House of Commons - Social Security - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

Hansard

Archives

Research

HOC Publications

HOL Publications

Committees

Select Committee on Social Security Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

APPENDIX 3

Memorandum submitted by One Plus: One Parent Families (CS 33)

INTRODUCTION

1. The Government have announced its intention to reform the system of child support, details of which are included in the White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights & Parents' Responsibilities". The document states "The CSA was based on sound principles. But it is operation has failed to live up to them. The number of non-resident parents paying maintenance is no higher than five years ago." (p viii).

2. One Plus, along with most other lone parent organisations, has always argued that both parents have responsibility towards their children. This submission will argue that aspects of the proposals to change the CSA are indeed positive—particularly the introduction of a disregard for lone parents on Income Support. However it will also raise some issues of concern as well as arguing that a policy on maintenance can only ever be a small part of a wide-ranging family policy to tackle the poverty facing so many lone mothers and children today.

3. One Plus also believes that an emphasis on private, individual financial responsibility for children should not replace or devalue the case for a more substantial public contribution towards the costs of children in all families—whether lone parent or two parent families.

4. This paper will argue that lone parents need a system of maintenance which is voluntary for Parents With Care, is fair and efficient, is accessible to all families and offers a guaranteed maintenance payment which will improve the disposable income available to families who receive it.

ONE PLUS: ONE PARENT FAMILIES

5. One Plus is Britain's largest lone parent organisation. It has 97 permanent staff, 58 Intermediate Labour Market Employees and 230 sessional staff. Kidcare, a One Plus offshoot employs over 60 staff. In addition, One Plus provides training for 300+ trainees. It has an annual turnover of over £2 million. The organisation's geographical remit covers Central and West Scotland. Its services include:

Information and Advice

6. One Plus offers an information and advice service on the whole range of issues which affect lone parents and their children. The organisation also acts as a signposting service to those who need specialist advice.

Social Work Service

7. One Plus offers individual advice and counselling to one parent families from a holistic perspective which involves looking at the needs of families as a whole including both parent and children.

Group Work and Development Work Service

8. One Plus is in contact with over 100 local "self-help" groups. It also works in partnership with a variety of organisations to develop services for lone parents in local communities.

Pre-Vocational Training

Personal Development Workshops:

New Horizons Courses:

First Steps:

Choices:

Positive Options:

Vocational Training

Administration GSVQ Level II:

Social Care SVQ Level II:

Childcare & Education/Playwork SVQ's Level II:

Childcare services should enable lone parents returning to training or employment, to know that their children are being cared for in affordable, quality, flexible childcare provision. (See Employment section below).

Childcare training is provided to: improve the standard of the childcare services provided; but also to enhance the life opportunities of lone parents and women who have reached a stage in their life where they want to do something for themselves.

Employment and Service Delivery Initiatives

9. One Plus has worked to provide employment opportunities for lone parents taking part in our various training courses:

Kidcare Ltd:

One Plus Care Services:

Intermediate Labour Market Projects and Service Delivery:

Employment Zone:

Social Policy Work:

10. One Plus services reach a large number of lone parents in the West of Scotland and the organisation receives feedback from the lone parents on many issues which concern them. This submission on the CSA is based on feedback from individual lone parents who have come to One Plus for advice as well as four focus groups which were set up specifically to feed into the consultation process.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM: ISSUES OF CONCERN

11. One Plus has constant feedback from lone parents through the work of its staff in giving individual advice, delivering training courses and working with lone parent groups. The following issues have been ongoing problems since the CSA was implemented:

12. The Unreliability of Maintenance as a Source of Income: Maintenance Payments are not guaranteed for lone parents who aren't in receipt of Income Support. One Plus has many calls from lone parents who are in work, and who are left short because maintenance payments either cease or are irregular.

13. The Inadequacy of Maintenance as a Source of Income: Research for the DSS on which the White Paper "Children come First" was based, highlights that many fathers are on very low incomes. (Children come First, Vol II, Miller & Bradshaw, 1990). At that time, in cases where lone mothers were in receipt of Benefit, the Absent Parents were on incomes well below average. In DSS cases 24 per cent of Non-Resident Parents were sick or unemployed. Of those who did work, the average weekly net wage was £125.

14. The ability of fathers to pay for their children is therefore frequently limited by very real financial constraints. The root of the problem is not the unwillingness but the inability of many men to support their first families.

15. Maintenance and Income Support: Children living in families claiming Income Support are no better off as Benefit is reduced £ for £ on receipt of Income Support.

16. Administrative Problems: One Plus receives calls on a daily basis, both from lone parents and Non-Resident Parents about CSA operational problems. This includes:

Difficulty with the formula which is complicated and open to interpretation.

Cases which have been getting processed for years and have built up a backlog of payments which are unrecoverable (eg £24,000).

Inability of the CSA to give answers to enquiries.

17. Requirement to Co-operate: Lone parents in receipt of Income Support, Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance are required to co-operate with the CSA or face a Benefit Penalty of £20.56 a week for three years which will be re-assessed at the end of the three year period.

