Memorandum submitted by Independent Case
Examiner (ICE) (CS 03)
1. BACKGROUND
TO ROLE
OF THE
INDEPENDENT CASE
EXAMINER (ICE)
1.1 The first Independent Case Examiner
(Anne Parker) was appointed in December 1996 following calls from
the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for the
Child Support Agency to improve its complaints handling procedure
and to establish an independent complaints review service. Having
recruited and trained staff from a wide variety of backgrounds,
the office became operational on 7 April 1997.
1.2 I took over the role from Anne Parker
in September 2001. I was initially appointed on a temporary basis
by the then Permanent Secretary for the Department for Work and
Pensions. I have subsequently been re-appointed for a three-year
term, following an open public recruitment process. I am not a
civil servant and carry out my role as an independent consultant.
1.3 Before my office can accept a complaint
for investigation, the client must have been through the Agency's
own complaints procedure, culminating in the receipt of a response
from or on behalf of the Agency's Chief Executive, in the preceding
six months.
1.4 My office cannot investigate complaints
which:
— have not exhausted the Agency's complaints
procedure;
— concern Government policy or legislation;
and
— are subject to appeal or judicial
review;
— have been, or are being investigated
by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
1.5 During the 2003-04 business year my
office received 2,151 complaint referrals, 925 of which were accepted
for investigation. This compares to 1,419 and 702 respectively
during the 2002-03 reporting year. This represents a 30% increase
in our caseload.
1.6 When we accept a complaint for action,
initially we establish whether there is any scope for resolving
the complaint without the need for a full investigation, as this
generally represents a speedier and more positive outcome for
both the client and the Agency. During the 2003-04 reporting year
we resolved 370 complaints. In the same period we investigated
436 cases, 86% of which were either fully or partially upheld.
2. SUMMARY
2.1 The majority (73%) of the complaints
we accepted for investigation during the 2003-04 reporting year,
concerned old scheme cases. That said, complaint referrals relating
to the administration of cases under the Child Support Reforms
(on the new information technology system—CS2) increased
month on month during the 2003-04 reporting year. Referrals rose
from 29 in the first quarter to 208 in the last quarter. This
trend has continued. In the first two months of the 2004-05, business
year we received 395 complaint referrals, 141 (36%) of which concerned
new scheme cases. Of the 164 cases we accepted for investigation
during the same period, 49% related to new scheme complaints.
2.2 Whilst simplifying the calculation of
maintenance liability, the introduction of the Child Support Reforms
left the basic administrative functions of the Agency unchanged.
In its most simplistic form, the Agency retains the functions
of gathering information to inform a maintenance calculation,
calculating maintenance liability, securing compliance with that
liability and, where necessary, pursuing enforcement measures
to obtain payment.
2.3 As a consequence, from my perspective,
many issues complained about by people dealt with under the new
scheme are not dissimilar from those that arose under the previous
legislation. These include delays, poor communication, and poor
administration. The consequence of such maladministration is that
money does not flow for the support of children, because the Agency
has failed to establish liability, to secure compliance, or to
send on received maintenance payments. Many people complain that
the Agency has failed to enforce payment effectively, whilst others
complain that enforcement action that has been taken has been
unfair and inappropriate in their case.
2.4 It is apparent from complaints that
we investigate that the quality of the Agency's initial interaction
with parents is key to building an appropriate relationship that
will facilitate the smooth flow of maintenance. Clearly, the success
of this early contact is crucial to people's confidence in the
Agency.
2.5 For the parent with care, this means
providing help to understand the process with which they have
become involved (not always voluntarily) and processing their
application within a promised timeframe. It is important for this
to be achieved quickly because it establishes the effective date
of the maintenance liability. The end result required is that
people will receive regular and correct payments of maintenance.
2.6 For the non-resident parent, initial
contact is equally important as the Agency has an opportunity
to explain its role and the rights and responsibilities of both
parents in relation to the Agency's work. Again, it is vital that
maintenance is calculated promptly, to prevent arrears from accruing
and so that people can take account of this liability in arranging
their personal financial commitments.
2.7 It was anticipated that the introduction
of the Child Support Reforms and associated systems would enable
the Agency to provide a customer-focussed service to meet these
requirements. A new structure was proposed in which there would
be case ownership from receipt of the application to first payment
of maintenance. This would allow Agency officers to establish
the right relationships with clients and take responsibility for
the progress of the application.
