RIGHT FIRST TIME UK • CMS TRANSPARENCY
Examining allegations of incorrect CMS calculations, disputed
arrears, IT failures, administrative errors, enforcement,
financial hardship and the way these issues are being presented
to the British public.
IMPORTANT TRANSPARENCY NOTICE
Right First Time UK supports children receiving the maintenance
they are legally entitled to.
However, accountability must work both ways.
Where a Paying Parent deliberately refuses to pay legitimate
maintenance, appropriate enforcement may be necessary.
Where a Receiving Parent deliberately provides false information to obtain maintenance they are not legally entitled to,
appropriate action and enforcement should be taken.
Where CMS itself has made an incorrect calculation, used incorrect
information, failed to record payments, made an administrative
error or experienced a technical problem, parents must have an
effective way of correcting that error before serious harm occurs.
Daily Mail Investigation – 17 August 2026
“The New Post Office Scandal?”
On 17 August 2026, the Daily Mail published a further major
investigation into alleged failures within the Child Maintenance
Service.
The investigation was written by Tom Kelly, Investigations Editor,
and Taro Kaneko.
It reports accounts from parents who say CMS errors, disputed
calculations, technical failures and long-running arrears disputes
have contributed to severe financial and psychological harm.
READ THE ORIGINAL DAILY MAIL INVESTIGATION
What the Investigation Alleges
The newspaper reports cases involving parents who say they have
experienced:
- Incorrect maintenance calculations
- Incorrect income figures
- Unexpected or disputed arrears
- Technical errors
- Problems accessing the CMS online portal
- Missing or inaccessible correspondence
- Evidence allegedly not being considered
- Incorrect information appearing on cases
- Problems correcting acknowledged errors
- Enforcement while liability was disputed
- Severe financial hardship
- Serious mental-health consequences
Individual Cases Reported
Gerry McMonagle
The Mail reports that Gerry McMonagle received a demand for around
£5,000 in alleged arrears after previously being told that he did
not need to make payments while returning to education.
According to the investigation, he later discovered that a
non-existent additional child had appeared on his CMS account.
The newspaper reports that an internal case note referred to:
“System errors with performance calculations”
His case reportedly remains disputed more than a decade later.
Chris Toft
Chris Toft reportedly demonstrated problems accessing important
CMS correspondence through the online portal.
According to the Mail, one notification warned him to pay
immediately or face legal action.
When he attempted to access the document, the system reportedly
displayed:
“Page not found.”
His account raises an important question about enforcement where
a parent cannot access the correspondence explaining what CMS
requires them to do.
Steve Martin
The newspaper reports several alleged technical problems affecting
Steve Martin's case.
According to the investigation, following a court challenge his
weekly payment calculation increased from approximately £98 to
£1,922 after his income was allegedly overstated by more than 100%.
The Mail reports that a judge subsequently set aside the previous
decision and required CMS to return to the correct lower
calculation and arrears figure.
The newspaper says CMS later informed him that another technical
error meant the higher arrears remained on his account.
Paul Pizzey
Paul Pizzey reportedly disputed a bill of approximately £3,500.
According to his account reported by the newspaper, a CMS worker
told him that mistaken arrears had been added to his account.
Shaun Hancock
The Mail reports that Shaun Hancock received a demand for
approximately £1,100 per week and around £2,100 in arrears despite
having obtained shared care of his child months earlier.
According to the newspaper, the dispute remained unresolved years
later.
Jonathan O'Neill
The investigation refers to the tragic case of Jonathan O'Neill,
whose family spoke publicly following his death by suicide in 2021.
The Mail previously reported that he had received an additional
CMS demand of approximately £4,200.
RFTUK believes cases involving death or serious psychological harm
require careful and independent investigation.
Suicide is complex and should not be attributed to a single cause
without appropriate evidence.
Carl Leverett
The newspaper's earlier investigation reported the case of
Carl Leverett, who said CMS informed him that approximately
£77,000 was owed.
