A campaign for accurate income, accurate calculations, transparent arrears and evidence-led decisions.
Money that was never earned cannot magically be paid.
This campaign asks a very simple question.
If somebody physically did not earn the income being attributed to them, where is the money supposed to come from?
Child maintenance should support children. But the amount demanded must be based on the law and an accurate calculation.
This is NOT an anti-child-maintenance campaign
Children should be supported
Parents have responsibilities towards their children and maintenance can provide essential financial support.
But calculations must be correct
Supporting children does not justify using an incorrect income figure, ignoring relevant evidence or collecting arrears that have not been properly established.
D Matthews' CMS Experience
Read D Matthews' personal Child Maintenance Service experience covering more than 12 years of disputed calculations, income figures, shared-care decisions, payments, arrears, Collect & Pay fees and repeated attempts to get the account corrected. 2014 - still ongoing..
See D Matthews' CMS ExperienceThis campaign is not based on one person's complaint
Independent Case Examiner reports, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman cases and evidence submitted to Parliament demonstrate that problems involving calculations, arrears, evidence, shared care and account accuracy have occurred in other cases.
ICE: more than £6,000 arrears became nearly £5,000 overpaid
In an Independent Case Examiner case published in its 2023–24 annual report, a customer's account still showed more than £6,000 in incorrect arrears.
Following ICE intervention and correction of the case, the customer was actually found to have overpaid by nearly £5,000.
ICE found that CSA and CMS had missed several opportunities to put the matter right.
ICE: transferred CSA arrears and unreliable balances
ICE's 2019–20 annual report identified the transfer of arrears from the Child Support Agency to CMS as a key feature of complaints.
ICE reported situations where a paying parent disputed transferred arrears but CMS could not confirm with certainty that the figure was correct because of poor historic accounting.
The same report described contradictory and inaccurate account information and cases requiring full account audits.
ICE: evidence had been deleted
ICE's 2021–22 report described a customer who said CMS had incorrectly told them they owed nearly £10,000.
When ICE requested the evidence, CMS reported that relevant evidence had been prematurely and incorrectly deleted, severely limiting the investigation.
ICE also said that disputed CSA arrears transferred into CMS continued to be a key feature of complaints.
ICE 2024–25: shared care wasn't properly investigated
ICE's latest published annual report includes a case where CMS did not properly investigate issues concerning shared care and which parent was the primary carer.
The customer was moved to Collect and Pay while outstanding liability issues remained.
ICE concluded that the customer had been moved to Collect and Pay inappropriately, incurred collection charges and paid more maintenance than they should have.
Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman
CMS failings led to more than £8,500 being unnecessarily paid
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated a case involving a man referred to as Mr E.
The Ombudsman found serious CMS service failures concerning the handling of his case and recommended reimbursement of £8,580.39 for unnecessary maintenance payments.
This case involved different facts, but it demonstrates the potentially substantial financial consequences when CMS gets a case wrong.
432 complaints in 2024–25
PHSO's published complaints data records 432 complaints received about the Child Maintenance Service in 2024–25.
A complaint being made does not itself prove that CMS acted wrongly, but the figure provides useful context about the continuing volume of concerns reaching the Ombudsman.
Other parents are reporting similar concerns
Evidence submitted to Parliament provides another window into parents' experiences.
Written evidence: concerns about "false arrears"
One anonymous submission to Parliament described arrears increasing despite the person saying they made every payment CMS required.
The submission alleged that outdated or incorrect income information can lead to inflated arrears and claimed that evidence uploaded by parents was sometimes not acted upon.
These allegations closely resemble one of the central concerns being investigated by this campaign:
What happens when the income or arrears figure at the foundation of the case is wrong?
What parents are saying publicly
Public forums and social-media discussions contain accounts from both paying and receiving parents describing difficulties with CMS.
These posts are personal testimony rather than independently proven findings, so Right First Time UK does not present them as proof that CMS acted unlawfully in a particular case.
They are important because they help identify recurring themes which can then be compared against official reports.
Wrong income
Parents report disputes about the income figure being used to calculate maintenance.
Arrears that don't make sense
Parents describe balances changing or arrears appearing that they say they cannot reconcile with their payments.
Evidence not acted upon
A recurring allegation is that evidence has been uploaded or supplied but parents believe it was not properly considered.
Shared care
Parents report disputes about overnight care and whether the correct shared-care reduction has been applied.
Why these voices matter
A social-media post by itself cannot establish a systemic failure.
But when similar allegations appear repeatedly and some of those same types of failures also appear in independent ICE and Ombudsman findings, they deserve proper investigation.
One error can create another
WRONG INCOME
↓
WRONG LIABILITY
↓
DISPUTED ARREARS
↓
COLLECT & PAY
↓
COLLECTION FEES
↓
ENFORCEMENT
↓
DEBT & FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
This is why Right First Time UK believes the accuracy of the original decision is so important.
Enforcement cannot correct an inaccurate underlying calculation.
YOU CANNOT ENFORCE AN ERROR INTO BECOMING CORRECT.
If the income was wrong, check the income.
If the liability was wrong, correct the liability.
If the arrears were created by an incorrect liability, audit the arrears.
GET THE FIGURE RIGHT BEFORE ESCALATING COLLECTION.
What Right First Time UK is calling for
Verify disputed income
Where credible evidence indicates the income used may be wrong, investigate it properly before escalation.
Show parents the calculation
Clearly identify the income figure, its source, applicable period and how the liability was calculated.
Create a complete audit trail
Parents should be able to follow: income → calculation → liability → payments → adjustments → arrears.
Investigate before Collect & Pay
Outstanding evidenced disputes affecting liability should be resolved as quickly as possible before avoidable collection fees are added.
Correct historical errors
Where an error is established, trace its consequences through later calculations and balances rather than correcting only the current figure.
Independent account audits
Where substantial historic arrears are genuinely disputed, provide a proper account breakdown capable of independent scrutiny.
Listen to both parents
Claims and evidence from receiving and paying parents should be treated fairly and checked where appropriate.
Refund charges caused by CMS error
Where an official review establishes that incorrect CMS action caused inappropriate collection charges, those charges should be reviewed and reimbursed where appropriate.
Has this happened to you?
Right First Time UK is working with all other volenters related and reporters building an evidence base rather than rely solely on anecdotes.
We particularly want to hear from parents who have documents showing:
- CMS used an income figure you believe was incorrect.
- HMRC records differ from the income used by CMS.
- Your income reduced but the calculation was not corrected.
- CMS did not act on income evidence you supplied.
- Shared-care evidence was not properly considered.
- Arrears appeared that you cannot reconcile.
- Your arrears balance repeatedly changed.
- CSA arrears transferred to CMS were incorrect.
- You paid maintenance but the payment was not credited.
- You incurred Collect & Pay fees because of an error later corrected.
- An appeal, Mandatory Reconsideration, ICE or Ombudsman investigation corrected your case.
Before publicly sharing documents, remove information such as children's names, addresses, National Insurance numbers, bank details and other information that could identify children or third parties.
Official information
If you believe your own calculation is wrong, use the official routes available for your individual case. Campaigning about systemic problems does not replace challenging a decision within the applicable time limits.
GOV.UK — Child Maintenance Service Child Maintenance Calculator Complaints & Appeals Independent Case Examiner Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman
THE 25% RULE: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE'S REAL INCOME HAS COLLAPSED?
One of the biggest issues raised with Right First Time UK is what happens when the Child Maintenance Service is using historic income which no longer reflects what a paying parent is actually earning.
The law contains a specific rule dealing with significant differences between historic and current income.
The legislation: Regulation 34
Regulation 34 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 governs whether gross weekly income is based on historic income or current income.
The general position is that historic income is used.
However, Regulation 34(2) provides that current income is relevant where:
current income differs from historic income by an amount that is at least 25% of historic income
There are also provisions dealing with cases where historic income is nil or unavailable.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 24.9% AND 25% CAN BE ENORMOUS
Example; CMS is using historic annual income of:
£40,000
The parent's income falls by 24.9%.
Their current annual income would be approximately:
£30,040
They have lost approximately:
£9,960 A YEAR
Yet the reduction has not crossed the statutory 25% threshold.
Now imagine the income falls by exactly 25%.
£30,000
The difference between the two situations is only:
£40 A YEAR
Yet crossing that threshold can make the difference between the current-income rule applying or not applying.
Right First Time UK is not claiming that CMS is breaking Regulation 34 simply because somebody's income has fallen by 24.9%.
Under the current legislation the threshold is at least 25%.
Our concern is that this creates a cliff edge where two families experiencing almost exactly the same substantial loss of income can be treated differently.
The 25% threshold was supposed to balance stability and fairness
The 2012 system deliberately moved away from the much smaller income-change threshold used under an earlier child-maintenance scheme.
The Government's reasoning was that constantly recalculating maintenance following relatively small income changes could create uncertainty and administrative work.
The 25% threshold was therefore intended to identify significant changes in income.
But that makes timely action even more important
If a parent has crossed such a high threshold and supplies evidence demonstrating a major change in income, Right First Time UK believes that evidence must be considered promptly.
A mechanism intended to recognise a major financial change provides little protection if a qualifying change is not determined until months or years later.
WHAT HAPPENS WHILE CMS IS DECIDING?
This is where the issue can become much more serious.
Parents contacting Right First Time UK and people discussing their cases publicly report providing evidence that their income has substantially reduced but continuing to receive demands based on the disputed calculation while their case is being considered.
