Closing CMS and enforcing debt through CCJ and Schedule 1 Children Act

[Londonbabyland]

Please share your experience if you have successfully closed CMS case after waiting for years for payments to be collected and pursued the debt collection privately through courts. Was the recovery rate any better?
Considering CMS runs for years while the child is in education, is it worth the risk (if CCJ enforcement of existing debt + court application under Children Act aren't guaranteed to be fruitful because of evasive behaviour and multiple relocations)?

Considering the switch to private so good to weight pros and cons

Thank you!

Going private can work better if you know where the other parent lives, their assets, and have proof of arrears—but it’s risky if they’re evasive or keep moving. CMS is slow but offers some enforcement tools (like deductions from wages or benefits). Court action might recover more, but it costs time and money, and outcomes aren’t guaranteed. Many stick with CMS unless they have strong evidence and means to enforce a court order themselves.

Oh this is interesting. I didn't know this was an option. Ex is £11k in debt. Cms have been less than useless. Used deduction of earnings but then decided he had proved he was good for the money so stopped it, surprisingly he stopped paying again! It's been years of back and forth, they have the ability to enforce but rarely do.

@ForMauveSquid with evasive high earners (no wage or benefits, just assets or diverted income mainly) the collection fee 20% that CMS takes is quite substantial and probably covers cost of court filings and forensics. If recovery chance is higher because ccj and high court are more effective than liability orders, it might make sense to drop CMS.

You are right for those on wages though

@glassof you can close the case, get debt balance calculation and try and enforce it through county court BUT can't go back to CMS if private route is unsuccessful.

There is no mechanism for you to be able to privately enforce CMS maintenance.

I'm presuming by "CMS maintenance" you actually mean unpaid child maintenance.
Of course there is a mechanism to get it paid. What do you think all the other posts on this thread are talking about? It's a debt and you can pursue it via a debt collector like any other money owed. You can take the debtor to small claims court like any other money owed, too. The tricky bit is getting the right amount totted up but it sounds like OP has already done that, presumably via CMS.

@Darragon spot on, with CMS assessment & existing liability orders one can take over from CMS to enforce those orders privately. It probably only makes sense when debt is substantial because of cost of county court filings, although there's help with fees for those unable to cover full fee. I wonder if any mumsnetters have gone that route as there don't seem to be responses to that effect.

@Collaborate is a solicitor who deals with family law. He knows what he is talking about.

If I understand the situation correctly, you have been using the CMS to collect maintenance. Your ex has not been paying, so he owes money to the CMS, not you personally. The CMS has obtained a liability order stating that he owes this money to the CMS and allowing the CMS to take enforcement action. You want the courts to treat that as if the liability order is in your favour and allow you to take enforcement action. Is that correct?

You can think/guess all you like but you're wrong.

Where maintenance is calculated under the statutory CMS scheme the receiving parent does not have a direct right to enforce arrears through the civil courts. Enforcement is a function of the CMS which has a range of statutory powers to that effect.

All collection powers and enforcement powers are set out in the statutory framework, being various acts of parliament and statutory instruments. All powers of enforcement are given to the CMS, not the recipient.

@Collaborate you are right if cms still has jurisdiction, but when you close the case with cms they no longer do, the balance unpaid is what is the debt that can then be privately enforced (based on advice received).

@prh47bridge correct and the advice so far is that it's well within the law to do so.

I hope you never paid for that advice.

I had hoped that reading my description would make you realise the issue.

The liability order states that your ex owes money to the CMS (actually, it will say the Secretary of State - the CMS is acting on the Secretary's behalf). It does not name you at all. You have no standing to enforce it.

@Collaborate @prh47bridge all the more reasons to ask CMS for transfer of enforcement rights and list the LO's that CMS failed to enforce in Schedule 1 application.

There is no legal mechanism for them to do that, whoever advised you that there was is wrong (and hopefully isn't regularly misadvising people!)

If you cancel the debt with them then there is no more debt as the debt is owed to them.

You'd need to campaign for the creation of that ability before you could do it.

And given the lack of political will for CMS to use the powers they do have, creating a new power to allow the transfer for enforcement will a) be difficult to drum up political support for and b) take years

@Collaborate @ARichtGoodDram @prh47bridge how is this view consistent with private standing derived from the statutory status as the Parent with Care under the Child Support Act 1991, which entitles said parent to recover arrears as a debt in the County Court?

I presume you are referring to Section 36(1). This allows the CMS to enforce liability orders through the county court. It does not give any such entitlement to the parent with care. The parent with care is not party to any liability order. Liability orders are between the Secretary of State and the paying parent. They can only be enforced by the CMS (which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State)