This page sets out D Matthews' personal account, records, allegations and forensic reconstruction of his Child Maintenance Service case from 2014 onwards.
Back to the CMS Information Hub12 YEARS OF DISPUTE — MY CHILD MAINTENANCE SERVICE CASE D Matthews
My Child Maintenance Service case began on 9 January 2014. More than twelve years later, in August 2026, the financial position is still disputed. I support the principle that parents should financially support their children. My dispute is about whether the evidence, income, shared care, payments, arrears and resulting account were handled correctly.
Why I am still fighting for the account to be corrected
After years of trying to understand the figures, I carried out my own forensic reconstruction using CMS letters, HMRC records, payment records, Subject Access Request material, internal CMS notes, shared-care evidence and complaint findings.
CMS says I still owe about £4,300. My own reconstruction indicates I have instead overpaid by about £800.
That is a difference of roughly £5,100 that I am asking to be independently reconciled.
My case timeline
The income problem
My investigation, using the legislation, CMS guidance and my records, identified periods where the income used in assessments appears materially different from the HMRC earnings recorded for me and whats on my pay slips and bank account statement.
HMRC income compared with CMS income recorded in my reconstruction. CMS has always said they get ther income information from HMRC, so why have they constantly asked me and other parerents for income amounts? and why dose it appear they have not used HMRC records at all? ICE found my HMRC records ahave always been avalible,CMS admited they used average income figures in 2025
| Year | HMRC income in my records | CMS income recorded as used |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | £6,610 | £4,620 |
| 2015 | £4,002 | £6,764 |
| 2016 | £9,279.59 | £13,609 |
| 2017 | £13,357.36 | £17,615 |
| 2018 | £16,074 | £17,615 |
| 2019 | £10,200 | £17,615 |
| 2020 | £0 PAYE in my reconstruction | Approx. £16,074 |
| 2021 | £7,337 | Approx. £16,074 |
| 2022 | £0 | £0 |
These figures require assessment-by-assessment reconciliation because CMS can lawfully use historic income from an earlier tax year in some circumstances. My challenge is therefore not simply that two annual figures are different. I am asking CMS to identify exactly which income was used, its source, why it was legally appropriate, the effective period and how the resulting liability was calculated.
CMS income recorded in my reconstruction: £13,609.
CMS income recorded in my reconstruction: £17,615.
Evidence I say CMS had
Since 2014 I supplied evidence including payment information and bank statements, payslips, HMRC records, shared-care arrangements and later court documentation. I was told for years that information had not been received it, Was not enough evidence An refusals to correct and up date the information. My 2021 Subject Access Request led me to dispute those statements because internal records appeared to show that material had been received, evidence was plenty and no reasons to refuse.
This is one of the central questions in my campaign: what happens when a person supplies evidence but the decision-making process does not appear to reflect it?
Shared care
Shared care was relevant throughout parts of the case. My evidence includes mediation arrangements from 2014, subsequent care arrangements and a 2020 Family Court order. I am asking whether the correct shared-care reduction was applied for every relevant maintenance period.
Payments
My records identify approximately £6,476.60 in payments across the period examined. Those payments need to be reconciled against the correct underlying liability, not merely compared with an account balance that itself remains disputed. (My MP Callum Anderson in involved yet only says he is reporting back to west ministers office about this no help with going by evidence he also has been supplied with to get this dispute resolved)
Fees and enforcement
My records show Collect & Pay enforcement and fees of 20% being applied during the history of the case. I dispute why those consequences were allowed to build while underlying income, payment and arrears issues remained contested. I am asking for every fee and enforcement step to be traced back to the liability on which it depended.
Two completely different account positions
Retrospective decisions affect everything downstream
Historical calculations were revisited during the life of the case. A retrospective correction does not affect only one number. It can alter the original liability, arrears, allocation of payments, collection charges and every balance carried forward.
Income → assessment → liability → payments → arrears → fees → enforcement
What I have examined
CMS letters and calculations; HMRC earnings and employment records; payment records; Subject Access Request material; internal CMS notes; shared-care evidence; mediation documents; court documentation; complaint correspondence; arrears figures; and retrospective decisions.
I have built a year-by-year forensic chronology from 2014 onwards.
I am not asking anyone to simply accept my calculation.
I am asking them to CHECK IT.
What I am asking for
- A complete independent reconciliation from 9 January 2014 onwards.
- Every income figure identified with its source and effective period.
- Every maintenance calculation explained.
- HMRC information compared with the information actually used by CMS.
- Universal Credit and other benefit periods checked against the applicable rules.
- Shared-care evidence reviewed for every relevant period.
- Every payment accounted for.
- Every retrospective decision traced through later balances.
- Arrears and collection charges recalculated where an underlying assessment changes.
- Any final overpayment recognised and corrected.
- A clear written audit trail showing exactly how the final balance was reached.
Important
This is a personal case account. It sets out Daniel Matthews' records, allegations, complaint history and forensic reconstruction. The underlying CMS balance remains disputed.
Right First Time UK does not ask readers to accept either side's figures without checking the underlying evidence.
The purpose of publishing this experience is to support scrutiny, transparency and accurate case reconciliation.
If We Never Earned It — How Can We Pay It?
This personal case is linked to Right First Time UK's wider campaign about accurate income, calculations, arrears and evidence-led Child Maintenance Service decisions.
Open the campaign page