These reports should be investigated individually. Right First Time UK does not claim that every allegation made on social media has been independently established.
We are asking CMS and DWP to publish data showing how long income-change requests actually take to determine.
Income falls
A parent's earnings substantially reduce because of losing work, reduced hours, illness, caring responsibilities or another change.
Evidence supplied
The parent provides payslips, employer information, HMRC information or other evidence of current income.
Old liability continues
Where a change has not yet been accepted and implemented, the existing maintenance decision can continue to determine what CMS expects the parent to pay.
Financial pressure grows
The parent may face continuing maintenance demands, alleged arrears and potentially collection consequences while disputing the underlying income.
A LATER CORRECTION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REPAIR EVERYTHING
Another crucial issue is the date from which a corrected calculation takes effect.
Parents should not assume that proving their income is lower automatically means CMS will simply rewrite every earlier payment period back to the date their earnings first changed.
Effective-date rules, when CMS was notified, the type of decision being changed and the circumstances of the individual case can matter.
That makes delays potentially much more important
If somebody tells CMS:
"My income has fallen by more than 25%. Here is the evidence."
Right First Time UK believes there must be a clear, auditable record of:
- the date CMS was notified;
- the income figure being challenged;
- the evidence supplied;
- when that evidence was examined;
- what decision was made;
- the legal effective date of that decision;
- what happened to liability during the waiting period;
- what happened to any arrears created during that period;
- and whether collection charges were added.
WHEN THE COMPUTER'S INCOME IS NOT THE PARENT'S REAL INCOME
This campaign is particularly concerned about reports from parents who say the amount CMS is demanding bears little resemblance to what they are actually earning.
Some parents report being left facing maintenance and arrears demands which consume an extremely large proportion of their actual available income.
A CALCULATION CANNOT CREATE INCOME.
If CMS says somebody has £500, but they actually received £300, the missing £200 does not suddenly exist.
Enforcement cannot manufacture it.
The proportion of someone's take-home income represented by CMS payments is not, by itself, proof that the statutory calculation is legally incorrect.
CMS calculations generally use gross income rather than take-home pay.
However, cases where maintenance, arrears and collection charges result in exceptionally high deductions from the money a parent actually receives raise legitimate questions about affordability, hardship, calculation accuracy and the speed with which disputed income is reviewed.
THE GOVERNMENT NOW WANTS TO REDUCE 25% TO 15%
There is now significant official recognition that the current income tolerance needs changing.
Government announcement — 2026
In June 2026 the Government confirmed that, following its review of the child maintenance calculation, it plans to reduce the income-change tolerance from:
25%
↓
15%
The Government said the proposed change is intended to mean that changes in income are captured more quickly and assessments remain fair for both parents.
In July 2026 the Government again confirmed its intention to reduce the tolerance to 15%.
Secondary legislation is required before the new threshold can be implemented and it remains subject to Parliamentary approval.
If Government now believes reducing the threshold to 15% will allow income changes to be captured more quickly and keep assessments fair, what evidence has it gathered about the financial consequences experienced under the existing 25% system?
And what happens to families who have already experienced serious hardship because their income changed by less than 25%? we think this sould be 1% to safe gard and protect familys
Right First Time UK Says "This Sould be 1% to safegard and protect Public & familys From Thurther Financial Hardships".
THE 25% SYSTEM NEEDS ACCOUNTABILITY
Set a clear processing standard
DWP should publish a clear target for determining evidenced current-income changes and report publicly on how many cases meet that target.
Publish waiting-time statistics
CMS should publish how long current-income change requests take from notification to final decision, including the longest outstanding cases.
Protect people while genuine disputes are investigated
DWP should review whether additional safeguards are required where credible evidence indicates that the income underlying a maintenance calculation may be substantially wrong.
Review fees created during CMS error or delay
Where CMS later establishes that a qualifying income change should have affected liability, any collection charges arising from avoidable official error or delay should also be reviewed.
Investigate the 24.9% cliff edge
Government should publish modelling showing the effect the current 25% threshold has had on families whose income fell substantially but remained immediately below the threshold.
Examine historical cases before moving to 15%
Before replacing the existing threshold, DWP should examine what went wrong under the 25% system and determine whether previous cases reveal systemic administrative problems requiring correction.
IF THE INCOME HAS GONE, THE MONEY HAS GONE.
A historic salary does not pay today's bills.
A computer figure cannot create today's wages.
And a parent cannot pay maintenance from money they never actually received.
VERIFY THE INCOME. ACT ON THE EVIDENCE. MAKE THE DECISION PROMPTLY.
THIS IS NOT ONE PARENT SAYING SOMETHING WENT WRONG
Across social media, public forums, evidence submitted to Parliament and campaigning groups, parents continue to report similar problems with the Child Maintenance Service.