18. In its day to day casework One Plus has feedback on the extremely detrimental repercussions of this draconian piece of legislation. (See Case Studies Appendix). It is our experience that lone parents in the vast majority of cases, claim undue harm or distress for very good reasons. The following problems should be highlighted.

Lone parents often aren't aware of their rights and pursue maintenance against their family's own best interests.

Some lone parents don't co-operate with the CSA, through fear of the consequences. They accept the Benefit Penalty without seeking advice and negotiating with the CSA.

One Plus has dealt with a number of worrying cases where lone parents haven't given full information to the CSA because they felt too embarrassed or fear their children will be labelled because of their father's behaviour (eg drug, alcohol, sex abuse).

19. One Plus would argue very strongly that a mother knows what is in her child's best interests and she should be allowed to retain the right to choose whether to pursue maintenance or not.

A NEW CONTRACT FOR WELFARE: CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AND PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITIESKEY FEATURES

20. The White Paper on reform of the Child Support Act, sets out important and radically new ideas for the assessment and collection of Child Support Maintenance. The main features of the proposals include:

I. The Introduction of a Simple System of Percentage Rates

21. Replace the present formula with a system of simple rates. The basic rate for one child will be 15 per cent of non resident parent's net income, for two children 20 per cent and for three or more children, 25 per cent. The income of any new partner will not be taken into account. Nor will the new scheme take account of the Parent With Care's income.

22. Where parents have separated and one or more of their children live with each parent, both parents are non-resident parents and both are parents with care. In this situation the CSA will assess the maintenance liability of each parent. Only the difference in liabilities will be payable.

23. Where non-resident parents have responsibilities to the children who live with them in a second family, the CSA will adjust the percentage rates to reflect this. A proportion of the non-resident parents net income will be deducted for each of their children in a second family and then the standard rates will be applied to the balance.

24. There will be a reduction in the income used to work out child support of 15 per cent for 1 child in the second family, 20 per cent for two and 25 per cent for three or more. This will include step-children living in the non-resident parents household.

25. The CSA will make allowance for night-time care of children by their non-resident parent. If caring responsibilities are taken on for at least one night a week, liability will be reduced by one seventh for each night of the week that children are looked after.

26. Most non-resident parents will have to pay at least the minimum amount of £5 a week. Therefore exemptions which apply to the current scheme will be removed.

II. Direct Help to Children in the Poorest Families

27. Introduce a Child Maintenance Premium worth up to £10 per week for lone parents on Income Support and a total disregard of maintenance in WFTC calculations. There will no longer be a statutory requirement for PWC on WFTC/DPTC to co-operate with the CSA.

III. Measures to "Encourage Parental Responsibility"

28. Introduce a tougher sanctions regime for non-resident parents. Including:

Criminal sanctions including fines up to £1,000.

Automatic deductions from earnings for non-resident parents who miss payments.

Late payment penalty of up to 25 per cent of maintenance due.

Using tax information to assess the liability of self employed non-resident parents.

Simplify the rules on paternity.

Strengthen the powers of inspectors to gather information from unco-operative parents.

Child Support and Parents With Care on Benefit

29. The proposals accept the current definition of good cause for not seeking child support if there would be "a risk of a PWC or any child living with her suffering harm or undue distress as a result". However, the maintenance process will flow directly from a benefit claim unless the PWC specifically opts out.

30. Claiming Income Support will be enough to start the Child Support process unless a PWC seeks "good cause" not to.

31. If a PWC has no "good cause" for not seeking Child Support but still refuses to help trace the non-resident parent, a reduction in benefit may be imposed. The cooling off period after a benefit claim before imposition of a benefit penalty will be reduced from six weeks to four weeks.

IV. Radical Reform of the CSA Services

32. Maintenance will "flow" in four to six weeks rather than six months or more as now.

33. Contact with parents will mainly be by phone, with opportunities for face to face interviews where appropriate.

34. Greater proportion of CSA resources will be directed at collecting maintenance.

35. Parents will receive regular statements of accounts.

INTRODUCING THE NEW SYSTEM

(i) The Timetable for Change

36. The changes will need new legislation, new computer systems and changes in current working practices. This means that it will be towards the end of 2001 before reforms are introduced.

37. When the reformed scheme starts running, it will deal with new applications first. Existing cases will be transferred at a later date.

(ii) Changes in Maintenance for Existing Cases

38. The CSA plan to phase in the new rates for existing cases over time. Where net earnings are £100 a week or less, or the non-resident parent is on benefit, new assessments will be phased in in £2.50 a week steps. With an income between £100 and £400 in £5 steps and those earning £400 a week or more in £10 steps. Phasing arrangements will run for five years.

ISSUES OF CONCERN

39. One Plus held four meetings (4 x 10) of Lone Parent focus groups to get feedback on the Government proposals. The following areas raised issues of concern to those present.

Maintenance, Parental Involvement and Shared Care.

The Calculation of Maintenance.

Collection and Enforcement.

The Requirement to Co-operate.

Lone Parents on Income Support.

Lone Parents on Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit.

Private v Public Responsibility.

