To let you all know that the Child Maintenance Service..

[Rippeditoff]

have used their full powers (passport removal, driving licence suspension): 10 times since 2019

3 immediate passport confiscations
7 immediate driving disqualifications in Great Britain (July 2019 – March 2025) / CMS published data

And that the total unpaid debt is 756.6 million pounds as of 2025

Would I also be unreasonable to say this is a national disgrace to single parents and their children which we should all be raising with our MPs?

It should be added to his tax code and the company be held in contempt.

I've learnt from this post that CMS can confiscate passports and driving licences. If you don't earn enough to pay CM, you need neither. So why isn't this enforced? A group of heavies might be an alternative approach.

What happens if the amount the non-res parent is asked to pay so that it's affordable for them means that the resident parent can't afford rent and basic living conditions for their children?

Btw the reason that they changed from calculating based on net pay to gross pay was because a lot of payers were dumping a big chunk of their salaries into pensions etc so their maintenance obligations were reduced.

There is very little political pressure for CM because CM doesn't ptovide a net win for votes. If they improve CM then the claimant is happy and might vote for them but on the other hand the non-resident parent won't be happy and might not vote for them.

Everything in this country is done for votes, the votes to continue in power, v little is done for the right reasons.

Non resident parent can win the euro millions and CMS won’t take it into consideration. It is also really hard - nigh on impossible - for the cms to even look at the bank account of the non resident parent. My ex declared earnings of £14,000 a year to HMRC despite being a plasterer who tells me he works 6 days a week and owes me thousands. Still cms struggle to act apart from sending letters and ringing him (he ignores both)

You’ve nailed it! No one in power actually cares.

As I said it is never going to be fair for either side. The res parent has more support towards rent than non res parent. I was the single res parent and know it’s very doable to raise children without the need of cms payments. Not saying that means fathers shouldn’t contribute. I decided the children were to live with me so it was my job to provide for them, any extra help was appreciated but shouldn’t be relied on.

calculations are done after work place pensions so money could still be moved there to dodge the system.

no one can seem to better themselves financially with this system. The system is abused by both sides but many women will not see that.

if a res parent who doesn’t work can afford to take the children aboard every year due to cms payments but the non res parent can’t afford to travel to see the children then clearly the system is not working. To
me seeing the non res parent is more important than constant holidays!

I do not know the answer on how to fix the system. But I do know the current system doesn’t work for either side.

Yes. Savings don't generally come into it unless they have so much they have an income from the interest.

So in a euromillions win scenario the interest could be classed as income but the main win wouldn't be considered.

If there were arrears CMS could (but probably wouldn't) take it from their bank account.

The current system absolutely works for the vast majority of men.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to absolve them of the responsibility for their kids and call financial support from their father "extra help" that shouldn't be relied upon.

Nobody is going on holiday with child maintenence payments when their poor dad can't afford to travel to see them considering a variation can be applied for and a reduction to maintenence granted if the travel expenses are over a tenner a week.

I've said this before on here and got a lot of stick for it, but women are actually the key in this.

We're half the voting public, but we're not vocal about this.

If it was societally unacceptable to women for our partners, brothers and friends to not pay for their kids it would become an issue.

While it's not socially unacceptable it's not going to be a political issue and nothing will change.

I’m amazed that they’ve used it that many times to be honest. They grandly say that they’ve got these powers but non-payers know they won’t be used so continue not giving a shit.

They need to move to the American system where it’s way more joined up with other department. Eg. in some states, if you owe more than a certain amount ($2500 I believe) you can’t renew your drivers licence and passport. It’s not every state but why can’t this be adopted here?

My child is an adult now but I’m still owed thousands. The only chance of getting it is if my ex ever inherits something but even then I don’t hold out much hope. I’ve already been waiting 13 years 🤷‍♀️

You’ll all LOVE this one too!! For a miraculous period of about 4 months, my ex paid. I got a notification that £90 had been received but I didn’t receive it. When I queried why, the CMS said that he owed fees to them and THEIR FEES TOOK PRIORITY!!

They claim that they’re all about the kids but they really aren’t. If you owe the HMRC £5 they’ll hound you for it for years. An NRP owes £25k, the CMS are just like ‘is there any chance you could pay something?’

‘Ah, well…never mind. Sorry for bothering you’

So the solution to them not paying would be to make it impossible to pay anything?

That's a modern equivalent of a debtors' prison where people were imprisoned for debt and couldn't be released unless they paid off the debt, but had no means by which to earn money to pay the debt. A Catch-22 paradox.

The consequence of removing the ability to pass pre-employment checks, to be automatically excluded or at least always discounted upon application from a huge number of roles, to be unable to open bank accounts, accept deliveries, prove name, prove a right to receive medical treatment other than emergencies, no proof of right to work, make it damn near impossible to get a phone, somewhere to live or in many places (as per the regular threads about how it's impossible to work/live without a car outside London and that it's a fundamental part of adulting to drive) get to work would fundamentally be a punitive punishment of destitution for leaving the woman - or of being left - without paying substantial ongoing compensatory damages for the hurt to feelings.

It's not about the children when the proposed penalty would make it impossible for many to pay anything. It's not about the children when the proposed penalty would make it impossible for the NRP to have a home where the children would maintain contact with their other parent. It's not about the children when it's all about destroying the ex at all costs - it's about scorched earth vengeance for being the person the RP decided to reproduce with and is angrily regretting their choice.

None of that would have been any good for my children or our relationship.

I did not know they even had these powers. I have, thankfully, never had the need for this "service". It's a bloody disgrace.
We, the taxpayer, are funding these men failures, why is this not discussed more in parliament?
I would have thought it would be pretty easy for cms to seize/freeze bank accounts belonging to these selfish individuals.

🙄

Theres a really quick solution for any van drivers /bus drivers out there to ensure they don't lose the license they need to work - pay their fucking child maintenance???

The they won't need to lose their license will they. Not an issue at all. If they would rather lose their drivers license and thus their job, than pay the child maintenance they owe by law, that is entirely their choice.

Or (I know this idea is pretty out there) they could just pay in the first place to prevent any of these sanctions, any impact on their life is actually their own responsibility.

So the solution to them not paying would be to make it impossible to pay anything?

No. The solution to then not paying is to make it clear the option of choosing not to pay is no longer there.

That's a modern equivalent of a debtors' prison where people were imprisoned for debt and couldn't be released unless they paid off the debt, but had no means by which to earn money to pay the debt. A Catch-22 paradox.

It's nothing like that at all. Men who choose not to pay - and the vast majority of non payers are choosing not to pay - end up paying when they realise that there are consequences in not doing so.

In all of the cases I worked on at CMS once the non-payers realised they were dealing with a case worker who wasn't going to just send endless letters containing threats started to pay.

The consequence of removing the ability to pass pre-employment checks, to be automatically excluded or at least always discounted upon application from a huge number of roles, to be unable to open bank accounts, accept deliveries, prove name, prove a right to receive medical treatment other than emergencies, no proof of right to work, make it damn near impossible to get a phone, somewhere to live or in many places (as per the regular threads about how it's impossible to work/live without a car outside London and that it's a fundamental part of adulting to drive) get to work would fundamentally be a punitive punishment of destitution for leaving the woman - or of being left - without paying substantial ongoing compensatory damages for the hurt to feelings.

Removing a driving license wouldn't automatically do any of those things - millions of people who cannot drive manage fine.

However, what you seem to be ignoring is that there are many steps that CMS can take. So for Billy-Bob the taxi driver the solution may be a charge on his house, or a one off payment out of his savings account. For Dave who'd have the hassle of having to get the bus to work and it take an hour rather than a 10 min drive the driving license threat would be a useful one.

It never goes to steps like that quickly. These are tools used on people who ignore multiple steps - literally years of dodging paying.

It's not about the children when the proposed penalty would make it impossible for many to pay anything. It's not about the children when the proposed penalty would make it impossible for the NRP to have a home where the children would maintain contact with their other parent. It's not about the children when it's all about destroying the ex at all costs - it's about scorched earth vengeance for being the person the RP decided to reproduce with and is angrily regretting their choice.

Nonsense. It's about making the people who choose not to pay realise that society will no longer accept that as a viable choice to make.

The scorched earth vengeance bollocks is just misogynistic crap - and that line of thinking is why we're in the position we're in now where swathes of men, supported by society and politicians, think paying CM is optional

And yet I've managed my entire adult life without a passport/ driving license. I'll let UC know that I can't possibly work without those things. I'm sure they'll be happy with that.

It's not about the children when the proposed penalty would make it impossible for many to pay anything.

They’re not paying anything anyway. Hence the sanctions. It’s not really that hard to comprehend, is it?

They’re big boys. They’ll manage.

Paying for the children you created isn't a punishment and child maintenance is not "damages for just feelings". I can't believe anyone needs to explain that to an adult human.

Actions have consequences and if you choose to ignore other measures put in place to make you take responsibility for your own kids then you chose those consequences.

Unfortunately especially on this site people (mostly women) will never see it from both sides. Only what they can get for themselves (sorry I mean the children). People on here will not admit that women use the children for financial gain by restricting contact.
Bored of seeing oh cms favours the NRP, is that why RP can call up lie that payments are missed demand collect and pay but it’s on the NRP to prove its lies and nothing happens to the RP.

Cms seem to punish the ones that are willing to pay as they are easy targets and can’t be bothered to chase NRP who are playing the system

If a RP is restricting contact get a court order. CMS will take that as proof even if the RP is still restricting contact.

If the RP lies that the NRP has missed payments (which results in the RP getting less as well) then you can simply produce proof of the payments via a bank statement.

Interesting that you see CMS as a punishment though. Says it all really.

You sound like a dude.

Nope… it’s about equality for both sides with children’s best interests put first which many people forget when it comes to money!

My exh was threatened with passport removal. That made him pay up. He spent years avoiding making payments in the end he had to pay all the back payments though to avoid losing his passport. He was terrified of losing his holidays.