Right First Time UK distinguishes between an allegation made by a parent and a failure independently established by ICE, the Ombudsman, a tribunal or another official body.
Individual social-media reports are not proof by themselves. But repeated reports can identify patterns which deserve investigation — particularly where similar types of failure also appear in official reports.
WRONG INCOME
Parents report CMS using income figures which they say do not reflect what they actually earned.
25% RULE
Parents report difficulties getting substantial changes in income recognised and acted upon.
EVIDENCE IGNORED
Parents report repeatedly providing payslips, bank statements, HMRC information and other evidence without seeing the underlying dispute resolved.
UNEXPLAINED ARREARS
Parents report arrears appearing or changing without being able to obtain a clear calculation explaining where the balance came from.
PAYMENTS NOT RECORDED
Some parents publicly report making payments but later finding that CMS records do not show those payments.
LONG DELAYS
Parents report waiting months — and in some publicly reported cases much longer — for audits, corrections and responses.
SHARED CARE
Parents report disputes over the number of overnight stays and whether the correct shared-care reduction has been applied.
FEES WHILE DISPUTING THE DEBT
Parents report Collect & Pay charges being added while they are still attempting to challenge the calculation or arrears underneath them.
NEARLY 1,000 PEOPLE RESPONDED TO A PARLIAMENTARY SOCIAL-MEDIA CALL FOR EXPERIENCES
During a House of Commons debate on the Child Maintenance Service in July 2019, Parliament heard that nearly 1,000 people had responded to a House of Commons Facebook post and a Mumsnet discussion inviting people to describe their experiences of CMS.
The MP leading the debate said recurring themes included maintenance being calculated using:
INCORRECT AND OUT-OF-DATE INFORMATION.
The debate also raised concerns about calculations contributing to poverty and debt.
That evidence is particularly important to this campaign because concerns about inaccurate or outdated income information were therefore being publicly raised years ago.
A RECENT ACCOUNT SHOWS WHY THESE REPORTS NEED INVESTIGATING
Parent reports £6,000+ arrears and a two-year wait
In a public UK legal-advice discussion in 2025, a parent reported that CMS added more than £6,000 in arrears and more than £1,500 in collection fees.
The parent said they had been paying the amount set by CMS through Direct Pay.
They reported requesting a payment breakdown in March 2023.
According to their account, it took approximately two years for that breakdown to arrive.
They then alleged that CMS records contained no payments for an entire previous year, despite the parent saying they possessed bank statements showing the payments.
This is a publicly reported personal account. Right First Time UK has not independently verified the person's documents and therefore does not present the allegations as established findings against CMS.
"FALSE ARREARS" AND OUTDATED INCOME HAVE ALSO BEEN ALLEGED IN PARLIAMENTARY EVIDENCE
In written evidence published by a Parliamentary committee, a paying parent described arrears increasing despite saying they made every payment CMS required.
The submission alleged:
- months waiting for CMS action;
- a requested account audit not being completed;
- arrears increasing despite payments being made;
- outdated or incorrect income information being used;
- evidence being uploaded but allegedly not acted upon;
- problems involving shared care;
- and a lack of transparency.
ONE COMPLAINT CAN BE AN INDIVIDUAL CASE.
Hundreds of similar accounts create a question.
Repeated official findings create evidence.
And when the same themes continue appearing year after year, they deserve proper investigation.
WRONG INCOME → WRONG LIABILITY → WRONG ARREARS → FEES → ENFORCEMENT
DON'T JUST TELL US — SHOW US
Right First Time UK wants documentary evidence from both paying and receiving parents.
If you believe CMS got your case wrong, we want to compare what happened with the documents.
Particularly useful evidence includes:
- CMS calculation letters;
- CMG letters;
- HMRC income records;
- payslips;
- annual review decisions;
- 25% current-income decisions;
- Mandatory Reconsideration decisions;
- tribunal decisions;
- payment schedules;
- bank evidence of payments;
- arrears calculations;
- Collect & Pay notices and fees;
- ICE findings;
- Ombudsman findings;
- and correspondence showing when evidence was supplied.
Documents should be anonymised before being published. Remove children's names, addresses, National Insurance numbers, bank details and identifying information belonging to other people.
Why this petition matters
Child maintenance should support children. But the system must also recognise that paying parents still have essential living costs, housing costs and responsibilities towards other children in their household.
The petition asks the Government to consider financial hardship and the circumstances of blended families and additional dependent children when reviewing how CMS payments work.
The petition raises concerns about:
WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY PUSHING ANOTHER HOUSEHOLD INTO POVERTY.
Help take it to Parliament
UK Parliament petitions have two important milestones.
The petition was published on 17 June 2026 and remains open until 17 December 2026.
SIGN THE OFFICIAL UK PARLIAMENT PETITION