CMS Collection Fees: What Are Paying Parents Actually Paying For?

Paying Parents using Child Maintenance Service Collect & Pay can be charged an additional 20% on top of their child maintenance liability. Receiving Parents are charged 4% from the maintenance passed to them. This evidence hub asks a simple transparency question: where does that money go, what does it fund, and is the charging structure properly justified?

Important: what this investigation does NOT claim

Right First Time UK is not claiming as an established fact that an individual Paying Parent's 20% collection fee is directly handed to a solicitor representing the Receiving Parent.

The evidence does show that CMS/DWP collects substantial fee and charge income and that DWP pays for contractors, digital services and legal / enforcement work connected with the Child Maintenance Service.

Some legal services are used by DWP/CMS to pursue the recovery of child maintenance. That may assist the recovery of money ultimately intended for a Receiving Parent and child, but the solicitor or contractor is ordinarily acting for DWP/CMS, not acting as the Receiving Parent's personal solicitor.

The question we are investigating is therefore wider: how are CMS fees allocated and what services and costs do they ultimately support?

At a glance

Important: the £88.241m accounting figure is labelled by DWP as “fees, charges and other recoveries”. It should not be described as £88.241m of Collect & Pay fees alone without a further breakdown from DWP.

The question that started this investigation

A Paying Parent may not have opened the CMS case themselves. They may nevertheless become legally liable for maintenance and, on Collect & Pay, potentially an additional 20%.

CMS can calculate liabilities, collect payments, enforce arrears, instruct contractors and defend its decisions in tribunals and courts.

Meanwhile, a Paying Parent challenging a calculation generally has to pursue Mandatory Reconsideration and, where permitted, an independent tribunal appeal themselves or arrange their own representation.

So what exactly is the additional 20% charge paying for?

1. The 20% and 4% charges are set by legislation

The collection-fee structure is not merely an internal CMS policy. It is provided for by the Child Support Fees Regulations 2014.

Regulation 7 provides for:

• a collection fee of 20% in relation to the Paying Parent / non-resident parent's maintenance liability; and
• a collection fee of 4% from maintenance that would otherwise be passed to the Receiving Parent.

2. What does 20% actually mean?

The collection fee is additional to the maintenance liability. It is not part of the amount eventually received by the child or Receiving Parent.

For a £500 liability, £600 is collected from the Paying Parent while £480 is passed to the Receiving Parent.

That creates £120 in combined collection charges around a £500 maintenance liability.

This does not mean £120 is profit. The important question is what costs the charge supports and whether those costs and allocations are sufficiently transparent.

3. Fees can become substantial over many years

DWP's own published example has previously demonstrated a Paying Parent liable for £50 a week paying £60 under Collect & Pay after the 20% fee.

If maintained for ten years at the same level, the additional charge amounts to:

The corresponding 4% Receiving Parent charge would be £2 a week, amounting to £1,040 over the same illustrative ten-year period.

4. DWP accounts: £88.241 million in fees, charges and other recoveries

The Department for Work and Pensions Annual Report and Accounts 2025–26 contains a section headed “Child maintenance client funds”.

For the CMS 2012 scheme, DWP records:

The previous year's corresponding fees / charges / recoveries figure was £70.794 million.

5. The reported fees / charges figure has increased

This is an increase of approximately 24.6%.

That makes a detailed public breakdown increasingly important.

6. Why did Government introduce the fees?

Parliamentary and Government material explains that the charging structure was intended to do more than simply process a payment.

The stated policy objectives have included:

• encouraging separated parents to make their own arrangements;
• encouraging use of Direct Pay rather than Collect & Pay;
• encouraging payment compliance;
• contributing towards the costs of running the collection service; and
• reducing the amount of those costs borne by taxpayers.

This is important because it shows the 20% rate has historically had a behavioural / incentive purpose as well as a cost-funding purpose.

A major fairness question

A statutory maintenance liability and a Collect & Pay fee are separate things.

A parent has a legal responsibility to support their child. But that does not remove the legitimate public-interest question of whether an additional 20% administrative collection charge is transparent, proportionate and operating fairly.

It is also important not to assume that every Paying Parent on Collect & Pay deliberately refused to support their child.

Individual cases can involve disputed calculations, disputed income, disputed payment histories, disputed arrears and administrative issues. Those disputes have to be considered on their individual evidence.

7. CMS uses substantial external contracts

Public procurement records provide evidence that DWP buys external services directly connected with the Child Maintenance Service.

CMS digital modernisation – £8.9 million

A contract awarded to Accenture (UK) Ltd covers specialist digital resources supporting modernisation of Child Maintenance Service functions including:

• My Child Maintenance Case;
• applications;
• employer deductions;
• enforcement;
• channels; and
• common digital platforms.

The published contract value is £8.9 million, with a contract period stated as October 2024 to September 2026.

Legal services for CMS enforcement in Scotland

DWP also awarded a legal-services contract connected specifically with Child Maintenance Service enforcement in Scotland.

The published award describes work connected with the recovery of child maintenance arrears and states a contract value of approximately £1.842 million.

Conflict-of-interest legal supplier

A further Scottish legal-services contract was published for legal advice and representation relating to CMS recovery of arrears where a conflict-of-interest supplier may be required.

Does CMS give Receiving Parents free legal representation?

This needs careful wording.

In statutory maintenance enforcement, it is generally CMS / the Secretary of State that has enforcement powers and brings or conducts enforcement action.

Therefore, where DWP instructs lawyers or enforcement contractors, those professionals are normally acting on behalf of DWP/CMS.

The Receiving Parent may benefit from CMS pursuing unpaid maintenance, but this should not automatically be described as CMS providing the RP with their own personal solicitor.

This distinction is important for accurate scrutiny.

8. What happens when a parent challenges a CMS decision?

A person disputing an appealable CMS decision generally has to start by asking CMS for a Mandatory Reconsideration.

If the decision remains disputed and there is a right of appeal, the matter can proceed to the independent Social Security and Child Support Tribunal.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary explains that tribunal hearings can involve:

• the appellant;
• the tribunal members; and
• a presenting officer from the relevant Government department.

This creates an important access-to-justice question where an individual parent may be preparing and presenting their own case while the Government department has institutional resources available to defend the decision.

9. What if the Paying Parent did not ask CMS to become involved?

A Paying Parent does not necessarily have to be the person who applied to CMS.

A CMS case can arise following an application by the other parent or qualifying applicant.

Once a statutory calculation is made, however, the Paying Parent can become legally liable for the resulting maintenance.

If Collect & Pay applies, the additional collection fee can then be imposed in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Right First Time UK would like DWP to publish clearer statistics showing:

• who initiated CMS cases;
• how many Paying Parents asked for CMS involvement themselves;
• how many cases were initiated by Receiving Parents;
• why individual cases entered Collect & Pay;
• how many were moved because of missed payments;
• how many were later found to contain calculation errors;
• how many successfully challenged liability calculations; and
• what happened to collection fees following successful corrections.

10. Could consumer law apply?

This is an interesting question, but it is not as simple as saying: “I paid a fee, therefore I am automatically a consumer buying a service.”

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has broad definitions. Its explanatory material confirms that Government departments and public authorities can in some circumstances fall within the meaning of a business or trader.

However, CMS operates a statutory child-maintenance scheme, and the Collect & Pay fees themselves are imposed under legislation.

Whether the relationship created by those statutory functions amounts to a consumer contract to which particular Consumer Rights Act protections apply would therefore require proper legal analysis.

11. A potentially stronger question: public-sector charging rules

HM Treasury's Managing Public Money guidance contains important principles governing public-sector fees and charges.

Its standard approach is that charges for public services should generally recover the full cost of providing those services.

It also recognises that Government can deliberately charge more or less where Ministers choose to do so, Parliament has authorised it and the arrangements are properly disclosed.

This makes the following information particularly important:

• actual cost of operating Collect & Pay;
• fee income attributable specifically to the 20% PP charge;
• fee income attributable to the 4% RP charge;
• other enforcement-charge income;
• staff costs;
• IT and digital contract expenditure;
• legal expenditure;
• debt-recovery expenditure;
• court and enforcement costs;
• overheads;
• whether fee income is ring-fenced; and
• whether any surplus or deficit arises.

12. Government itself plans a much lower fee for compliant parents

Government proposals for future CMS reform are especially relevant to this debate.

The proposed future structure would generally charge 2% rather than 20% for compliant Paying Parents, while maintaining the higher 20% rate for non-compliant Paying Parents.

The reforms have been described as being intended for implementation from 2027–28, subject to the necessary legislation and implementation process.

13. Government says fees offset the cost of the service

In a Parliamentary answer published in January 2026, DWP said that Collect & Pay fees are important because they:

• offset the cost of the service;
• help fund investment required for reforms;
• reduce the burden on taxpayers; and
• are intended to incentivise compliance.

That statement itself makes financial transparency particularly important.

If fees are being justified partly on the basis of service costs and investment, the public should be able to see a meaningful breakdown of those costs.

14. Questions DWP should answer

1. How much was collected specifically through the Paying Parent 20% Collect & Pay fee in each financial year?
2. How much was collected through the Receiving Parent 4% fee?
3. How much came from separate enforcement charges?
4. What makes up the £88.241m “fees, charges and other recoveries” reported for 2025–26?
5. Are Collect & Pay fees ring-fenced for CMS?
6. If not, where exactly is the income transferred?
7. What proportion funds CMS staff?
8. What proportion funds IT and digital contracts?
9. What proportion funds enforcement contractors?
10. What proportion funds legal services?
11. What proportion funds tribunal presenting officers or litigation activity?
12. What is the average administrative cost of a compliant Collect & Pay case?
13. What is the average cost of a non-compliant case?
14. How was the 20% rate originally calculated?
15. Has DWP reviewed whether 20% remains proportionate to current costs?
16. Why is the planned compliant-parent rate capable of being reduced to 2%?
17. What happens to collection fees already charged where the underlying maintenance calculation is later reduced?
18. What refunds have been made for incorrectly assessed collection fees?

15. Evidence we believe should now be obtained by Freedom of Information

Right First Time UK believes DWP should be asked for a detailed financial breakdown covering at least the last ten financial years.

16. Collection fees are not the same as enforcement fees

This distinction is important.

The 20% Collect & Pay charge is a collection fee.

Separate fees can also arise from particular enforcement actions under the statutory scheme.

Therefore, when examining CMS income or an individual account, collection fees and enforcement fees should not automatically be added together or described as the same charge.

17. Who receives what service?

This is why the debate should not be reduced to “CMS gives RPs a free lawyer”.

The more accurate issue is whether the statutory system uses Government-funded legal and enforcement resources to recover maintenance while an individual disputing CMS's own decision may have to obtain independent advice or representation themselves.

18. Evidence & source library

Right First Time UK: what we are asking for

We are not arguing that parents should avoid their responsibility to financially support their children.

We are asking for transparency, accuracy, proportionality and accountability in the administration of a compulsory statutory system.

If Government requires a parent to pay an additional 20%, the public should be able to see:

• why that percentage was selected;
• what the money pays for;
• how much is collected;
• how much the relevant service actually costs;
• whether any of it funds contracts and legal services;
• what happens when CMS makes an error;
• how incorrectly charged fees are refunded; and
• whether the system gives both parents fair access to challenge decisions.

Evidence and legal disclaimer

This page is an evidence-led public-interest investigation and transparency resource.

It does not allege unlawful conduct by DWP, CMS, their staff, contractors or any individual.

Questions concerning whether particular consumer-law, public-law, human-rights or other legal principles apply to an individual's CMS circumstances should be considered by a suitably qualified legal professional.

Right First Time UK distinguishes between verified facts, reasonable questions arising from those facts, and matters that remain to be established through further evidence.