His case formed part of the wider investigation into disputed
CMS debts and calculations.
CMS Leadership & Parliamentary Scrutiny
CMS director Simon Hunter previously appeared before the House of
Lords Public Services Committee.
The official Parliamentary transcript records Mr Hunter describing
himself as responsible for the CMS modernisation journey and saying:
“I am hugely proud of that journey and what we have achieved so far.”
During the same evidence session, Baroness Pidgeon challenged the
description of CMS progress and questioned how success was being
measured.
READ THE OFFICIAL PARLIAMENTARY EVIDENCE
CMS IT & Online Portal Questions
The allegations concerning the CMS portal are particularly important
because parents can be required to respond to communications,
provide information and make payments within specified periods.
Key safeguarding question:
What happens when CMS expects immediate action from a parent but
that parent cannot access the letter, calculation or notification
because the online system is not functioning correctly?
Historic IT Concerns
The Daily Mail reports that minutes from a 2018 CMS directors'
meeting discussed IT issues and referred to the portal having a
reputation for not working.
DWP maintains that earlier problems were rectified following
significant IT improvements.
The public-interest question is whether more recent technical
problems represent isolated incidents or evidence of wider
weaknesses requiring independent examination.
DWP Response
The Department for Work and Pensions disputes allegations that
systemic IT glitches are affecting CMS calculations.
DWP says externally audited assessments demonstrate high accuracy
rates in almost all cases.
It also says that where parents dispute a decision, the decision
can be challenged and ultimately considered by an independent
tribunal where appeal rights apply.
CMS Fees – An Important Part of the Picture
There is an important distinction between:
child-maintenance liability
and
the total amount CMS may require a Paying Parent to pay.
Under the current Collect & Pay system, CMS adds a
20% collection fee to the maintenance amount
charged to the Paying Parent.
CMS also deducts a 4% fee from the maintenance
passed to the Receiving Parent.
£100
Maintenance liability
£120
Paying Parent pays
£96
Receiving Parent receives
In this example the additional £20 paid by the Paying Parent is
a CMS collection fee.
It is not an additional £20 of maintenance owed to the child or
Receiving Parent.
Do not automatically assume a total CMS demand equals money
withheld from a child.
Government documentation distinguishes the
child-maintenance liability from the
scheduled amount.
The scheduled amount can include:
- The underlying maintenance liability
- CMS collection fees
- An amount towards outstanding arrears, where applicable
Therefore, when discussing large CMS balances or payment demands,
the different components should be clearly identified.
GOV.UK – CMS PAYMENTS & FEES
GOV.UK – HOW CMS WORKS OUT MAINTENANCE
Why a CMS Arrears Figure May Be Disputed
The existence of an arrears figure does not automatically explain
why the balance arose.
Some arrears represent maintenance that was legally due and simply
was not paid.
But there are also circumstances in which some or all of a balance
may be disputed.
Possible reasons include:
- Incorrect income being used
- Historic rather than current income being relied upon
- Incorrect or incomplete HMRC information
- Self-employment income disputes
- Changes in income not being processed correctly
- Shared-care nights being recorded incorrectly
- Changes in care arrangements being processed late
- Direct payments between parents not being recognised
- Payments being incorrectly allocated
- Missing historic payment records
- Incorrect effective dates
- Administrative errors
- Technical or IT errors
- Incorrect qualifying-child information
- Disputes over when liability started or ended
- Mandatory Reconsiderations that subsequently change decisions
- Tribunal decisions that subsequently change liability
- Historic CSA balances
- Reconstructed historic payment records
- CMS collection fees forming part of the amount demanded
Paying Maintenance and Challenging CMS Are Not Opposites
A parent challenging a CMS calculation is not automatically refusing
to support their child.
These are two separate questions:
Should a parent financially support their child?
and:
Has CMS correctly calculated the amount that parent legally owes?