2.8 Our current caseload demonstrates that
this optimism was misplaced and significant numbers of people
have had cause to complain that the Agency has failed to meet
published standards or their legitimate expectations. People still
complain of being passed "from pillar to post" and,
in cases referred to me, this is exacerbated by a failure to deal
appropriately with their complaints and quickly resolve problems
that have arisen.
2.9 Having said this, in my view the Agency
has made considerable progress over the past two years in establishing
appropriate complaint handling processes. It has invested time
and resource into this important area of customer service and,
in particular, has sought to concentrate its efforts on appropriate
resolution of complaints.
2.10 I acknowledge that this has not been
easy against a backdrop of problems with CS2 which have had a
considerable impact on the Agency's ability to deliver an appropriate
level of service to parents.
2.11 In addition, the Agency has also made
considerable progress in reviewing and strengthening its enforcement
response to non-compliance within the specialist enforcement teams.
3. THE GENERAL
PERFORMANCE OF
THE CSA IN
RUNNING TWO
CHILD SUPPORT
SCHEMES
3.1 There are clearly problems in running
two parallel systems in which clients are not treated equally.
This can lead to a charge of unfair treatment on the part of those
customers who would prefer to be dealt with under one or other
of these systems but cannot be transferred because of legislation
or circumstances.
3.2 There are also complications caused
by the fact that these systems do not run entirely separately.
There are points of contact between them as cases currently on
the old system are affected by new cases being dealt with under
CS2. This triggers a transfer (migration) of the old case to the
new system and a number of problems arise for people "between"
the two systems.
3.3 Evidence from complaint referrals to
ICE suggests that efficiency can be improved in the service provided
under both systems. However, there are clearly some areas of work
which are not specific to either, such as enforcement and complaint
handling.
Subject of complaints
3.4 Each complaint referral generally comprises
a number of elements. ICE provides a response to each element
of complaint, and offers statistical information to the Agency
on their subject matter, to help identify areas where improvement
is required.
3.5 Of the 1,939 complaint elements we cleared
during 2003-04: 40% concerned delay; 33% concerned error; 17%
concerned Agency failure to take action, and 10% fell within the
miscellaneous category (covering staff attitudes/bias).
3.6 In the case of complaint referrals on
CSR related cases, we have been collecting data at complaint receipt
(in addition to case closure), to assist in the identification
of emerging issues. There was an initial expectation that the
majority of these complaints would relate to dissatisfaction with
the new rules or with the case remaining under the old rules.
This has not been our experience.
3.7 The data collected during 2003-04, suggests
that 41% of referrals concerned delay (primarily in calculating
maintenance and collecting payment); 48% concerned Agency failure
to take action; 7% concerned error, and only around 4% fell within
the miscellaneous category (mostly complaints from clients who
wanted their case to transfer from the old to the new scheme).
Service standards
3.8 Since 2002-03 the Agency has not published
service/charter standards, which give people a clear expectation
of how long it will take to deal with a particular aspect of service.
In dealing with complaints, ICE judges the Agency's performance
against internal targets, or the standards set in previous years.
This enables me to decide in a more objective way whether delays
experienced by clients were excessive/unreasonable.
3.9 At the time of the introduction of the
Child Support Reforms, Agency literature indicated that it aimed
to complete an assessment within an average of six weeks (this
reference has since been removed from Agency documentation). In
general, this target has not been met in the case of people who
refer complaints to me.
3.10 However, it is fair to say that I see
a small proportion only of cases that the Agency handles and that
these represent the most problematic cases dealt with by the Agency.
To this extent, the cases we see are not a fair representation
of the experience of all Agency customers, but rather a reflection
of the experience of a significant minority. This is also true
for MPs who are asked to help their constituents who face difficulties
with the Agency.
Old scheme
3.11 Each year I publish an Annual Report,
detailing referral rates and case clearances. In addition, I highlight
key issues which require attention on the part of the Agency,
to improve the service to customers and avoid future complaint
referrals (my 2003-04 report is due to be published on 1 July
2004).
3.12 My Annual Report for 2003-04 highlights
the type of complaints considered during the reporting year, the
need for further improvements in complaints handling, and the
priority the Agency affords to recommendations I make. It also
welcomes early indications that the work undertaken by the Agency
to review its enforcement procedures is starting to bear fruit
(further reference to this is detailed at section 5).
3.13 I do not uphold a complaint, even if
initially justified, if at the time of acceptance the Agency has
provided, offered or instigated appropriate redress. This differs
from the approach of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. However, despite
this opportunity for the Agency to try to resolve complaints at
an earlier stage, the high percentage of cases we have either
fully or partially upheld (86%) demonstrates that further effort
is required, if the Agency is to give an appropriate response
to complainants.
