Watchdog upholds criticism of CSA

ALMOST EVERY complaint about the work of the Child Support Agency was upheld after detailed investigation by the agency's regulator, it was revealed yesterday.

In her first annual report Anne Parker, the independent case examiner, gave the agency a three-year timetable to get its act together and said parents had been "frustrated, sometimes grossly inconvenienced and in some cases suffered actual financial loss" because of the CSA's maladministration.

Delay in processing cases has been "endemic", she said, adding that the agency had been largely unresponsive to customers' complaints. About two thirds of complaints were from men.

The regulator - who is responsible for investigating a small proportion of around 28,000 complaints made against the CSA last year - received 1,087 complaints in her first year. Of the 150 she investigated in detail, 93 per cent were fully or partially upheld.

The pattern was of delays at all stages, poor communications, poor complaints handling, problems in obtaining maintenance from the self-employed and arrears in maintenance.

In one case, the agency had to pay more than pounds 18,000 compensation to a woman after it incorrectly believed it had jurisdiction in her case and cancelled her court order in 1995. The court order was reinstated in 1997 but the CSA had obtained no payment in the interim.

The agency came into operation in 1993 to assess child maintenance and enforce collection. But it has been dogged with problems. A report from the National Audit Office last month showed that one quarter of all CSA estimates were wrong and the errors cost children pounds 15.8m a year in missed contributions. That was followed by news that more than 1,200 staff - out of 8,000 - had left the agency in five months as morale plummeted.

Last July, the Government announced a wide-ranging shake-up of the CSA, designed to improve its efficiency record. Under these plans, the agency will introduce a much simpler formula for assessing the liability of absent parents to pay child maintenance.

Looking at those who complained about lack of communication from the agency, Ms Parker found more than 40 per cent said the agency had failed to respond when parents tried to contact it or it had failed to supply information when requested.

While acknowledging that there had been some improvement, Ms Parker said the complaints she saw represented "only the tip of the iceberg". She wanted to see "real measurable changes" in performance in the next three years.

Mike Isaac, deputy chief executive of the CSA, welcomed the report yesterday. "The independent case examiner has rightly identified areas where the agency's procedures and performance have merited criticism," he said.

"We are acutely aware of the sensitive nature of our work and the importance of getting it right first time. Poor complaints handling on top of poor case handling is totally unacceptable, and we regret the difficulties we have caused to the customers affected."