Maintenance and Parental Involvement

40. The Child Support Act, in its implementation, made explicit the fact that maintenance and access to (now contact with) to children, were two separate issues. However, the Prime Minister in the foreword to the Green Paper "Children First: A New Approach to child Support" said "The system of child Support we inherited is . . . failing parents . . . and fathers who lose contact with their children." (Children First, p iii). The Green Paper also argued that "we know that fathers who spend more time with their children and have more responsibility for them, are more willing to pay for their support" (p II). Chapter Three "Towards an active Family Policy" argues that "Child Support needs to reflect a recognition of the particular role that fathers play in their children's lives . . .. We want to make sure child support contributes mediation and negotiations on care for the children between parents who are separated." (p 13)

41. One Plus would argue that any proposals to increase maintenance payments can't be offered as a strategy to rebuild family values. Making the non-resident parent pay maintenance won't make him a better parent, it won't stop relationships breaking down and it won't prevent the rise in cohabitation and births outside marriage.

42. It would not be in the interests of any of those involved to introduce a connection between payment of Child Maintenance and contact arrangements. The principle of the courts operating in "the best interests of the child" should remain paramount. One Plus urges the Government not to put pressure on parents to pay maintenance through making connections with contact with children. Any link between financial support and contact may be used to increase the power a non-resident parent has over a lone mother and her children.

The Calculation of Maintenance

43. The change in the maintenance formula reflects the fact that the Government want to move from a complex system to a highly simplified one. The aim being to increase the flow of maintenance by enabling assessments to be completed faster and collected more easily.

44. One Plus welcomes the fact that the new formula will enable parents to understand the system more easily. However the new formula leaves little room for taking account of individual circumstances. To make the system workable, account should be taken of issues such as pension contributions, travel costs for contact, childcare costs and for a child with disabilities. Debt and outstanding financial commitments will still be a major barrier to non-resident parents meeting their child maintenance commitments. Many second families will still undoubtedly face greater poverty, with fathers giving up their job or living on a reduced disposable income.

45. One Plus would support the decision that there should be no upper limit on the amount of maintenance assessed for high earners. Children should have a share in the high standard of living a non resident parent attains.

46. The formula should aim to offer equal treatment to children in both first and second families. The amount assessed for each child should be of equal value and therefore, although resulting in a lower assessment, One Plus would have preferred the approach which would split maintenance liability equally between all children.

47. As agreed in the White Paper, the assessment should include all children in the second family, including step children, as they are now in reality the non-resident parent's second family.

48. The proposal to exclude the Parent With care's income from any maintenance assessment will create problems for the future. To avoid acrimony, the new formula should be adapted to make allowance for a lone parent's earnings above a certain set level and taking account of housing and childcare costs.

49. One Plus believes that the proposal to extend the deduction of a minimum amount (£5) from the benefits of most non-resident parents on Income Support and Job-Seekers Allowance, with few exemptions, should be withdrawn. Current arrangements should instead be reviewed. The Government's argument that a minimum deduction upholds "the principle that non-resident parents personal circumstances cannot negate responsibility for one's child" (p 26) is unreasonably harsh.

50. This principal should not be an unconditional one—an adequate minimum income for all must be given greater importance. Issues of concern include:

The effects on any children in the second family.

Many benefit claimants are subject to other deductions. To add to these breaches the principle that claimants should be left with certain basic levels of Income Support to survive on.

Collection and Enforcement

Collecting Maintenance

51. One Plus feels strongly, on the basis of clients' experiences, that direct payment arrangements often fall part, leaving the Parent With Care short of much needed money for essentials ie food and electricity. Lone parents need to be fully confident that direct payments from the non-resident parent arrive on time and are for the full amount agreed. There is also a danger that direct payment of maintenance gives a non-resident parent power over the Parent With Care. Payments to lone parents on Income Support should be made through the CSA and guaranteed by them. Non payment should then be the responsibility of the CSA to follow up.

Enforcement

52. Powers to enforce maintenance payments do not seem that much different from those presently held by the CSA. Irregular or non-payment of maintenance is a pervasive problem faced by most lone parents entitled to receive payments.

53. The Australian Child Support Scheme provides a model whereby child maintenance when assessed, is automatically deducted from wages by the Australian Taxation Office.

The Requirement to Co-operate

Reforming the definition of "harm or undue distress"

54. The Green Paper stated that "Initially lone parents on benefit supported the objectives of the Child Support Scheme. Now more and more of them avoid applying for maintenance (over 70 per cent of lone mothers on Income Support)" (p12).

55. One Plus supports the decision outlined in the White Paper to reconsider making a change to the definition of "good cause". However, the decision to change the procedures which mean the maintenance process will flow directly from a benefit claim, unless the Parent With Care specifically opts out is extremely worrying. The experience of One Plus Advice Workers is that in many cases lone parents are already unaware of their rights to claim "good cause". Even if they do claim exemptions, the CSA is not always fully aware of the complexity of a situation and a benefit penalty is imposed even though a parent's reasons are fully in line with the "undue distress and harm" provisions. In reality it is academic to violent non-resident fathers whether the CSA has initiated the claim rather than the woman on benefit. One Plus is particularly worried that the CSA will be able to pursue non-resident parents without a mother's permission, if "good cause" is not "proven". We would like clarification on this issue as it is not clear from the White Paper.

56. Recent research in Scotland shows that there are high levels of unreported incidents of domestic violence against women.

57. As many as 700,000 Scottish women could be suffering from domestic violence. "The extent of domestic violence and its subsequent effect on the health and well-being of women makes it a significant public health issue." (Scottish Needs Assessment Programme. Report on Domestic Violence, Scottish Forum for Public Health Medicine. Dr Phil Hanlon 1997).

58. One in three female patients has experienced domestic violence according to a survey of GPs in Glasgow. Some family doctors believe up to 80 per cent of female patients have been victims of violence in the home. (GP Survey on Domestic Violence. Greater Glasgow Health Board 1998).

59. Lone mothers have many reasonable grounds for not wishing to pursue maintenance. These include:

Fear of violence/threats of violence.

Fear of disrupting the "civilised" relationship which exists between parents to the benefit of the children.

Fear that a non-resident parent will pursue contact for financial reasons.

The Benefit Penalty

60. The existing Benefit Penalty is extremely harsh and should be abandoned. It impoverishes women and children.

61. In practice a cut to a Mother's allowance (£20.56) cannot be separated from the amount available to provide for children.

62. Most lone parents already face deductions from benefit for Council Tax, Fuel Direct, Social Fund Loans. They may also have arrears of Poll Tax.

63. It is our opinion, through wide ranging casework experience, that lone parents who do not return the Maintenance Application Form do so for very good reasons. They are afraid of contact from the CSA and worry about the consequences. It is the experience of One Plus advisors that cases of collusion with the non-resident parent are few and far between. Many lone parents are prepared to suffer a cut of £20 in Benefit to avoid emotional, psychological or physical hardship.

Lone Mothers on Income Support

Maintenance Disregard

64. One Plus welcomes the introduction of a £10 maintenance disregard. However this disregard should be more generous, for example—£10 per child, index linked and regularly reviewed to assess its effectiveness.

Payment Methods

65. Lone mothers on Income Support should be clearly informed of the advantages of the CSA dealing with maintenance payments and collections unless she explicitly states that the direct payment method is more suitable.

Changes in the Operation of the CSA

66. "Closer Working" between the CSA and the Benefits Agency now involves the Benefits Agency conducting initial CSA interviews at the same time as the Income Support Interview (normally at a home visit). Since April 1999 the "good cause" interview with the Parent With Care who want to claim exemption, has been conducted by nominated Benefits Agency visiting officers rather than Child Support Officers. The "good cause" interview can be done after completion of the Income Support claim or a separate interview will be arranged if the lone parent wishes more time (14 days). However the decision about exemption is still made by a CSA Child Support Officer. One Plus believes this change has worrying implications.

67. Lone parents who have just faced a period of trauma and upheaval may be persuaded to authorise CSA involvement against their own/their child's best interests for fear of losing Income Support.

68. The New Deal for Lone Parents is introduced to lone parents for the first time at their initial interview for Income Support. Is it conducive to providing a positive contact to the New Deal service by including pursuit of maintenance alongside the threat of a possible cut to Benefit of £20.56 a week?

69. CSO's will be relying on indirect evidence (from the Benefits Agency) rather than face to face contact to make decisions on good cause and the Benefit Penalty.

70. One Plus believes that this administrative change is a regressive step and against the best interests of lone parents and their children.

Lone Parents on Working Families Tax Credit

71. One Plus welcomes the proposals that there will not be a statutory requirement for lone parents on WFTC to co-operate with the CSA and that any maintenance paid will be ignored when calculating WFTC. However, a lone parent needs to be very clear about her sources of income to be able to budget and plan for her family. If she is on Income Support, though the payment is low, she has the security of knowing her benefit level is dependable.

72. Transferring to paid employment on the basis that wages will be topped up by maintenance payments and WFTC is not a viable option for many lone parents. Issues include:

Maintenance Payments & Default

73. Under the new scheme, maintenance payments are still not guaranteed. If default in maintenance payments occur, how do lone parents make up the shortfall? Enforcement powers will not be conducted through the Inland Revenue and Tax coding and therefore cannot be dependable.

WFTC & Disincentives

74. Evidence from a wide range of agencies demonstrates that the intention of the Family credit system to encourage claimants to take up full-time employment has not been fulfilled for the majority of lone parents. It appears that the Working Families Tax Credit may not be very much better.

75. In many cases the costs associated with full-time work together with the resulting loss of benefits, mean that they will be no better off, or only slightly better off. The following factors act as disincentives to employment:

Costs of Childcare

76. The majority of parents seeking work are likely to have to pay some costs for childcare from their weekly wage, even if in receipt of the Childcare Tax Credit.

Housing Benefit Tapers and Mortgage Interest

77. While on Income Support, a lone parent receives a full rebate on rent and Council Tax. If she is a home-owner, the full cost of mortgage interest is usually paid.

