| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
29 Jun 2006 : Column 540W—continued
It should be noted, however, that the Agency does not regard an application as being cleared once a calculation alone has been carried out, but only once collection arrangements have been agreed with the non resident parent. Additionally, since not all Child Support Agency applications result in a calculation, an application is also defined as cleared if the case is closed; the parent with care is identified as claiming Good Cause or is subject to a Reduced Benefit Decision; or the application is identified as being a change of circumstances on an existing case as opposed to a new application.
As of the end of March 2006, for all cases cleared since the introduction of the new scheme, the mean average time taken to process a new-scheme application from the date of first contact to clearance, as defined above, was 204 days (29 weeks). Of those
cases cleared, 25 per cent did so in less that 6 weeks; 41 per cent between 6 weeks and 6 months; 17 per cent between 6 months and a year; and 17 per cent took more than a year. These figures exclude 126,000 applications that came through the Jobcentre Plus interface and which have been cleared, but for which insufficient management information exists to enable age at clearance to be determined.
The Agency does not have a time limit for the time taken for a parent with care to receive their first payment. Information regarding the number and percentage of cases receiving a first payment within six weeks or longer is attached.
Once a case has received a calculation, a method of collection must be agreed with the non-resident parent and set up by the Agency which, in the cases of a Direct Debit or a Standing Order, may take a few weeks. The day on which payment is due from the non- resident parent is then specified by the Agency having taken in to account the date of any other income payable to the non-resident parent, which may result in a delay of up to 4 weeks to make payment to the Agency. The Agency then has to process the payment from the non-resident parent and make payment to the parent with care.
Delays may occur if a non resident parent does not comply. For an employed non-resident parent the Agency can then impose a Deductions from Earnings Order (DEO). Where this occurs, the Agency must contact and liaise with the employer to set up the DEO, wait for the subsequent payment from the employer, which in itself can take over 20 days, before money is available to be paid to the parent with care.
The elapsed times between a payment request by the Agency and actual payment by the non resident parent mean that, it is unlikely that it would be possible for many parents with care to receive maintenance payments within 6 weeks of their first contact with the Agency.
The Agency published its 2006 Client Charter on 28th April 2006. This sets out the minimum standards of service which we aim to meet in future for each of our main business areas. The first three service standards which relate to first contact and payments are attached.
I hope you find this helpful.
| Number of cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA | ||||
| Number of cases receiving payment in | ||||
| Date of intake | Less than 6 weeks | 6 weeks or longer | Number of cases where payment not yet received | Total |
| Percentage of cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA | ||||
| Percentage of cases receiving payment in | ||||
| Date of intake | Less than 6 weeks | 6 weeks or longer | Percentage of cases where payment not yet received | Total |
| Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest 500, and percentages to the nearest whole percent. As such, components may not sum to totals. | ||||
Child Support Agency Client Charter—Service standards relating to first contact and payment
Standard 1
If the parent with care can give us contact details for the non-resident parent, we will start gathering information from the non- resident parent within four weeks of the application being received. We will aim to make an accurate decision on the application within 12 weeks, but in some cases this may take as long as 26 weeks.
If we do not have current contact details for the non-resident parent, we will trace them as quickly as we can. These applications may take longer to progress. In the small number of cases where we cannot trace the non-resident parent, we will not be able to progress the application.
Standard 2
Where we are collecting child maintenance, we aim to make a first payment to the parent with care within six weeks of making the initial payment arrangements with the non-resident parent.
If the non-resident parent has a job but either fails or refuses to pay, we will aim to obtain payment via a Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO) within four months of making initial payment arrangements.
Where the non-resident parent has still not paid four months after initial payment arrangements were made, we will refer the case to our specialist enforcement unit.
Standard 3
We will make maintenance payments to parents with care within a week of receiving the money from the non-resident parent.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average administration cost per case on (a) the new and (b) the old Child Support Agency scheme was in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [77953]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average administration cost per case on (a) the new scheme and (b) the old scheme was in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
The Child Support Agency is funded to administer child support applications and payments regardless of whether the case is administered on the new scheme or the old scheme. The actual costs of administering child support cases under each scheme are not separately identified and as such we cannot supply information to the level of detail required.
The cost of administering the Child Support Agency in 2004/05 was £325.6 million. Figures for 2005/06 will be available when the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts are published. A change in accounting policy proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions, will lead to a restatement of 2004/05 expenditure reported in the Agency's annual accounts. This reflects the incorporation of costs associated with the Modernisation Programme in the accounts of individual
Agencies rather than charging such costs directly to the central Departmental Resource Account. It is expected that the restated 2004-05 figure will increase expenditure to around £425 million. Costs for 2005/06 will be prepared on the same basis.
I hope you find this response helpful.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints have been made to the Child Support Agency in each year for which figures are available. [77954]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the requested information.
In reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints were made to the Child Support Agency in each year for which figures are available.
The volumes of complaints received direct from clients, their representatives and MPs to the Child Support Agency or to our Ministers, for which information is available, are in the attached table.
It should be noted that it is difficult to use this information to make meaningful comparisons over time due to changes in the way that information has been recorded. In particular whilst the volume of stage 1 written complaints undoubtedly rose between 2002-03 and 2003-04, this is likely to have been due in part to more rigorous recording of complaints received at the time, and the introduction by the Agency of a three tier complaints process during 2003-04.
It should also be noted that the volume of complaints has stabilised. In the twelve months up to March 2006, the Agency received a total of 55,000 complaints. This compares to 55,000 for the 12 months up to May 2005 (the earliest period for which comparable data for total numbers of complaints received is available).
Further, to put the attached figures into context, the 55,000 complaints received in the 12 months to March 2006 represent less than 4% of the 1.5 million cases dealt with by the CSA.
I hope you find this answer useful.
| Agency complaints—number of cases received in the Agency 1997 to 2006 | |||||||||
| 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | |
| (1) Whilst the Agency did receive stage 1 telephone complaints prior to 2002-03, their volumes were not recorded. (2) Although 671 stage 1 telephone complaints were recorded between December 2002 and March 2003, their volumes were not recorded throughout the whole year, thus preventing meaningful comparison with later years. (3) Whilst the Agency did receive complaints directly to the Chief Executive, treat official complaints, and MP complaints to Business Units prior to 2000/01, their volumes were not recorded. (4) During 2003-04 complaints sent directly to the Chief Executive were not recorded separately from those complaints that were escalated to him as part of the 3-stage process. Therefore, although 7,183 complaints in total were received during 2003-04, it is not possible to separate out those complaints received by the Chief Executive directly (as opposed to those escalated via the complaints process), thus preventing meaningful comparison with data for earlier years. (5) In April and May of 2004, the Chief Executive received a total of 1,435 complaints however, is not possible to separate out those complaints received by the Chief Executive directly, as opposed to those escalated to stage 3 of the complaints process). From June 2004-March 2005, after which time such complaints were recorded separately, the Chief Executive received 4,393 direct complaints and 2,549 complaints escalated upwards from stage 2. Again, these recording issues prevent meaningful comparison of this category with earlier years. (6) Treat official letters are those received by a Minister from a member of the public, and referred for initial consideration to an official of the agency. | |||||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |