A comparison of the practical assistance, collection services, state-backed enforcement, legal processes, fees and protections available to Receiving Parents and Paying Parents.
The Basic Question
The Child Maintenance Service is operated by the Department for Work and Pensions and has extensive administrative and statutory enforcement powers.
At a Glance: The Difference
- CMS calculates maintenance.
- CMS administers the statutory arrangement.
- CMS can collect maintenance through Collect & Pay.
- CMS transfers recovered maintenance to the Receiving Parent.
- CMS automatically reacts to missed Collect & Pay payments.
- CMS can pursue arrears.
- CMS can order deductions from earnings.
- CMS can make deductions from benefits.
- CMS can make bank deduction orders.
- CMS can pursue court-based enforcement.
- CMS can obtain/use liability orders where legally available.
- Enforcement agents can become involved.
- Property-related enforcement can potentially be used.
- Serious sanctions are available in appropriate cases.
- The Receiving Parent does not ordinarily have to personally fund the government's CMS enforcement case.
- CMS calculates what the Paying Parent must pay.
- CMS issues payment schedules.
- CMS can pursue alleged arrears.
- CMS can deduct money from earnings.
- CMS can deduct money from benefits.
- CMS can deduct money from bank accounts.
- CMS can commence enforcement action.
- CMS does not provide the Paying Parent with an independent solicitor to challenge CMS.
- CMS does not fund a lawyer to prepare their Mandatory Reconsideration.
- CMS does not provide an independent accountant to check the calculation.
- The Paying Parent may need to gather their own evidence.
- The Paying Parent may need to conduct their own MR.
- The Paying Parent may need to bring their own tribunal appeal.
- They may need to obtain independent advice themselves.
Legal Representation — An Important Distinction
What the Receiving Parent effectively receives
CMS does not normally appoint a personal solicitor to act for the Receiving Parent.
However, that does not mean the Receiving Parent has to personally conduct every legal enforcement action.
CMS/DWP can use statutory enforcement processes itself to recover child maintenance.
Government accounts specifically describe CMS as being able to take action to secure payment from the Paying Parent in court and describe liability orders and subsequent enforcement.
In practical terms, this means that the machinery and resources of the state can be used to pursue maintenance for the benefit of the Receiving Parent and child without the Receiving Parent ordinarily having to employ their own solicitor to commence that CMS enforcement.
What equivalent legal representation does the Paying Parent receive?
If the Paying Parent says:
- “My income is wrong.”
- “These arrears are wrong.”
- “My payments are missing.”
- “My shared care has not been properly accounted for.”
- “CMS has used the wrong historic income.”
- “CMS has ignored evidence.”
- “The calculation is unlawful.”
CMS does not ordinarily appoint that Paying Parent an independent lawyer or advocate to challenge CMS.
The Paying Parent generally has to pursue the challenge through Mandatory Reconsideration, complaint and/or an independent tribunal appeal themselves, or find independent representation.
What CMS Can Do When Money Is Allegedly Unpaid
The Department's own 2024–25 Client Funds Account explains that CMS can use several methods to collect unpaid maintenance.
- Deduction from Earnings Orders or Requests.
- Deductions from benefits.
- Regular and lump-sum bank deduction orders.
- Deductions involving certain joint, business or partner accounts.
- Court enforcement.
- Liability orders.
- Enforcement agents.
- Removal and sale of goods in appropriate cases.
- Charging orders against property.
- Orders for sale in appropriate cases.
- Driving disqualification in serious cases.
- Passport confiscation in qualifying cases.
- Imprisonment in serious qualifying cases.
2026 Enforcement Figures
The latest published CMS statistics to March 2026 provide a useful picture of the scale of the enforcement system.
Collect & Pay Fees
Current published fee structure
Under the current published Collect & Pay structure:
Example: £500 maintenance
If the underlying maintenance liability is £500:
- Maintenance liability: £500
- 20% Paying Parent fee: £100
- Amount collected from Paying Parent: £600
- 4% Receiving Parent deduction: £20
- Amount passed to Receiving Parent: £480
The government therefore receives £120 in collection charges around that £500 maintenance transaction when both current percentage charges are fully applied.
This example is illustrative. Actual payments and charges depend upon the individual case and sums successfully collected.
How Much Is Government Receiving in Fees and Charges?
This is an important transparency issue.
The figures below should not be described as pure Collect & Pay fee income because the DWP accounting category also includes other charges and recoveries.
The latest DWP Annual Report and Accounts records £88.241 million under the 2012 scheme for “fees, charges and other recoveries collected on behalf of the Secretary of State” during the year to 31 March 2026.
That compares with £70.794 million in the preceding financial year.
That is an increase of approximately £17.447 million in a single year.
- 20% Paying Parent collection charges;
- 4% Receiving Parent collection charges;
- enforcement charges;
- court-related recoveries;
- DNA-related recoveries;
- other recovered costs.
What Does CMS Cost the Taxpayer?
CMS is not funded purely through Collect & Pay charges.
It is a government service operated within the Department for Work and Pensions.
DWP's official CMS accounts expressly state:
That means the administrative infrastructure is ultimately supported from DWP's departmental resources — public money — alongside the fees and recoveries generated through the statutory scheme.
But there is a major transparency problem
The latest accounts do not provide the public with a simple, standalone headline figure showing the complete annual running cost of CMS itself.
A Parliamentary Question in January 2025 asked for the costs of supervising and processing Direct Pay and Collect & Pay.
DWP responded that the cost of running CMS was not separated in that way and the requested information was not held.