3.14 Although there is an understandable
concentration of management effort on ensuring the future success
of the Reforms, it is important that the needs of the current
majority of Agency clients are not overlooked. For this reason,
I have stressed to the Agency the importance of continuing to
regard complaints from customers being dealt with under the old
scheme as a priority. Often people have faced problems for long
periods of time, sometimes years. I continue to raise systemic
recommendations in relation to old scheme, even though some problems
may not feature under CSR, whilst no end is in sight for these
customers.
New scheme
3.15 Evidence from the complaint referrals
we have received to date suggests that delay is a major cause
of complaint in new scheme cases.
3.16 Prior to the introduction of the new
scheme in March 2003, some applications from parents with care
in receipt of benefit were held over so that they could be dealt
with under new legislation. Emerging system difficulties have
meant that some people's applications were then not progressed
in the timely way anticipated after March 2003.
3.17 Whilst evidence suggests that many
of the difficulties experienced by the Agency in progressing cases
under the new scheme are the result of system problems, for the
client the effect is the same no matter the cause of delay. Complaints
about delays in making the initial maintenance calculation or
failure to have done so at all, feature highly in referrals to
me from parents with care.
3.18 Where system problems cannot be "fixed",
the Agency has the option of handling cases clerically. This can
be helpful to parents in the short term and result in their application
being progressed in a more timely manner than would otherwise
be possible. This has been a solution given by the Agency to a
number of complainants in cases referred to me. I am aware that
the Agency is reluctant to take this step unless it is clearly
necessary because there is, as yet, no identified way of returning
these cases to the system. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that
the Agency has been prepared to take this extra step, and to establish
procedures for doing so, to resolve problems for its clients.
3.19 Delays can also cause problems for
non-resident parents and this may, in turn, lead to complaints
from them. As in the past, this is more likely to occur if arrears
have accrued as a result of such delays. I understand that the
Agency is contacting parents in this position and advising them
to make voluntary payments to meet their obligations whilst awaiting
formal confirmation of their liability. However, it remains to
be seen if this will achieve the desired outcome.
3.20 Another issue of concern in referrals
to me has been payment problems reported by some clients. This
appears to have been a particular problem in cases where the Agency
has received payments which need to be split. (For example the
Agency may need to split payments between the parent with care
and the Secretary or State or two parents with care) In some cases,
whilst non-resident parents have made payments to the Agency,
it has been unable to authorise payment to the parent with care
through the accounting system. In some cases, it has had difficulties
identifying receipt of payment at all. Naturally, this causes
hardship for parents with care who are waiting for money to help
with the upkeep of their children. It may also cause difficulties
in the relationship between parents.
3.21 A new problem featuring in cases referred
to me has been difficulties clients have experienced with the
Agency's telephony system. This has often meant that people are
misrouted or do not have ready access to the person dealing with
their case. Added to a lack of information noted on the system
about previous contact with the client or about action on the
case, people have had cause to complain that they are unable to
obtain information on progress on their case.
3.22 I continue to provide the Agency with
information on the types of problems referred by clients and recommend
improvements to procedures, to better meet their needs.
Findings in respect of new scheme investigations
3.23 Given the time lag between problems
arising in the Agency and referral to ICE, and the time required
to investigate a complaint, in the 2003-04 business year we cleared
only 15 new scheme cases by investigation. Of these all but 1
were fully upheld. In percentage terms, this is a disappointing
93% of these cases. However, I acknowledge that this relates to
a very small numbers of cases.
3.24 Of the 10 new scheme cases we cleared
by investigation during April and May 2004, seven were fully upheld
and three were partially upheld.
4. THE PROGRESS
OF CASE
MIGRATION FROM
THE OLD
TO THE
NEW SCHEME
Bulk migration
4.1 There is no published timetable for
bulk migration (the transfer of old system, CSCS, cases to the
new system, CS2) or the bulk conversion of those cases to the
new scheme. To date, cases progressed under the new system are
either cases where the effective date of the liability falls on
or after 3 March 2003, or where it has been necessary to migrate
an old scheme cases to the new scheme, because of a link to a
new application (this is known as reactive migration).
4.2 As a result of the difficulties that
have been experienced with the new computer system, and the consequent
delay in bulk migration, a significantly greater number of cases
have been reactively migrated than had been anticipated. Complaints
referred to me identify emerging problems with cases of this kind.