78. One Plus welcomes the increased childcare costs disregard in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. However, when taking up employment and coming off Income Support, lone parents face a reduction in Housing Benefit of £0.85 for each pound she earns above Income Support level. This sharp withdrawal serves to minimise the incentives intended through the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit. As WFTC levels increase, so does the withdrawal of Housing Benefit leaving the family with little extra cash.

79. If a lone parent owns her own home she will receive no Housing Benefit to help with mortgage payments whilst on Working Families Tax Credit.

Free School Meals

80. Once a parent begins full-time employment she will automatically lose free school meals, resulting in added costs of up to £5 (1 child) or £10 (2 children) a week.

Child Benefit

81. Child Benefit could potentially provide a secure and efficient means of enabling lone parents escape long term dependence on Income Support. It is stable and continues to be a resource to lone parents even if their income rises slightly. It provides the security of a regular income on which a parent can rely each week to top up her wages. Unfortunately most lone parents presently have their Child Benefit frozen because of the abolition of the lone parent rate of Child Benefit.

CONCLUSION

82. The proposals announced in the White Paper aim to offer a more efficient, effective Child Support system which recognises the responsibility of both parents to maintain their children. However, One Plus believes any model for child maintenance should be judged according to set criteria which are based on a system which guarantees maintenance, ie the state makes the payment and is responsible for collection and enforcement (see next section). However a policy on maintenance can only be a small part of a wide ranging policy to tackle the urgent problem of poverty amongst lone parent families. Enforcing private financial responsibility for children should not obscure the debate about the appropriate public contribution towards the costs of children both direct and indirect. A Family Policy is needed which offers a comprehensive strategy to tackle family poverty and which gives equal value to all families whatever their structure.

A GUARANTEED CHILD MAINTENANCE SYSTEM

83. Any successful child maintenance system should be measurable against the following criteria:

It should improve the disposable income available to one parent families. The new £10 disregard of maintenance for lone parents on Income Support, as well as the total disregard for lone parents on WFTC, will contribute to this aim.

The maintenance system should cover all families, including those not on benefit. It should therefore be provided free of charges.

Payments of maintenance should be a guaranteed advance payment. Savings to the Social Security Budget would depend upon the effectiveness of the enforcement system, eg Inland Revenue.

The level of maintenance should be fair. A formula based on percentage of the father's income per child maintained is a move in the right direction. This has now been accepted in other countries which operate Advanced (guaranteed) Maintenance Systems.

Any effective child support scheme should be based on the voluntary participation of lone parents without recourse to compulsion and benefit reductions.

There should be no link between payment of child maintenance and contact arrangements.

The system should be designed to ensure those who are self employed are given equal treatment to those in waged employment.

A FAMILY POLICY

84. One Plus, in partnership with the STUC, Save the Children (Scotland) and One Parent Families Scotland have developed a Family Policy Charter. The Charter argues for policies which put children first and which will tackle the poverty facing so many families in Scotland. Alongside an effective system of child maintenance, a comprehensive package to tackle the poverty facing one parent families is needed. One Plus proposes the following should be included in any Family Policy:

(1) Investment in comprehensive, quality, affordable childcare, up to the age of 14 years—both daycare, out of school and holiday care for all families, not just those in work.

(2) Access to free education and training with childcare for Lone Parents to improve their skills and employment prospects.

(3) The New Deal for Lone Parents should be entirely voluntary and should offer Lone Parents a voluntary Gateway which involves group based pre-employment training, as well as the options of subsidised employment, training/education or work with the voluntary sector.

(4) Family friendly employment policies, with statutory backing, which include working conditions, leave entitlements and childcare assistance.

(5) A National Minimum Wage set at half medium male earnings (£4.61), as well as the Tax Credit Scheme, is central to any initiative to help Lone Parents escape the poverty trap. Changes to taxation which lift low earners out of taxation would also assist the majority of Lone Parents.

(6) Paying rent or mortgage costs are major barriers to Lone Parents taking up work. A policy which offers more support for in-work housing costs is a key issue for Lone Parents.

(7) A system of guaranteed maintenance payments and removal of the Benefit Penalty are needed, if maintenance is to play a part in tackling the poverty facing one parent families.

(8) A general uprating of means-tested benefits and reversal of cuts to lone parent benefits. The removal of Benefits specifically to help Lone Parents, particularly in Housing Benefit, is detrimental to the Welfare to Work Strategy and to the well-being of Scotland's poorest children.

(9) Lone Parents are concentrated in areas where job vacancies are scarce and competition for jobs fierce. Policies to create employment and training in relevant skills, targetting areas where one parent families live, will be necessary to ensure Lone Parents have access to employment.

(10) Government should publish a "Family Impact Assessment" statement which would evaluate the impact of new legislation, review existing legislation and measure progress towards targets set to tackle poverty and social exclusion as well as identify areas for future action.

CASES

The following cases are indicative of the type of enquiries dealt with by One Plus since the introduction of the Child Support Agency in April 1993.

All names have been changed to maintain client confidentiality.