CMS staffing
The latest DWP Annual Report gives an indication of the scale of the operation.
Staffing is only one part of CMS expenditure. Other costs can include:
- IT systems;
- digital services;
- buildings and offices;
- telephony;
- management;
- enforcement administration;
- legal and court work;
- data processing;
- HMRC data interaction;
- contractors;
- technology modernisation;
- fraud and financial investigations;
- general DWP overheads.
A Historical Cost Comparison
Although a directly comparable current CMS-only total is not clearly published, Parliament has previously disclosed operating costs.
For 2017/18, the Government reported that the combined cost of running the Child Maintenance Service and the remaining Child Support Agency operation was:
Receiving Parent vs Paying Parent
| Service / Protection | Receiving Parent | Paying Parent |
|---|---|---|
| CMS calculates maintenance | YES | YES |
| Annual review | YES | YES |
| Collect & Pay collection service | Money collected for them | Money collected from them |
| Automatic action following missed Collect & Pay payments | YES | Action is directed at them |
| Deduction from earnings | Can recover maintenance | Can be imposed against earnings |
| Benefit deductions | Can recover maintenance | Can be taken from benefit |
| Bank deduction orders | Can recover maintenance | Can be imposed against accounts |
| State-backed court enforcement | Used to recover maintenance | Enforcement is against them |
| Receiving Parent personally funds CMS enforcement lawyer | Normally NO | N/A |
| CMS-appointed independent lawyer to challenge CMS | NO | NO |
| State-funded independent advocate automatically provided to Paying Parent | N/A | NO |
| Mandatory Reconsideration | YES | YES |
| Tribunal rights for appealable decisions | YES | YES |
| Collect & Pay percentage charge | 4% deducted | 20% added |
What Happens When CMS Says the Paying Parent Owes Money?
The collection side
The state has an organisation with thousands of staff, digital systems, access to information, deduction powers and enforcement mechanisms capable of pursuing maintenance.
What happens when the Paying Parent says CMS is wrong?
The Paying Parent may have to establish the error themselves.
That can mean obtaining and organising:
- HMRC income records;
- payslips;
- bank statements;
- historic payment records;
- Direct Pay evidence;
- court orders;
- shared-care evidence;
- CMS letters;
- telephone records;
- Subject Access Request material;
- legislation and regulations.
They may then need to pursue:
- Mandatory Reconsideration;
- a complaint;
- Independent Case Examiner investigation where eligible;
- tribunal appeal;
- and in exceptional circumstances other legal remedies.
Why Accuracy Before Enforcement Matters
The latest CMS statistics themselves contain an important warning about arrears figures.
DWP states that because of the complexity of the CMS 2012 system, some maintenance has been miscategorised, representing approximately 2% of debt.
This demonstrates why an arrears figure should never automatically be treated as proof that a parent has deliberately refused to support their child.
An alleged balance can potentially involve disputes concerning:
- incorrect income;
- historic income;
- missing payments;
- unallocated payments;
- shared-care disputes;
- administrative corrections;
- arrears reconstruction;
- old CSA liabilities;
- CMS collection charges;
- other enforcement-related charges.
Arrears vs Fees — They Must Not Be Confused
A headline referring to “CMS debt”, “arrears” or the total amount being collected from a Paying Parent can otherwise create the impression that every pound represents maintenance that should have gone directly to the child.
That is not necessarily the case where additional statutory fees and recoverable costs are involved.
The Taxpayer Question
That does not mean enforcement should stop.
It means accuracy, evidence and independent safeguards should be as strong as the enforcement system itself.
Right First Time UK Reform Proposals
1. Independent Calculation Review
A genuinely independent review should be available where substantial liability or arrears are disputed.
2. Independent Paying Parent Advocacy
Where serious enforcement is proposed and the debt is genuinely disputed, Paying Parents should have access to independent advice rather than having to challenge DWP without equivalent support.
3. Full Arrears Audit Before Severe Enforcement
Before significant enforcement action, CMS should produce a complete auditable breakdown of:
- maintenance liability;
- period covered;
- income used;
- payments received;
- payments credited;
- adjustments;
- maintenance arrears;
- CMS collection fees;
- enforcement charges;
- other costs.
4. Separate Maintenance Debt From Government Fees
Government publications and correspondence should separately identify money owed to a child/Receiving Parent and money owed to the Secretary of State.
5. Publish the Full CMS Running Cost
DWP should publish a standalone annual CMS cost showing:
- staffing;
- IT;
- contracts;
- enforcement;
- legal costs;
- courts;
- digital systems;
- administration;
- overheads;
- fee income;
- net taxpayer cost.
6. Publish Fee Income Properly
The current category of “fees, charges and other recoveries” should be broken down so Parliament and the public can see exactly how much is being generated from each individual charge.
7. Equal Access to Justice
Both parents should have meaningful access to independent information, review and appeal procedures.
Official Evidence & Sources
Open Source
Open Source
Open Source
Open Source
Open Source
Open Source
Open Source
Conclusion
Child maintenance should support children and genuine unpaid maintenance should be recoverable.
But a system with some of the strongest administrative enforcement powers available to a government department should have equally strong safeguards against incorrect decisions.
Receiving Parents should not have to employ private lawyers every time genuine maintenance needs collecting.
But Paying Parents should not have to become their own lawyer, accountant, investigator and auditor simply to prove that a government calculation is wrong.
Right First Time UK believes both parents and, most importantly, children deserve a system that gets it right first time.