreliable
in securing co-operation and which have increased the amount of
uncollected debt which the Agency reports; and it is not real
debt! It is understood that the late payment penalty will be real
debt. This will be considerably easier for parents to understand.
8.3 The prospect of flexible penalties introduces
a further element of discretion which, in our experience, is a
regular cause of complaint.
8.4 The Agency has a system presently of
"upfront loans" (in cases where there has been maladministration)
which go some way to compensating PWCs who wait inordinate amounts
of time for maintenance. It is hoped that this provision will
remain. The impact of the new legislation on the compensation
scheme will need to be identified
8.5 It has been argued by some that firm
attempts to seek compliance are inconsistent with good customer
service. This is not the view of the Independent Case Examiner
who believes that fair, consistent and timely implementation of
a compliance strategy backed up by clear information to the customer
will offer better service to Non Resident Parents and parents
with care alike.
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION
AND SUMMARY
9.1 Overall the Independent Case Examiner
supports the proposals in the White Paper. A simplified system
should be of great benefit in the efforts to improve the service
provided by CSA to its customers. The few remaining concerns may
be addressed when more of the details are known.
9.2 Given that the new legislation is not
likely to be ready before late 2001, and even then it will take
up to 12 months before it begins to have any meaningful impact,
it is imperative that the Agency continues its attempts to improve
present levels of service. The Independent Case Examiner's latest
annual report points the way to a number of areas where service
to the customer could be improved.
9.3 In particular there must be improvements
in explaining accounts; securing maintenance from self employed
people; recognising and putting problems right before complaints
escalate and when they have done so showing evidence that the
Agency is learning from its complaints.
9.4 Finally the Independent Case Examiner
considers that the new legislation must be accompanied by good
public information, a sound information technology infrastructure
and adequate staff training if it is to be successfully implemented.
Anne Parker CBE BA DSA
3 September 1999
4 CS 21A not printed. Back
|