A parent can fully accept their responsibility to support their
child while legitimately disputing the accuracy of a CMS
calculation.
Incorrect Calculations Can Harm Both Parents
Accuracy is not simply a Paying Parent issue.
A Receiving Parent may be told that thousands of pounds are owed
and understandably believe that the entire amount will eventually
be recovered.
If the underlying calculation is later changed because of incorrect
income, shared care, payments that were not recorded or another
administrative error, the Receiving Parent may discover that the
balance they were told existed was inaccurate.
Accurate calculations protect Paying Parents, Receiving Parents
and children.
Questions RFTUK Says Need Answers
-
How many CMS calculations have been corrected following identified
administrative or technical errors?
-
How many arrears balances have subsequently been reduced?
-
How many decisions are changed following Mandatory Reconsideration?
-
How many decisions are changed following tribunal proceedings?
-
How many incorrect income figures have been corrected?
-
How many shared-care calculations have subsequently been changed?
-
How many Direct Pay payments have initially been recorded as unpaid
and later accepted?
-
How many parents have reported inaccessible CMS portal documents?
-
How many automated letters have contained incorrect payment schedules?
-
How many cases have been affected by acknowledged technical errors?
-
How frequently does enforcement begin while the underlying balance
is actively disputed?
-
What safeguards prevent incorrect information triggering automated
enforcement?
-
When CMS discovers a technical problem, are previous cases reviewed
to determine whether other families were affected?
-
How much money demanded from Paying Parents each year represents
CMS fees rather than child maintenance?
RFTUK MEDIA SCRUTINY
BBC Panorama – Child Maintenance: Parents under Pressure
BBC Panorama broadcast Child Maintenance: Parents under
Pressure on 17 August 2026.
RFTUK welcomes the BBC investigating the Child Maintenance Service.
Receiving Parents who are genuinely not receiving legally due
maintenance deserve to have their experiences heard.
However, RFTUK believes the programme also requires scrutiny over
whether viewers were provided with sufficient information about
disputed arrears, calculation errors, CMS fees and the complexity
of some Paying Parent cases.
WATCH BBC PANORAMA – 17 AUGUST 2026
RFTUK Scrutiny: Was the Full Picture Presented?
RFTUK believes there are legitimate questions about whether the
programme provided sufficient context for viewers to distinguish
deliberate non-payment from disputed CMS liability.
An arrears figure alone does not establish why the arrears arose.
Nor should every large amount being demanded from a Paying Parent
automatically be presented or understood as money deliberately
withheld from their children.
Information Viewers Should Understand
When a television investigation reports that a parent “owes”
thousands of pounds, RFTUK believes viewers should be told whether
that figure represents:
- Unpaid child maintenance
- CMS collection fees
- A combination of maintenance and fees
- Historic arrears
- Direct Pay arrears
- A balance actively being disputed
- A calculation undergoing Mandatory Reconsideration
- A calculation being challenged at tribunal
- A balance affected by disputed income
- A balance affected by disputed shared care
- Payments allegedly missing from CMS records
- A calculation subsequently corrected
Why this matters
Without explaining these distinctions, a viewer could reasonably
conclude that the entire figure represents child maintenance that
a parent should have paid but deliberately withheld.
That may accurately describe some cases.
It should not automatically be assumed to describe every case.
CMS Collection Fees Should Have Clear Context
Under Collect & Pay, a Paying Parent currently pays an additional
20% collection fee.
A Receiving Parent currently has 4% deducted.
If the child-maintenance liability is:
£100
the Paying Parent pays:
£120
while the Receiving Parent receives:
£96
The additional £20 is a CMS fee.
It is not an additional £20 owed to the child.
Language Used About Paying Parents
RFTUK believes media organisations should also be careful about
language that could encourage viewers to regard Paying Parents
collectively as irresponsible or deliberately non-compliant.
