Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that Child Maintenance Service liability accurately reflects actual care arrangements, including in cases where the paying parent has become the primary carer but Child Benefit remains registered to the other parent.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
To qualify for maintenance payments a child must meet the Child Maintenance Service's (CMS) criteria. They must be under 20 years of age and in full time non-advanced education or approved training, and eligible for Child Benefit. They must also be habitually resident in the UK and usually living in the same household as the receiving parent. Child maintenance defines a child the same way as Child Benefit does to offer consistency across rules.
If the CMS is satisfied that both parents have equal day-to-day care for the child, in addition to sharing overnight care, there is no requirement for either parent to pay child maintenance. There is no statutory definition of day-to-day care; our definition is broadly aligned with that of Child Benefit, where an ‘overall care test’ is used. This provides consistency across government.
The CMS shared care rules are designed to reflect the financial responsibilities of both parents based on the care provided to the child. The inclusion of overnight stays as a measure of shared care is intended to offer a clear, administrable way to assess the level of care each parent provides.
CMS does not routinely contact local authorities or schools to verify care arrangements. Instead, it relies on evidence provided by parents and applies an “overall care test” aligned with Child Benefit principles. Receipt of Child Benefit is regarded as a strong indicator of entitlement but, in circumstances where parents dispute the level of shared care, caseworkers consider all relevant evidence. A decision is made on the balance of probability to determine who provides day-to-day care. Where this evidence indicates a change in primary care, the CMS will update and adjust maintenance liability, even if Child Benefit remains registered with the other parent.
Collection activity is not automatically paused during verification, but CMS can exercise discretion where there is clear evidence of a dispute over care arrangements.
Where payments have been made in error following an incorrect care-status determination, CMS has processes to refund overpayments to the paying parent and, where appropriate, to recoup funds from the receiving parent. Reimbursement decisions are discretionary and consider whether the overpayment resulted from CMS error and whether the paying parent has requested repayment.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of mechanisms the Child Maintenance Service has to verify care arrangements with (a) local authorities and (b) schools; and whether collection action can be paused pending such verification.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
To qualify for maintenance payments a child must meet the Child Maintenance Service's (CMS) criteria. They must be under 20 years of age and in full time non-advanced education or approved training, and eligible for Child Benefit. They must also be habitually resident in the UK and usually living in the same household as the receiving parent. Child maintenance defines a child the same way as Child Benefit does to offer consistency across rules.
If the CMS is satisfied that both parents have equal day-to-day care for the child, in addition to sharing overnight care, there is no requirement for either parent to pay child maintenance. There is no statutory definition of day-to-day care; our definition is broadly aligned with that of Child Benefit, where an ‘overall care test’ is used. This provides consistency across government.
The CMS shared care rules are designed to reflect the financial responsibilities of both parents based on the care provided to the child. The inclusion of overnight stays as a measure of shared care is intended to offer a clear, administrable way to assess the level of care each parent provides.
CMS does not routinely contact local authorities or schools to verify care arrangements. Instead, it relies on evidence provided by parents and applies an “overall care test” aligned with Child Benefit principles. Receipt of Child Benefit is regarded as a strong indicator of entitlement but, in circumstances where parents dispute the level of shared care, caseworkers consider all relevant evidence. A decision is made on the balance of probability to determine who provides day-to-day care. Where this evidence indicates a change in primary care, the CMS will update and adjust maintenance liability, even if Child Benefit remains registered with the other parent.
Collection activity is not automatically paused during verification, but CMS can exercise discretion where there is clear evidence of a dispute over care arrangements.
Where payments have been made in error following an incorrect care-status determination, CMS has processes to refund overpayments to the paying parent and, where appropriate, to recoup funds from the receiving parent. Reimbursement decisions are discretionary and consider whether the overpayment resulted from CMS error and whether the paying parent has requested repayment.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what processes are in place to (a) refund and (b) recoup Child Maintenance Service payments made in error following incorrect care-status determinations.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
To qualify for maintenance payments a child must meet the Child Maintenance Service's (CMS) criteria. They must be under 20 years of age and in full time non-advanced education or approved training, and eligible for Child Benefit. They must also be habitually resident in the UK and usually living in the same household as the receiving parent. Child maintenance defines a child the same way as Child Benefit does to offer consistency across rules.
If the CMS is satisfied that both parents have equal day-to-day care for the child, in addition to sharing overnight care, there is no requirement for either parent to pay child maintenance. There is no statutory definition of day-to-day care; our definition is broadly aligned with that of Child Benefit, where an ‘overall care test’ is used. This provides consistency across government.
The CMS shared care rules are designed to reflect the financial responsibilities of both parents based on the care provided to the child. The inclusion of overnight stays as a measure of shared care is intended to offer a clear, administrable way to assess the level of care each parent provides.
CMS does not routinely contact local authorities or schools to verify care arrangements. Instead, it relies on evidence provided by parents and applies an “overall care test” aligned with Child Benefit principles. Receipt of Child Benefit is regarded as a strong indicator of entitlement but, in circumstances where parents dispute the level of shared care, caseworkers consider all relevant evidence. A decision is made on the balance of probability to determine who provides day-to-day care. Where this evidence indicates a change in primary care, the CMS will update and adjust maintenance liability, even if Child Benefit remains registered with the other parent.
Collection activity is not automatically paused during verification, but CMS can exercise discretion where there is clear evidence of a dispute over care arrangements.
