Blog 7: Welcome to Blog 7 where I will discuss my declining relationship with the Agency and my failed engagement with the Independent Case Examiner
Initial Engagement
The Agency’s client charter states under sub-heading “Reliable” that…”We will always tell you what is going on in your case and if we say we’ll do something, we’ll do it. You’ll get the right information – and it will be the same information no matter who you speak to.”
Sadly, the Agency’s religious adherence to their Charter was my downfall, because in my case their initial decision was not only flawed, it was illegal. Each caseworker that looked at my case failed in their duty to challenge and check, as they vehemently endorsed the findings of their predecessor. The Agency does not have any internal governances or controls to identify when a decision is wrong and their approach is to become stubbornly entrenched and will stand behind the last stated decision irrespective of its merit.
The Agency has no interest in validating a Non-Resident Parent’s (NRP) protestations as this will only delay the process. The Agency will only consider and endorse the last case-worker’s findings and will crank up the enforcement process by threatening escalation until acquiescence.
In my case, the Agency wrote telling me that to appeal their maintenance calculation I could either turn to their “Central Appeals Team” (CAT) or engage with the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). Given that I did not understand the calculation and was never provided a proper financial breakdown (see blog 6), I thought it pointless to appeal to CAT, so the appropriate option was to escalate through ICE.
What I have subsequently learned was that the Agency were wrong to tell me to appeal to ICE. This is in fact a breach of the Special Payment Guide (SPG – section 16 bullet 9 – which states a “refusal to inform adequately of the right of appeal” which is a quoted example of maladministration from their own code of conduct).
Despite this being the first of many examples of maladministration, the Agency later tried to argue that I had deliberately failed to follow the appeals process to intentionally delay maintenance enforcement. They then used this delay to justify why this dispute had become so protracted. Worryingly and until only very recently, the Ombudsman agreed with the Agency
Such was my own concern for urgency, I wrote my appeal to ICE on the 31st December 2009. In it, I raised multiple complaints including the Agency’s decision to write a letter stating that I had failed to respond to various approaches made by the Agency. When I challenged this, the Agency wrote that their intentional “misinformation was intentional to solicit a response”. How the Agency can construe this to be an appropriate method of engagement is beyond me, yet it came as no surprise that the ICE utterly ignored this aspect of my complaint, which gives out the message that this type of underhand behaviour is acceptable.
In fact, ICE ignored all aspects of my complaint that I could easily evidence. Instead they re-drafted the remaining aspects of my complaint asking me to confirm that they had correctly captured the issues. The re-wording seemed vacuous and trivial and certainly did not reflect the issues I was tabling. I told ICE as much, but back came an amended version, that was similar to their first draft which prompted me to write again stating that their articulation of my complaint was inaccurate, making the observation that ICE had clearly identified what it was they were prepared to investigate and were writing the complaint to meet the scope they were prepared to consider.
In essence, my complaint comprised the following: –
- The Agency’s decision to exclude the minute of agreement which supported a clean break arrangement with the Parent With Care (PWC)
- The Agency’s decision to include the dividend in the liability calculation
- The Agency’s decision to disregard my current financial circumstance
- The Agency’s decision to disregard my concerns that the PWC was claiming benefits unlawfully, which would impact the award calculation
- The Agency’s decision to exclude my £526 payment in respect of my son’s school trip to France
- The Liability end date*
* This element of the complaint was added later
It was not until 21st October 2010, nearly eleven months later that a case handler was finally appointed and in early January 2011, Mr Hanlon (ICE case worker) shared his draft findings which concluded: –
- ICE confirmed that “CMEC did have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the separation agreement” *
- ICE confirmed that with regard the liability calculation the “Agency followed procedures and used the details of the NRP’s tax return for 2009 to calculate the liability order” **
- ICE stated that in respect of the NRP not drawing income from the business “The NRP did not provide any proof to support such a contention and the evidence suggests that his business is an on-going concern”
- ICE advised in respect of my concerns that the PWC was making fraudulent benefit claim “In this case the Agency had no such evidence” and that the Agency “was not obliged to verify circumstances surrounding this issue” ***
- ICE adjudicated in respect of the £526 payment in lieu of maintenance “Before any payment could be taken into consideration, it was for the PWC to decide whether she accepted them as payment in lieu of child maintenance and she did not”.
- ICE advised that in respect of the liability end that ICE “Does not determine when the liability will end” as these “Are matters for the Agency to consider under the legislation laid down by Parliament”
* Under the ICE Service charter section 6.2 [which is headed “If you and the agency or business can’t agree” the ICE process is for their “investigations case manager (ICM) to prepare a report for examination by the Independent Case Examiner”. The ICM will then “ask the Agency to make sure that the technical details are correct and provide any other information ICE need” Incredibly, this independent body whose responsibility it is to police the Agency actually relies upon the Agency to determine all technical queries
** In their court Tribunal submission, CMEC stated that they were unable to replicate the maintenance calculation, yet the ICE adjudicated that the “Agency followed procedures and used the details of my tax return for 2009 to calculate the liability order”. If there is no evidence to support how the calculation was arrived at, how did ICE conclude that these procedures were followed?
*** ICE relied solely upon the Agency to determine whether the PWC was claiming benefits legitimately. Despite me repeatedly evidencing that my son (the qualifying child) was in employment, ICE did not investigate or validate my concerns, as they relied wholly upon what they were told by the Agency. As a consequence, the PWC continued to claim child benefit unlawfully for well over a year and it was these child benefit payments (which I will cover in a later blog) that determined that the PWC’s had an on-going right to receive liability maintenance payments from me
Having waited a year for ICE to adjudicate on my complaint, you can consider my anger and frustration at their findings, which were incompetent as they were biased. I wrote a scathing response outlining my contempt and disgust at their decision.
Given as we now know that ICE took their technical lead from the advice given by the Agency in respect of bullet 1; that they had no way of knowing if the Agency had followed procedures in respect of bullet 2; completely ignored my financial circumstances in bullet 3; failed to investigate or address the fraudulent child benefit claims in bullet 4; never independently asked the PWC whether the payment was in lieu of maintenance (relying as they did on the Agency to determine) in respect of bullet 5 which allowed the liability order to remain open ended, Mr Hanlon wrote in response to my criticism of his decision on the 09th February 2011 “I have noted your further comments and your dissatisfaction. This is not an unusual reaction from those whose complaints I do not uphold, but one I do not allow to influence my findings.”
Ignoring the smug condescension that oozed from every word that was being relayed and notwithstanding his flawed findings, I think there is an irony that I am unable to influence his findings, whereas the Agency can do his thinking for him
Blog 8: My next blog will describe how the Agency ranks up the pressure, embarks upon their campaign of intimidation and terror and begins the active steps of debt enforcement and recovery
Taking on Child Support 