Memorandum submitted by Citizens Advice
Scotland
INTRODUCTION
Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) is the umbrella
organisation for Scotland's network of 76 CAB offices. These bureaux
deliver frontline advice services throughout the country, from
the city centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh to the Highlands, Islands
and rural Borders communities. We welcome the opportunity to respond
to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the child support
reforms. Below is a short submission which highlights some of
the problems experienced by Citizens Advice Bureaux clients in
Scotland with the current child support system.
CHILD SUPPORT
REFORMS
While the Child Support Agency (CSA) has assisted
with financial support for some families and children, poor responsiveness
on their part has increased financial hardship for others.
— Non-resident parents assessed through
the CSA owe more than £3.5 billion in missed maintenance
payments. [72]
— At February 2006, the CSA had a backlog
of 333,000 applications, [73]meaning
that payments were not getting to the children involved.
— Of 750,000 non-resident parents liable
to pay maintenance through the CSA in September 2006, only 61%
had made any payments. [74]
The Government has recognised that there are
deep-rooted problems with the CSA and, in December 2006, announced
that the agency would be replaced by a new body—the Child
Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (C-MEC). The guiding principles
for C-MEC are that it should help tackle child poverty; promote
parental responsibility; provide a cost-effective and professional
service; and be open and simple.
Citizens Advice Scotland welcomes the direction
of reform. However, we are concerned that, unless underlying issues
around case management, communication and inflexibility are addressed,
the new system will replicate existing problems.
Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) clients report
difficulties arising from:
— Poor communication: being given conflicting
and confusing information.
— Poor case management: difficulties
contacting case workers, meaning that queries about a case are
not resolved timeously which, in turn, causes severe hardship
for families and children.
— Lack of flexibility: inflexible payment
levels despite complex or changing circumstances.
— Poor debt management: inappropriate
enforcement action and money not being passed on to parents with
care, even when it has been collected.
GETTING PAYMENTS
TO THE
MOST VULNERABLE
C-MEC will be responsible for getting maintenance
payments to low income families and children. Its work will be
vital to the aim of eradicating child poverty. Many from within
this customer group will have complex and changing circumstances—and
may be dealing with difficult family situations—when they
contact the Commission. In order to deal effectively with customers,
C-MEC staff will need to be sensitive and flexible.
Recent CAB case evidence highlights problems
with case management and communication which create delays in
dealing with cases. Delays, in turn, mean that money is not getting
to the families and children that need it. CAS is concerned that
current operating practices, coupled with a new financial assessment
based on last year's income, will not provide the responsiveness
required to meet the needs of C-MEC's client group. Our case evidence
highlights:
— A CAB client who should have been
receiving maintenance of £26.50 per week but did not, even
though the CSA had collected the money from her ex-partner. The
funds were not released, the CSA did not explain why and did not
return phone calls.
— A CAB client whose case required
to be re-assessed by the CSA—despite supplying all requested
information, the case was not re-assessed. Over a period of six
months, neither the client nor the CAB could reach a caseworker
with knowledge of the case.
— A CAB client who had been making
regular maintenance payments was made redundant. When he started
a new job his wages were seized due to "non-payment",
and it took the CSA months to catch up with his changing circumstances.
— A CAB client who was sent a letter
stating he had no arrears and, three months later, sent a notice
of arrears of £324, despite having made all required payments.
Two separate caseworkers were unable to help and the miscalculated
debt could not be cancelled.
— A CAB client who was sent letters
informing her that her claim was cancelled. When telephoned, the
CSA said the claim was not cancelled and that the client should
put further letters in the bin.
CITIZENS ADVICE
SCOTLAND PROPOSALS
FOR CHANGE
If child poverty is to be reduced, C-MEC must
better meet the needs of families and children. CAS recommends
the following:
— Ensuring collected payments are
passed on. Emergency funds should be made available when there
are delays.
— Greater flexibility and responsiveness.
Adjust maintenance payment levels with complex or changing
circumstances.
— Improved case management and communication.
Improve interactions with vulnerable customers.
FURTHER CASE
EVIDENCE
A West of Scotland CAB reports of a case of
a client whose maintenance payments by the ex-partner were not
passed on by the CSA. Over a period of 10 months the CAB and the
client were given six different telephone numbers. Several times
the CSA insisted that the "computer error" had been
fixed, and the client would start receiving payments. The client
was assigned to three new caseworkers in the 10 months. The CAB
helped the client write a letter of complaint and claim for compensation,
but these have not been acknowledged.
A North of Scotland CAB reports of a client
working part-time and not on benefits who had debts of £35,000,
including a debt of £9,500 maintenance for two children.
The client was unable to pay but had received a letter from the
CSA threatening a prison sentence for up to 42 days or disqualification
from driving. The CSA was unwilling to negotiate, despite a prison
sentence making eventual payment almost impossible because of
loss of work.
January 2007
72 Child Support Agency-implementation of the child
support reforms, National Audit Office, June 2006. Back
73
As above. Back
74
A new system of child maintenance, Department for Work and Pensions,
December 2006. Back
|
