header-logo header-logo

21 June 2007
Issue: 7278 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Judgment delivers blow to thousands failed by CSA

The Child Support Agency (CSA) does not owe a duty of care to the children and parents on whose behalf it collects maintenance, the Court of Appeal ruled this week.

Kim Fellowes, chair of the CSA committee of Resolution, which intervened in the case of Rowley v Secretary of State for Department for Work and Pensions in a bid to clarify how families adversely affected by the CSA can obtain compensation, says the judgment has far reaching implications for thousands of families let down by the CSA.
In its judgment the court said the existence of the right of appeal given by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 20 and the right to receive interest on arrears in prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSA.
Lord Justice Dyson ruled that the fact that there may be cases where incompetence on the part of the CSA causes loss which cannot be recovered under the statutory scheme is not a “sufficient reason” to impose a duty of care.
“Clearly this judgment is a major blow to those families who have fallen foul of the inadequacies of the CSA,” says Fellowes. “The failings of the CSA are legendary and it is astonishing therefore that the government has thus far been silent on its plans to recompense those failed by it.”
The test case was brought against the Department for Work and Pensions by single mother of three, Denise Rowley. After Rowley divorced in 2000, she was forced to live with her sister because she could no longer afford to live in the former matrimonial home without regular maintenance payments. The vacant property deteriorated and was later sold for little more than half its real value.
Fellowes says: “For the last 14 years, thousands of children have been badly let down by the CSA. The government has insisted that enforcement of claims for maintenance be processed through the CSA and has utterly failed to address the real hardship and distress caused by its manifest
failures.”
She adds that as the recently published Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill passes through Parliament over the next few weeks, Resolution is calling on MPs to ensure that it sets out clearly the rights to redress for those failed to date and for any errors in the future.
The Bill, published earlier this month, will create a new child maintenance agency divorced from the mistakes of the past. However, Fellowes says: “For this to work, the legacy of the past two schemes must be dealt with. Otherwise the new system will be crippled even before it has begun.”

Issue: 7278 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll