Protected earnings
For a Child Maintenance Service Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO), the protected earnings proportion is 60% of the liable person's net earnings for the relevant pay period.
Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 — Regulation 11(2).
This means the CMS wage deduction itself must normally be restricted so that the employee is left with the protected proportion.
1. The legislation
Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 — Regulation 11
Regulation 11 is headed Protected earnings rate. Regulation 11(2), as amended for the current scheme, provides that the protected earnings proportion for the relevant period is 60% of the liable person's net earnings calculated at payday.
Child Support (Meaning of Child and New Calculation Rules) (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2012
The 2012 amendments changed the Collection and Enforcement Regulations for the new calculation scheme, including the protected earnings proportion used for new-scheme DEOs.
Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
These regulations govern the calculation of child maintenance under the 2012 scheme. They are separate from the rules governing collection through a DEO. For example, Regulation 34 concerns the general rule for determining gross weekly income/current income.
2. What the 60% rule actually means
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is protected? | At least 60% of the liable person's relevant net earnings for the pay period when a CMS DEO is being operated. |
| Who applies it? | The employer or person operating the Deduction from Earnings Order at payday. |
| What if the full CMS deduction would cross the protection? | The employer should only deduct the amount available above protected earnings and account for the shortfall in accordance with CMS instructions. |
| Does this automatically reduce the underlying CMS liability? | No. It limits what can be taken from that pay period under the DEO. It does not by itself rewrite the underlying maintenance calculation. |
| Does 60% mean CMS can always take 40%? | No. The actual amount due under the DEO may be much lower. The 60% figure is a protection or floor, not a standard deduction rate. |
3. Protected earnings calculator
Enter the employee's relevant net earnings for one pay period. This calculator illustrates the 60% protected amount and the maximum amount theoretically available above it. It does not calculate the person's actual CMS liability.
4. What GOV.UK says employers must do
Official CMS employer guidance says employers should:
- check what counts as earnings;
- calculate 60% of the employee's net earnings as protected earnings;
- make the CMS deduction only if it leaves the employee with that protected amount;
- send the deduction to CMS.
5. Net earnings
For earnings-deduction purposes, the official guidance works from net earnings, rather than simply the headline gross salary.
For the related DWP Direct Earnings Attachment rules, GOV.UK expressly describes net earnings as earnings after deductions for:
- Income Tax;
- Class 1 National Insurance;
- superannuation contributions.
6. Workers' earnings protection and other DWP deductions
A similar 60% protection exists in DWP guidance for a Direct Earnings Attachment (DEA), which is used for certain debts and is legally distinct from a CMS Deduction from Earnings Order.
Direct Earnings Attachment
DWP's current employer guide says the protected earnings amount is equal to 60% of the employee's net earnings. When a DEA together with relevant other orders would take deductions beyond 40% of net wages, the DEA must be adjusted to leave 60%.
Open official DEA guideAttachment of earnings
Other attachment-of-earnings systems can also use protected earnings concepts. However, their rules and priority can differ. The CMS 60% rule should therefore be cited from the specific child-support regulations rather than described as one universal employment-law rule.
GOV.UK debt deductions guidance7. What this hub should not claim
For accuracy, avoid saying:
- “CMS can never demand more than 40% of someone's income.”
- “Employment law says everyone must always keep 60% of all income.”
- “The 60% rule automatically cancels arrears above 40%.”
A safer and legally focused statement is:
8. Example
If the person's relevant net earnings for a monthly pay period are £1,200:
| Net earnings | £1,200 |
|---|---|
| 60% protected earnings | £720 |
| Amount above the protected level | £480 |
If the DEO instructed a £150 deduction, the protection would not be breached because £1,050 would remain. If it required more than the amount available above the protected earnings level for that payday, the employer must apply the protected-earnings rules and follow CMS procedures for the unpaid difference.
9. Law versus guidance
Law
Legislation.gov.uk contains the statutory instruments and amendments. The central statutory citation for this hub is Regulation 11 of the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
Government guidance
GOV.UK explains how employers should operate the rule in practice. Guidance is useful evidence of DWP/CMS procedure, but it should not be confused with the statutory provision itself.
10. Official evidence library
Use the buttons below to check the original government material yourself.
Regulation 11 — Protected earnings rate
The central statutory provision.
View sourceFull Collection & Enforcement Regulations
Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
View source2012 consequential amendments
Includes amendment of the protected earnings provision for the new calculation scheme.
View sourceCMS employer deductions
Official practical instructions for calculating protected earnings.
View source2012 Maintenance Calculation Regulations
Separate rules governing how maintenance is calculated.
View sourceDWP Direct Earnings Attachment guide
Related 60% protected earnings protection for DEAs.
View sourceGeneral debt deductions from pay
Government overview of attachment and protected earnings concepts.
View source11. Frequently asked questions
Is the 60% rule real?
Yes. Regulation 11 of the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 contains the protected earnings provision, and current GOV.UK CMS employer guidance instructs employers to leave at least 60% of net earnings when operating a DEO.
Does it apply to Direct Pay?
The specific protection discussed on this page concerns deductions from earnings under a DEO. It should not be presented as an automatic 60% cap governing every Direct Pay liability or every other method of collection.
Does it apply to arrears?
A DEO can be used to collect maintenance and amounts due, but the protected-earnings requirement still governs the amount that can be taken from the relevant earnings at payday. An unpaid difference may remain due rather than disappearing.
Is the 40% figure itself a CMS deduction rate?
No. Forty per cent is simply the mathematical amount above a 60% protected floor. The actual DEO amount can be lower and depends on the order issued.
Is this the same as the maintenance calculation formula?
No. The calculation of maintenance liability is governed by separate rules, principally the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 for the 2012 scheme.
Transparency note
This page is intended for public information, scrutiny and evidence checking. It is not legal advice and does not decide an individual CMS case. Where a deduction appears wrong, check the relevant payslip, DEO, CMS schedule, applicable regulation version and the person's actual net earnings for each pay period.
12. CMS has the wrong income — the 25% historic/current income rule
This is not merely CMS guidance — the 25% test is in legislation
The central legal provision is Regulation 34 of the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012.
Regulation 34(1) requires gross weekly income for a calculation decision to be determined using either historic income or current income in accordance with the regulations.
Regulation 34(2) provides that historic income is used unless:
- current income differs from historic income by at least 25% of historic income; or
- historic income is nil or no historic income is available.
Historic income versus current income
| Situation | General statutory position |
|---|---|
| Usable historic HMRC income exists and current income is less than 25% different | The calculation normally remains based on historic income, subject to the rest of the regulations. |
| Current income differs from historic income by at least 25% | Regulation 34's exception to using historic income is engaged and the current-income provisions must be considered. |
| Historic income is nil | Regulation 34(2)(b) provides a separate exception to the normal historic-income rule. |
| No historic income is available | Regulation 34(2)(b) also provides for this situation. |
The connected regulations
Historic income
Sets out how historic income is obtained/determined using HMRC information for the relevant tax year.
Open Regulation 35Historic income — calculation
Contains further rules for calculating the historic-income amount.
Open Regulation 36Current income — general
Sets out the general current-income rules when current income is the appropriate basis.
Open Regulation 37Current income sources
These provisions deal with employed earnings, self-employed earnings and other current-income matters, including estimation where applicable.
Open income regulationsIf CMS ignores evidence showing a 25%+ difference
The key question is not simply whether CMS has been sent a document. The evidence must be capable of establishing current income under the statutory rules. If appropriate evidence establishes a qualifying difference, the decision should be considered under the current-income provisions rather than the evidence simply being disregarded without a lawful reason.
Identify the figures
Record the historic income CMS used, the current income supported by evidence, the tax/pay periods and the percentage difference.
Challenge the decision
Ask CMS to explain in writing why Regulation 34 has or has not resulted in current income being used and identify the evidence considered.
MR and appeal
Where applicable, request Mandatory Reconsideration. If the disputed decision remains after reconsideration, statutory appeal rights may allow the issue to go to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal.
Worked 25% example
If historic income is £30,000 and evidenced current income is £15,000, the difference is £15,000 — a 50% reduction from the historic figure. That exceeds the 25% threshold. The next issue is whether the current-income evidence satisfies the regulations and what effective date/change rules apply.
Do not confuse three different protections
- 25% income rule: determines when the statutory calculation moves away from historic income to current income (or where other Regulation 34 exceptions apply).
- CMS calculation rates: determine the maintenance liability once the correct income and relevant circumstances have been established.
- 60% protected earnings: protects earnings when a CMS Deduction from Earnings Order is actually being operated.
Official CMS decision-making material
DWP also publishes a Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide (CMDMG). This is administrative guidance for decision makers and is useful for understanding how CMS says the legislation should be applied. It does not replace the regulations.
13. What the law says vs what CMS tells its decision makers
This section compares the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 with the DWP's published Child Maintenance Decision Makers' Guide (CMDMG), Volume 2. The regulations are law; the CMDMG is operational guidance used by decision makers.
Historic or current income?
The statutory starting point is historic income, subject to Regulation 34's exceptions including where current income differs by at least 25%, historic income is unavailable, or the other statutory circumstances apply.
Read Regulation 34CMS's own instruction
CMDMG paragraphs 18001 and 19003 instruct decision makers that historic income is used unless current income differs by at least 25%, historic income is unavailable, or CMS cannot obtain the required HMRC information.
Open official CMDMGKey CMDMG paragraphs for income disputes
| Paragraph | CMS decision-maker instruction | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 17010 | Historic HMRC information is used before the initial calculation unless the 25% test or another listed exception applies. | Shows the exception operates at the initial-calculation stage. |
| 18001 | Historic income is preferred but the guide expressly lists the 25% and other Regulation 34 exceptions. | Direct operational link to Regulation 34(2). |
| 18002 | Nil historic income plus positive current income is treated as differing by at least 25%. | Reflects Regulation 34(2A). |
| 18015 | If HMRC cannot provide historic income, CMS initiates consideration of current income. | Missing HMRC data should trigger current-income consideration. |
| 18016–18020 | If the paying parent disputes the historic figure, CMS can request an HMRC breakdown of income categories. | Provides a checking route for a disputed HMRC figure. |
| 18021–18023 | If HMRC amends the historic figure, a calculation using the previous figure for that tax year should be revised. | Critical where HMRC corrects underlying data. |
| 18024–18025 | The historic figure may need adjustment for relevant other children, pensions, currency conversion, successful variations or non-taxable payments. | The raw HMRC number is not always the final calculation figure. |
| 18027 onward | Qualifying pension contributions must be dealt with before the maintenance calculation where applicable. | Another important income-calculation protection. |
| 19003–19004 | Repeats the 25% test and confirms the special nil-historic/positive-current rule. | Core current-income instruction. |
| 19005–19007 | Defines current income and says the DM may use information from any credible source and may estimate where permitted. | Relevant to evidence disputes. |
| 19011–19013 | Explains regular and irregular earnings. Irregular earnings can be averaged over an appropriate preceding period. | Important for zero-hours, variable-hours, overtime and seasonal earnings. |
| 19016 | Decision makers may consider not reflecting genuinely short-term changes. | Important qualification to the current-income rules. |
| 19017–19019 | For a decrease, use RTI if possible; if insufficient, ask for employer evidence, potentially contact the employer, and consider estimation where appropriate. | Shows CMS's published evidence-gathering process. |
| 19020 | Identify gross taxable income and consider adjustments for non-taxable amounts and pension contributions. | Helps prevent inappropriate sums being counted as taxable income. |
Variable and zero-hours earnings
CMDMG paragraph 19013 specifically covers earnings that do not follow a regular settled pattern. The guide directs the decision maker to establish a weekly average over an appropriate period preceding the effective date. Where evidence is insufficient, the guide also sets out steps for seeking further evidence from the paying parent or employer.
Guidance cannot override legislation
The CMDMG is strong evidence of CMS's published decision-making process, but it is not legislation. The statutory regulations take priority, and a tribunal determines the law independently.
14. How cases are being treated — concerns, evidence and Collect & Pay fees
Documented failings versus allegations that require proof
There is official evidence of serious CMS errors in individual cases and acknowledged data-quality problems. There are also concerns from parents about evidence allegedly not being acted on, repeated challenges and inconsistent explanations. This hub does not state as established fact that CMS deliberately ignores evidence to generate Collect & Pay fees unless evidence proves that intention.
Documented evidence of case-handling failures
More than £8,500 unnecessarily paid
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published a case finding CMS failed to take appropriate action and provide accurate information after concerns about assumed paternity were raised. It found financial loss and significant emotional distress.
Read Ombudsman caseAcknowledged data problems
DWP's statistics to March 2026 state that because of the complexity of the CMS 2012 system, some maintenance arranged has been miscategorised — approximately 2% of debt under the published measure. This does not establish deliberate mistreatment, but confirms that system/data errors exist.
CMS statistics to March 2026Concerns that should be investigated case by case
- current-income evidence allegedly being overlooked or rejected without a clear explanation;
- historic income continuing to be used where evidence is said to show a 25% or greater difference;
- customers receiving explanations apparently inconsistent with Regulation 34 or the CMDMG;
- repeated Mandatory Reconsiderations or appeals being needed before alleged errors are corrected;
- concerns that frontline staff may not consistently understand the relevant legislation or decision-maker guidance;
- incorrect arrears or payment records potentially affecting movement from Direct Pay to Collect & Pay.
The financial issue — Collect & Pay
DWP's own consultation stated that collection fees were designed to encourage compliance and also to contribute towards CMS running costs and reduce the burden on taxpayers. It reported collection-fee income of around £45 million to £50 million annually in recent years at the time.
Does this prove a deliberate revenue motive?
No. The 20% fee and its contribution to CMS running costs create a legitimate transparency question about incentives, but do not prove that CMS or individual staff deliberately create errors, ignore evidence or move cases to Collect & Pay to obtain fees.
The evidence-based question is whether disputed or subsequently corrected decisions are disproportionately associated with movement to Collect & Pay and additional charges.
What official policy says
GOV.UK says CMS can move a case to Collect & Pay where the paying parent does not pay in full and on time. Published DWP Direct Pay research says that where one parent wishes to try Direct Pay and the other prefers Collect & Pay, CMS is required to use Direct Pay unless there is explicit evidence that the paying parent is likely to be non-compliant.
Questions DWP/CMS should answer
- How many Direct Pay cases move to Collect & Pay each year following a disputed calculation?
- How many later have liability reduced at Mandatory Reconsideration or tribunal?
- How much in 20% fees has been charged on liabilities subsequently found to be wrong?
- Are those fees automatically refunded when liability is corrected?
- What training do staff receive on Regulations 34–42 and CMDMG Chapters 18–19?
- How is staff competence on the 25% rule assessed?
- How many complaints concern evidence not being properly considered?
- How many income-related Mandatory Reconsiderations result in changed decisions?
- Does CMS audit whether an incorrect calculation contributed to apparent non-payment before moving a case to Collect & Pay?
- What safeguards ensure collection-fee revenue cannot influence payment-method or enforcement decisions?