CSA Administration Efficiency Cases

Case 1: A lone parent "A", from Ayrshire whose ex partner was in the armed forces, submitted a Maintenance Application Form (MAF). After some time she phoned the CSA to find out how far the application had proceeded. The reply on this occasion, and during subsequent phone calls, was that the paperwork was somewhere between the CSA offices at Falkirk and locally. On calling again in she was informed that details were on computer, however the CSA couldn't tell exactly how her application had progressed. She contacted One Plus who made two calls on her behalf to the CSA Customer Services. However, despite this assistance from One Plus, "A" still hasn't had her application dealt with by the CSA who claimed that they never received the MAF. The CSA are trying to establish if there is a "double entry" on the computer.

Case 2: "B" is a 62 year old lone parent living in Lanarkshire in receipt of Income Support, which is also given for her daughter (16) who is still in full time education. "B" has been contacted by the CSA asking about her daughter's father and given two weeks to reply. Since the father has been dead for 14 years, and the CSA didn't check to see that "B" is a widow, she is naturally not too pleased at the CSA inefficiency. She gave the cemetery as the last known address of her daughter's father.

Case 3: "C" has recently separated from his wife who now lives abroad. Through the courts he obtained custody of his two children (5 and 3), and found money to keep himself and the children from the proceeds of a small business which was in his wife's name. The Inland Revenue and the VAT people requested that the business be transferred to his name, but his wife refused and so the Inland Revenue had the business closed down. "C" is now on Income Support and wants to pursue his wife for maintenance so he contacted the CSA. However, he has not found the process an easy one. First of all, he never received an MAF which the CSA claim to have forwarded. "C" had difficulty in contacting his local CSA office, and on asking their Falkirk office for help, found out that they either couldn't or wouldn't give out the local office telephone number. He also found out that the CSA has no jurisdiction abroad, his wife often being out of the UK.

Case 4: "D" is a lone parent living with her two children from different fathers. She receives Income support and has been receiving some maintenance, the receipt of which is important to her since she feels it will help her return to work. "D" contacted her local Advice Centre and they passed the request on to One Plus. The CSA had reassessed both fathers for a maintenance increase. The first father had his wages arrested, so he gave his work up, and "D" receives no maintenance from him now. The second father who had been paying £30 per week, has now had his wages arrested and can't pay the £30 which he had been paying. The result is that "D" hasn't received a penny of the maintenance reassessment, and is now short of at least £30 a week. She has resorted to applying for a crisis loan from the DSS, but isn't confident of receiving anything since she already has a budgeting loan and doubts whether she will meet the repayment criteria. Her adviser phoned the CSA in Falkirk, and was told that no information was to hand because of computer breakdown!

Cases where exemption is an issue

Case 5: "E" lives in Renfrewshire and had a partner who was violent to both her and her family, so she separated from him. When her child was born, the CSA gave her a MAF. However, "E" didn't return the form because she feared violence from her ex-partner if he was to be pursued by the CSA. "E" received no communication from the CSA until 10 months later. She was told that they had written two weeks previously, warning her of the Reduced Benefit Direction, and that as no reply was forthcoming, the Benefit Cut would be imposed. "E" then received the Reduced Benefit Notification and directions to return her Income Support book for implementation of the Benefit Reduction. The CSA/Benefits office claim to have sent the following forms to "E": (a) Request to attend an interview; (b) Information on reduced benefit (after her failure to attend the above interview); and (c) Final two weeks notice of the Benefit Cut. "E" alleges that she received none of the above, and that she knew nothing of the Benefit Cut until six months later.

Case 6: "F" is a full time student in Glasgow with two children (9 and 6). Her social worker contacted One Plus for advice. It seems that when her youngest child was a baby, "F" was beaten up so badly by her partner that he was imprisoned for six months. The couple are now separated and she has become a lone parent. During college holidays she claimed Income Support. The CSA forwarded various forms to her but "F" didn't return them. Eventually the CSA asked her to attend an interview and threatened her with a Benefit Cut for non attendance. "F" did go the interview with her social worker in attendance. The social worker explained the background of violence and "F" was exempted from giving the required information to the CSA. However, she did sign the form.

A few weeks later her house was raided by her ex partner who threatened both herself and the two children. He has now contacted a lawyer to contest for access, for which he is receiving Legal Aid. The following consequences resulted from the CSA's actions. "F"'s primary concern was her fear for her life, and she has had threatening phone calls from friends of her ex partner. Her secondary concerns, which nonetheless are very important, revolve round harsh financial penalties which she now has to face. She will have to change her phone number, may face a bill to move house, and will have to find £500 to contest her ex-partner's pursuit of access to the children. She is not entitled to Legal Aid (being a student and above the minimum threshold). Her lawyer is unable to defend her case without payment.