There is an important distinction between:
- A parent deliberately refusing to pay maintenance
- A parent unable to pay an unexpectedly large demand
- A parent disputing the income CMS has used
- A parent disputing historic arrears
- A parent challenging a shared-care decision
- A parent trying to prove payments have already been made
- A parent challenging an alleged administrative or technical error
Receiving Parents Deserve Accurate Information Too
This should never become a campaign of Paying Parents against
Receiving Parents.
Receiving Parents can also be severely failed by CMS through
delayed enforcement, poor administration and failures to collect
maintenance that is genuinely due.
They also deserve confidence that an arrears figure given to them
is accurate and recoverable.
A fair investigation should therefore scrutinise CMS from both
directions.
Is CMS collecting maintenance that genuinely should be paid?
And is CMS ensuring that the amounts it demands are genuinely
and accurately owed?
Questions Panorama Could Investigate Further
-
How many CMS arrears balances are actively disputed?
-
How many balances are subsequently reduced?
-
How many Mandatory Reconsiderations result in changed decisions?
-
How many tribunal appeals result in changed CMS calculations?
-
How many Paying Parents have successfully proved that CMS used
incorrect income?
-
How many cases involve disputed Direct Pay records?
-
How many cases have experienced technical errors?
-
How many parents have been unable to access important CMS
correspondence online?
-
How much CMS Collect & Pay revenue comes from collection fees?
-
When media organisations report total CMS arrears, exactly what
components are included in the figure?
-
How much represents underlying maintenance liability?
-
How much represents fees or other CMS charges?
-
What happens when CMS pursues enforcement and the calculation is
later found to have been wrong?
RFTUK Assessment of the Panorama Coverage
RFTUK does not dismiss the genuine experiences of Receiving
Parents shown in the programme.
Parents and children who are denied maintenance that is genuinely
due can suffer serious hardship.
However, RFTUK believes an investigation into CMS should also
provide sufficient information about:
- Incorrect calculations
- Incorrect income
- Disputed arrears
- Shared-care disputes
- Missing payments
- Administrative errors
- Technical problems
- Mandatory Reconsiderations
- Tribunal appeals
- CMS collection fees
Without examining those issues properly, RFTUK believes there is
a risk that viewers do not receive the complete picture of why
some CMS debts and disputes arise.
Concerned About the Panorama Programme?
Anyone who watched the programme and believes it contained a
material inaccuracy, lacked important context or failed to meet
BBC standards can use the BBC's official complaints process.
Complaints are strongest when they identify the particular
statement, section or omission being challenged and explain what
relevant information should have been included.
COMPLAIN TO THE BBC
Right First Time UK
RFTUK is not campaigning against child maintenance.
We are campaigning for a system that calculates maintenance
correctly, records payments correctly, corrects mistakes quickly,
protects children and treats both parents fairly.
Receiving Parents should receive maintenance that is genuinely
and legally due.
Paying Parents should not be pursued for money they do not
legally owe.
Children should not suffer because the system gets either side
wrong.
Accuracy • Fairness • Safeguarding • Transparency • Accountability
Sources & Further Evidence
Source, accuracy and legal notice
This is an independent Right First Time UK public-interest,
transparency and media-scrutiny resource.
Individual cases attributed to the Daily Mail are summaries of
allegations and accounts reported by that publication. RFTUK has
not independently verified every allegation.
DWP disputes allegations of systemic IT glitches affecting CMS
calculations.
Commentary concerning BBC Panorama represents RFTUK's analysis
and opinion about the context and information presented and should
not be interpreted as an established regulatory finding that the
BBC breached impartiality requirements.
Original journalism and programmes remain the copyright of their
respective publishers. Links are provided so readers can examine
original sources themselves.
Right First Time UK is independent and is not affiliated with
the BBC, Daily Mail, Department for Work and Pensions or Child
Maintenance Service.
This page is for public-interest, transparency and educational
purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