Reactive migration
4.3 Reactive migration is triggered when
the computer system identifies cases which have a "link"
to the new application (such as cases involving a parent's former
partner, their new partner, their new partner's former partner
etc). I have investigated a case with over 19 such links.
4.4 Under current procedure, all linked
cases are transferred to CS2 (but not necessarily to be dealt
with under the new scheme). As I understand it, CS2 can hold data
in respect of old and new scheme cases. Having identified linked
cases, this data should automatically be transferred from CSCS
to CS2. Unfortunately, in significant numbers of cases, problems
have arisen in the transfer of data. Many of these cases are reported
as "stuck" and whilst the Agency attempts to sort problems
out, significant delays occur.
4.5 It is also the case that cases are "pulled
through" onto the new system automatically and without warning,
so that the Agency is unable to check the accuracy of the data
held on the old system. Some cases may not have been "active"
for some considerable time.
4.6 In my view, there is a clear potential
for reactive migration to generate increasing numbers of complaints.
Moving from old to new scheme
4.7 As mentioned earlier, we have yet to
see many complaints from people either eager to move to the new
scheme or feeling that they have been disadvantaged by such a
move.
4.8 Only 3% of the complaint referrals we
received during 2003-04 were from parents wanting to move from
the old to the new scheme. In my view, this is partly due to Agency
efforts to keep existing clients regularly updated on its plans
in respect of bulk migration.
4.9 In my 2002-03 Annual Report, I welcomed
the fact that in preparation for the introduction of the Reforms,
the Agency had issued timely and clear information bulletins to
customers on the progress of plans to implement the reforms and
the timetable for doing so. This initiative made a significant
contribution to managing people's expectations with regard implementation
of the reforms.
5. THE AGENCY'S
COMPLIANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT REGIME
Initial Interaction
5.1 As referred to earlier, the Agency's
ability to effectively collect maintenance starts at the very
beginning of the process, when first contact is made with the
client. It is fair to say that complaints referred to me demonstrate
that there are a significant number of non-resident parents who
are unhappy with the Agency's involvement and do not readily co-operate
with it. Success often hinges on the quality of the interaction
with the client, and the clarity of the information given regarding
the Agency's powers of enforcement. People are entitled to know
the Agency's agenda in relation to maintenance liability and be
left in no doubt about the result of unreasonable non-compliance.
5.2 Much of the formative work associated
with enforcement takes place on non-specialist teams, which are
required to deal with competing priorities. Initially, the emphasis
was placed on the calculation and notification of liability and,
in my view this did not encourage people to take time addressing
non-compliance. However, more recently there has been a concentration
on the need to improve collection rates. This "whole service"
approach is welcome, as calculation is by no means the end of
the story; it is only a step on route to a desired outcome.
5.3 It falls to grassroots staff to determine
the timing of interventions, the issue of appropriate notifications
and the point at which to involve the specialist enforcement teams.
The success of early attempts to enforce payment is dependant
upon appropriate and timely interventions. It is too soon to judge
whether the steps being taken to place a greater emphasis on payment
will lead to speedier compliance.
Locating non-resident parents
5.4 One of the major difficulties faced
by the Agency is locating non-resident parents, who do not want
the Agency to be aware of their home address or workplace and
in this way seek to avoid their responsibilities. There is no
legal obligation placed upon parents to keep the Agency informed
of their whereabouts and, therefore, no sanction if they do not
do so. This can result in years of frustrating effort on the part
of the Agency, to trace "missing" parents. This is a
feature of numerous old system cases referred to me.
Enforcement review
5.5 The failure of the Agency to secure
compliance in cases referred to ICE has been an underlying theme
of complaints and a focus for past Annual Reports. In response,
the Agency undertook a review of its enforcement guidance and
procedures during 2002-03.
5.6 The enforcement review moved from an
implementation phase to live running from 1st April 2004. Specialist
enforcement team staff were given training, guidance, processes
and support to equip them to enforce maintenance decisions in
an effective and professional manner. As I understand it, the
emphasis is on ensuring that enforcement action is undertaken
in a structured, coherent fashion, taking account of individual
circumstances. There has also been an increase in the number of
staff employed on specialist enforcement teams, although they
still only account for approximately 2% of Agency staff.
5.7 If the Agency is to capitalise on these
improvements, it will need to ensure that referrals to enforcement
teams are undertaken swiftly, once attempts to secure compliance
have failed. It will also have to pay more time and attention
to the training needs of front-line staff.
Jodi Berg
15 June 2004
| 
