Select Committee on Social Security Minutes of Evidence



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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1999
Prepared 15 October 1999