Case 7: "G" lives in Glasgow and has two children. Although they are 17 and 18, both are still dependants. The CSA has threatened to cut her benefit unless she co-operates in pursuing maintenance. This is the first time the CSA had contacted "G" and their threat of cuts wasn't even accompanied by either a MAF or a covering letter. Although she has been separated from her husband for eight years, she is still extremely frightened of him, and had her telephone number changed to avoid his threats. He continually cruises around her house in his car and on occasions, has taken her children off in the car at death defying speeds as if he were aiming to crash the car. "G" actually put a stop to divorce proceedings, such is the threatening hold he has over her. She phoned One Plus in tears, thinking that the CSA could contact her husband without her permission. No one from the CSA had told her before that this wasn't the case, nor that she has a right of exemption. One Plus sent "G" details of her right to exemption. Women's Aid leaflets were also forwarded with information on how to obtain an interdict with powers of arrest.

Case 8: "H" is only 19 years old, lives in Paisley and has a small baby of just a few months of age. One Plus was contacted by "H"'s mother who said that her daughter was refusing to claim Income Support as a lone mother because she was afraid that the Benefits Agency would contact the CSA, who would intervene in her case and contact the father of her child. "H" lived in two refuges and greatly fears for her life at the hands of the child's father. In the meantime, by refusing extra Income Support, "H" is existing on only £40.70 per week (single person's rate). She loses out on £44.80 weekly benefit and the £100 maternity payment. Her mother contacted the CSA who informed her that lone mothers need to give the name and details of their children's fathers and sign the form before the CSA can decide if exemptions are in order. One Plus has informed "H" of her rights as regards exemption.

Case 9: The mother of a lone parent "I" who actually works part time with a DSS Benefits Office, got in touch with One Plus looking for advice. The CSA's dealings with "I" had brought great difficulties and stress to the whole family. "I" has a son of four years of age and she lives with her mother. She had authorised the CSA to contact the father of her son and had not used the undue harm or distress exemption because of her job. "I" had lived with her child's father for six months during which period he was extremely threatening to her. He also smashed up the house and kicked the baby's cot around (witnessed by "I"'s mother, sister and sister in law). This terrorising, coupled with cancer, had taken its toll of "I"'s health and she was extremely stressed. Since the child's father was contacted by the CSA, she has been receiving phone calls in the middle of the night, and has received a letter from the father's solicitor demanding access to the boy, even although he has never seen the child since the separation.

Case 10: "J" who lives in Dumbarton, signed her MAF and was not informed by the CSA of exemption categories which could preclude her signing it. Shortly after the signing she had contact from her ex husband of an intimidating nature which she is sure is a result of him being pursued for maintenance. "J" also told One Plus that the Benefits Agency had carried out three spot checks, of one sort or another, in the recent past and she felt this was linked to the CSA's pursuit of maintenance.

Case 11: "K" is on Income Support, a lone parent with a three year old child. She receives regular maintenance from the father. The CSA wanted him to increase the payment, but "K" wouldn't sign the MAF. She contacted One Plus and told them that she wouldn't sign the MAF, authorising pursuit of the father, because they had sorted out an amicable access arrangement, which she felt would be jeopardised by the CSA's increased maintenance assessment. A representative from One Plus accompanied "K" to an interview with the CSA. The interview was initially tense, but after the One Plus representative hinted that the marriage had ended because of violence, the Child Support Officer eventually decided not to pursue the father for the increase.

Case 12: "L" lives in West Dunbartonshire and has contacted One Plus because she has received an ultimatum from the CSA that her Benefit is about to be cut. She had been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit for six years and a claim for Income Support had triggered CSA involvement. She had a court order for weekly payments of £25 but has never received them.

The CSA have told "L" that she is not exempt because she had earlier agreed to accept maintenance and the situation was no different now. One Plus acted on "L"'s behalf to explain that her husband had been very violent, she'd moved house four times to escape him. He was a professional boxer and had "used her as a punchbag". She also suffered from panic attacks and her seven year old daughter wets the bed. The CSA (local office) agreed exemption in March 1998 but only after "L" had suffered weeks of fear and added pressure on her health.

In November One Plus received a call from "L" because she now worked full-time and claimed Family Credit and this had instigated a CSA application form. The call centre at Darlington informed her she was not exempt and gave her two weeks to "think about it". One Plus intervened and was told there had been a "mistake" that her claim was continuous and shouldn't have been instigated CSA intervention.

Case 13: "M" has a two year old child, is on Family Credit and has had a Benefit Penalty imposed. Gave all the information she had. She had a relationship with a man who she now believes was married. He did not ever give her any information regarding telephone number or address and he cleared off when she became pregnant. He used to phone her and come and visit her but there has been no contact since she was pregnant.

They obiously do not believe her—perhaps because she is not just in the first flush of youth, but is in her mid/late 30s. "M" may have to give up work because she can't survive on over £20 less a week. One Plus has contacted her MP.

Case 14: "N" has two children, 12 years and 10 years. She lives in Airdrie. "N" telephoned because she has just received a notification from the Benefits Agency that her Income Support Book has to be handed in to implement a benefit penalty.

Unfortunately "N" had not replied to CSA correspondence within the required time-limit. She was extremely distraught because of the fear of losing over £20 a week. She had just been discharged from a mental hospital, was on anti-depressants and had been told by her doctor to avoid stress!

"N" had been in a violent relationship and the youngest child had been physically abused by her father. "N" hadn't been in touch with the CSA because her life was in chaos at the time and she didn't know where to turn. One Plus obtained a letter from the hospital psychiatrist via a request from "N", and the CSA reversed its decision. However in the process this family was caused extreme distress and fear.

Case 15: "O"'s case was referred to One Plus through a church based support project in Possilpark. "O" has received a letter to say she will receive a home visit from the CSA to discuss her 18 year old daughter who is in non-advanced further education.

"O" is in a state of panic because of the background to her child's conception 18 years ago. "O" was viciously raped at gunpoint. At the time the man involved, who is still a well known person locally, told her she'd be dead if she told anyone. She is afraid that if the CSA get involved he could threaten her life again.

Her daughter had been brought up by her grandmother and it has only been in the past two years that the daughter has been informed of the real situation. "O" has serious health problems—heart trouble amongst other illnesses and had collapsed in the street recently. She had also attempted suicide and was attending Parkhead Hospital five days a week. "O" had decided to refuse to speak to the CSA because of the trauma and just accept the benefit penalty. One Plus told "O" to claim exemption and helped her to get back up support from her Doctor and the Church.

Case 16: "P" lives in Castlemilk, Glasgow. She has two children, Tom 12 years and Scott seven years. She lives with her new partner and her eldest child. Her new partner claims benefit for the family and the CSA has introduced a Benefit Penalty because they feel "P" has not given enough information about her eldest child's father who is not her present partner. They are not interested in Scott who has a different father and lives with him and the paternal grandmother.

The CSA are suspicious because "P" gave Tom's father's name as Patrick on the MAF. However it transpires he is called Nicholas. However "P" knew him as "Paddy" and therefore assumed his full name was Patrick! Even though "P" has given his old address and names of his family, the CSA have cut her benefit because she doesn't know his date of birth or his exact age.

On further investigation it is revealed that Tom's father was a one night stand and "P" never knew him that well. At the time of conception she was in a relationship with Scott's father and even after Tom was born the relationship continued and Scott was born five years later. Since then that relationship has broken down and Scott lives with his dad and paternal grandmother.

Since CSA involvement, "P"'s fiance has left and moved out of the family home because of the pressure and stress involved. "P" is now on her own and is suffering depression and is on medication for arthritis. The situation has been made worse by the suicide of Scott's father and she is now unsure if Scott's grandmother can continue to care for him because of her age. There is also Social Work involvement in this case in relation to the care of "P"'s second child Scott. Social Work have confirmed that "P" has suffered from depression since childhood when both her parents died and that her main relationship has always been with Scott's father. One Plus has appealed on behalf of "P" to have the RBD reversed.

Cases Result in Financial Problems

Case 17: "Q" has separated from his wife and lives in Glasgow. He originally had custody of all four of his children (boy 15, and three daughters seven, eight and 12 years). This was two-and-a-half years ago, although the boy has since gone to live with his mother down south. "Q"'s estranged wife has been on Income Support since August 1997. He is in the armed forces and has been approached by the CSA to pay maintenance to his son. He filled in the form and was assessed as having Disposable Income of £460. "Q"'s childcare costs for the three girls is £400, however the CSA say that childcare costs are not essential, and that they do not allow them to influence their assessment. The CSA has therefore assessed his monthly maintenance for his son at £230 per month which "Q" says he cannot afford. He has applied for redundancy but was turned down. He can't buy himself out of the forces because the sum involved is too high owing to him having five years of his contract to serve. "Q" has been to his MP who unfortunately cannot help him.

Case 18: "R" lives in Cumbernauld. She left her violent partner in and contacted her local Benefits Agency to complete a MAF. She received a visit from the CSA Child Support Officer who told her that it would be better and quicker to receive maintenance directly from her ex. "R" accepted this advice and for a while the system worked. Soon though, he resumed his violence, forcing her door and making threatening phone calls. Her solicitor advised her to stop access, which she did, and at the same time asked the CSA to collect the maintenance for her. In a letter the CSA agreed to this, saying that her local Benefits Office would pay her full benefit now. However, one month later, she was still not in receipt of full benefit. "R" had in fact been living £27.54 below Income Support levels since the middle of the previous month. This resulted in her being almost a third of her income short for approximately six weeks. The CSA excused this by claiming lack of communication between themselves and the local Benefits Agency office. Apart from the needless poverty, "R" was also worried about the CSA's Child Support Officer's advice as regards claiming maintenance directly, taking the violent background into consideration.

Case 19: "S" is a lone parent on Income Support from Rothesay and has gone through two bad marriages. She has two children, a boy (10) from her first marriage, and a girl (five) from the second. Her son's father is dead and her daughter's father is already paying maintenance to his child. The CSA assessed the girl's father for maintenance of both children, and doubled the amount he had to pay. Considering that the elder child (the boy) had been a major issue in the second marriage and an important factor in that marriage's breakdown, "S" was obviously worried about her second husband's reaction. One Plus intervened and asked the CSA to send a written apology to "S" and the daughter's father.

One Plus: One Parent Families

Glasgow

September 1999



© Parliamentary copyright 1999	Prepared 10 November 1999