Where payments have been made in error following an incorrect care-status determination, CMS has processes to refund overpayments to the paying parent and, where appropriate, to recoup funds from the receiving parent. Reimbursement decisions are discretionary and consider whether the overpayment resulted from CMS error and whether the paying parent has requested repayment.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average time taken is for the Child Maintenance Service to adjust liability following notification of a change in care arrangements.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) works to ensure that liability adjustments following changes in care arrangements are processed as quickly and accurately as possible. These changes can vary in complexity, and the time taken depends on factors such as the availability of corroborating information from both parents and whether there is agreement on the new arrangements. Where there is disagreement or insufficient evidence, additional checks are required, which can extend the timescale. The CMS is expanding digital channels and online messaging to allow parents to submit information more quickly, helping to reduce delays.
The Department for Work and Pensions does not currently publish an official average timescale for adjustments to child maintenance liability following notification of a change in care arrangements (for example, shared care or main carer modifications). Therefore, the information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost. However, CMS remains committed to improving timeliness and accuracy in processing changes by investing in service modernisation, enhancing digital tools, and streamlining processes to deliver a faster and fairer service for all customers.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing an expedited pathway for Child Maintenance Service cases involving (a) safeguarding concerns, (b) homelessness risk or (c) significant financial hardship.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) is committed to ensuring that it delivers a safe service that is sensitive to the needs of all the parents that use it. We recognise that some parents may be vulnerable, particularly at a time of separation.
It is our priority to handle these cases in a sensitive manner and ensure vulnerable customers get the help and support they need to use the service safely.
The CMS already has processes in place to identify safeguarding concerns and is well prepared to respond quickly and effectively if it becomes aware that the safety of any of its customers are at risk. All caseworkers receive extensive training and follow a well-managed process with clear steps to support vulnerable customers.
The CMS recognises socio-economic factors such as deprivation, unmanageable debt, poor housing, and unemployment, CMS Caseworkers use a District Provision Toolkit (DPT) with clear steps to support vulnerable clients, including those at risk of homelessness. This toolkit is regularly reviewed.
Caseworkers also use the Affordability Hub for signposting and Advanced Customer Support (ACS) to support all customers who are vulnerable and deemed at risk from abuse, harm or neglect. These tools are available at any and every stage of the case journey, not just at applications.
DWP has recruited Advanced Customer Support Senior Leaders (ACSSLs), forming a nationwide network of support that provides clear escalation routes for cases. ACSSLs are instrumental in forming strong, far reaching, external relationships with a range of partner organisations and across DWP’s internal teams.
Internally, ACSSLs have a responsibility to raise any service design or delivery issues that are identified as potential causes of negative customer experience, escalating these to the appropriate teams.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Universal Credit savings threshold for disabled claimants who are permanently unable to work and need to pay for (a) mobility equipment, (b) vehicle repairs, (c) respite care and (d) other disability-related costs; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of (A) introducing exemptions to and (B) increasing the Universal Credit savings threshold for disabled people who are unable to work.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) provides a contribution towards the extra costs that may arise from a long-term disability or health condition. PIP is non-contributory, and non-means-tested. Individuals can choose how to use the benefit, in the light of their individual needs and preferences.
The benefit can also be paid in addition to any other financial or practical support someone may be entitled to such as Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, NHS services, free prescriptions, and help with travel costs to appointments. It can also act as a passport to additional support such as premiums and additional amounts paid within certain benefits, Carer’s Allowance for an informal carer or the Blue Badge scheme. The benefit has been consistently uprated in line with inflation since it was introduced and was last increased by 1.7% from 7 April 2025.
The current system allows people to continue to receive benefit even though they may have an amount of capital from £6,000 by gradually reducing the level of their entitlement. The capital limit above which Universal Credit entitlement ends is above £16,000.
Whilst we keep all policies under review there are no current plans to change the capital limits for disabled customers.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that disabled people who are (a) unable to work and (b) on Universal Credit awaiting a Work Capability Assessment are not left in financial hardship for extended periods due to the time taken (i) by her Department to undertake that Assessment and (ii) to access additional support elements.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
People on low, or no income or earnings who have a health condition or disability which restricts the amount of work they can do, can claim UC. They must provide medical evidence to support their claim - most commonly a Statement of Fitness for Work, usually referred to as a fit note. Claimants whose health condition or disability continues for four weeks or more are referred for a work capability assessment (WCA).
Universal Credit awards include a standard allowance, which is the core component of any award and is paid according to age and household unit. The purpose of the standard allowance is to provide towards basic living costs. Additional amounts are added to provide for individual needs such as housing, children, disability, and childcare costs.
Demand for initial WCA assessments has risen so we continue to prioritise initial claims. This enables us to ensure that claimants receive the right level of benefit, and we establish capability for work at the outset of a claim.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will meet with the hon. member for Taunton and Wellington to discuss delays to the monthly retirement benefit payments suffered by his constituent.
Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
I am always happy to meet with colleagues. I will ask my office to contact the Hon. Member to arrange.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of the Child Maintenance Service calculation formula for the (a) use of pre-tax earnings from the previous financial year for determining payments and (b) exemption from maintenance payments for non-resident parents on benefits; and whether she plans to review that formula.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Information about the paying parent's gross income is taken directly from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for the most recent available full tax year. This allows calculations to be made quickly and accurately. Use of historic income ensures a stable calculation, which we know from customer feedback is valued as it enables parents to rely on maintenance for financial planning purposes.
Parents in receipt of benefits (including Jobseeker's Allowance and Universal Credit without earnings) or who have gross weekly income between £7 and £100, are required to pay the flat rate of £7 a week. This rate makes sure that parents contribute financially to their children's upbringing. It also protects the welfare of the paying parent and any children in their household.
The Department is currently reviewing the calculation to make sure it is fit for purpose. This has included updating the underlying research and considering how we ensure the calculation reflects current and future societal trends.