header-logo header-logo

11 August 2014
Issue: 7619 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Child maintenance enforcement fees under fire

Vulnerable families will be the hardest hit by new child maintenance enforcement fees, family law organisation Resolution claims.

The new fees were introduced this week (11 August) for people using the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) Collect and Pay system. Resolution says they will affect around 120,000 people across the UK.

Applicants face a £20 charge to open a new child maintenance case – although victims of domestic violence and abuse or those aged 18 or under are exempt – and parents with care who ask CMS for help to collect maintenance will have 4% deducted from the payment they receive. The paying parent, meanwhile, will have an extra 20% added to their child maintenance bill.

As Stephen Lawson, a member of Resolution’s child maintenance committee says, the new charges mean that for every £100 assessment, the paying parent will have to pay £120 but the receiving parent will only receive £96 – the government takes a “tax” of £24.

“These charges will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable families. No one chooses to use CMS’s enforcement option if they can come to their own agreement, and penalising the parent with care for needing support to access the money they need to bring up their child is unfair – 4% of each payment could mean a lot to a family that is struggling,” he says. 

“The 20% additional charges for the paying parent are also disproportionate and may have a huge impact on the finances for hardworking paying parents. Couples who separate often find it difficult to financially manage with two households, and for some this extra fee may be straw that breaks the camel’s back. Many of the people using the Collect and Pay Service are on low incomes and these additional fees will impact on the amount received by the ultimate beneficiary – the child.”

However, the government claims the fees will act as an incentive for parents to collaborate following a separation, encouraging them to think again before defaulting to CMS.

In a written ministerial statement, Department for Work and Pensions minister, Steve Webb, said: “The charges are encouraging not just compliance but also a shift towards collaboration, which is in the best interests of the children involved. The fees are also about people making a small contribution to the cost of an expensive service that will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.”

 

Issue: 7619 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
back-to-top-scroll