N.A.C.S.A

19/05/2026

DNA Disputes and CMS. Do you know your rights and consequences for disputing paternity with CMS? It's important to seek sound advice and guidance.

18/05/2026

You might think these two cases are extreme, but such complaints feature regularly with the enquiries we receive at NACSA. We recognise that every case involves families, livelihoods and children, all facing challenges across a wide range of aspects.

Trust in the system is undermined by the financial and emotional suffering faced by parents. Conversations around CMS often refer to "non compliant" parents, but this article highlights the real difficulties for parents.
With its strong enforcement powers, CMS are often quick to enforce with little to no effective communication.

This BBC investigation highlights a deep rooted problem within the CMS; fictitious arrears, unjustified enforcement, and irreparable damage to families.
We would like to personally thank Tammi Walker who worked tirelessly to land this story, highlighting the real stories that are often left untold.

John Hammond is one of 30 parents who told BBC Your Voice they'd experienced problems with the CMS.

01/05/2026

Complaints - Know your rights

If you’re unhappy with a decision made by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), you challenge it through a revision, mandatory reconsideration, or appeal to HM Courts & Tribunal Services.

But what if the issue isn’t the decision — it’s the way your case has been handled? Maladministration, Delays, Staff behaviour, Official error, Lost documents, Poor communication.

You have the right to complain.

It’s best to complain in writing. If CMS don’t respond within 15 working days, escalate it to a Senior Manager in the Complaints Resolution Team.

To avoid further delays, contact your local MP and ask them to support your complaint.

If you’re still not satisfied after CMS complete their internal process, your case can be taken to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE).

NACSA can discuss the complaint and assist with creating the initial complaint letter on your behalf, call us today 01384 572525 to find out more.

30/04/2026

What is a variation?

A variation is a formal request to change a Child Maintenance calculation so that extra circumstances or income not included in the standard formula can be considered.

A child support calculation can be varied in certain circumstances.

Grounds for variation:

Special expenses – May reduce your assessment - Contact costs, prior debts, school fees, mortgage payments and costs of disability of a Relevant other child

Additional income – May increase your assessment - Unearned income, diverted income, notional income from assets.

If you want to understand how a variation might affect your specific CMS assessment, the best approach is to review your income, assets, and any special expenses to see which grounds apply.

NACSA can assist with the application and any responses you need to make to an application - Contact NACSA on 01384 572525.

23/04/2026

One Question. One Year Late.

In May 2025, a client received her child maintenance payments which was significantly reduced, because the Paying Parent said he was financially supporting other children.

Under the Child Support Scheme, other children can be taken into account when calculating maintenance but only if they meet the legal definition of a “child in a family based arrangement.” In simple terms, they must be the Paying Parent’s biological or adopted children.

In this case, they weren’t. They were relatives. And no one asked the question of paternity.

Despite this, the initial CMS calculation went ahead without any check on parentage. The client challenged the decision and explained that the children were not the Paying Parent’s own. Still, the mandatory reconsideration was refused, relying on a written statement from the children’s mother, without addressing the key legal question of whether the Paying Parent was actually a parent in law.

The client appealed. Once again, the issue of parentage wasn’t examined and the case progressed to tribunal.

At the hearing, the focus considered whether the Paying Parent was making payments to the other household, rather than whether those children should have been included in the calculation at all. It was necessary for me to step in and clarify that this was a point of law, not a question of evidence or intention.

The tribunal was directed to the relevant legislation, including provisions in the Child Support Act and the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations) Regulations 2012. It was confirmed that financial support alone, is not enough. The Tribunal heard from the paying parent, that he was in the process of gaining ‘parental responsibility’ for the children, and the Tribunal hinted that this might change the position. It will not. Unless a child is biologically or legally a child of the Paying Parent, they cannot be included in the calculation as a ‘child in family based arrangement’.

The appeal was allowed, and CMS was directed to recalculate maintenance without taking the other children into account.

Although the legal outcome was straightforward, the consequences of missing this basic point were significant:

• 12 months of uncertainty and financial strain for the receiving parent
• Delayed correction and backdating of maintenance
• Unnecessary arrears building up for the Paying Parent
• A case that went all the way to tribunal when it didn’t need to

All of this could have been avoided with one simple question at the start:
“Are these your children?”

Small questions asked at the right time can make a significant difference to the outcome, avoiding escalation of appeals and unnecessary distress. Cases like this highlight how specialist knowledge can make a difference.

NACSA work exclusively with child maintenance law and practice, helping parents, solicitors, advisers and professionals to identify issues early and challenge where the law has been misapplied.

If you need help with your child maintenance case – let the experts stand at your side.

21/04/2026

“My accountant says I don’t need payslips…”

That may be true for HMRC but not for CMS purposes. If you need to report a change of income, CMS will require the following evidence before accepting it.

PAYE (including company directors):
CMS will still ask for payslips to confirm changes in income, even if you’re a limited company director. They will require 5 weekly or 2 monthly payslips to evidence the new income.
Tax returns are required to verify other taxable income, such as dividends or rental income.

Self employed:
CMS will require the most recently filed tax return to verify the profits of the trade, profession or vocation.

Newly self employed can give projected profits for the relevant period, but once a tax return is due, only a filed return is accepted.


HMRC rules and CMS rules are not the same so contact us if you are unsure of what evidence is acceptable.

📞 01384 572525

20/04/2026

Robust Advocacy – Real Results

Another Tribunal win for our Senior Consultant and Tribunal Advocate, Michelle Counley 👏

This case centred on an inflated income assessment following a Financial Investigation Unit decision. Michelle successfully demonstrated that the assessment was not only incorrect, but legally flawed.

While the case had familiar elements, including a drop from maximum income to £12k and involvement in a partner’s business, the reality was very different. Michelle proved that:

✔️ The original employment ended due to redundancy
✔️ The new role was not controlled by the paying parent
✔️ Alleged “unearned income” did not meet legal definitions
✔️ The legal test for Diversion of Income could not be satisfied

The outcome; Income revised to the actual earnings declared to HMRC, plus genuine dividends received during the relevant tax year.
The result - Income correctly calculated using HMRC declared earnings and actual dividends only.

A fantastic outcome and a great example of robust tribunal advocacy in action 👏

17/04/2026

⚠️ CMS Enforcement – How does this affect you?

Have you received a CMS letter warning of their intent to take legal action? It can feel alarming, but understanding what it means is the first step to dealing with it effectively.

Be under no illusion, CMS has a wide range of enforcement powers to recover outstanding arrears, and the letter is usually a sign that they are preparing to take further action if the debt isn’t addressed. Ignoring the letter may have consequences in the future.

CMS can take action without even applying to the courts : For example, they can impose:

-Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO): money is taken directly from your wages – this will be capped at a maximum of 40% net PAYE.

- Deduction Order (regular (RDO) or lump sum (LSDO) : CMS can make enquiries with your bank account, without your consent. If the account is deemed active CMS can request and remove funds from the account, either as a regular deduction, or by removing a lump sum amount.
Note; Appeal rights exist against deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders, but the grounds for doing so are limited – and costs can be awarded against you if you appeal and lose.

- Administrative Liability Order: Although not fully in force by CMS, they have the power to now secure a liability order without an application to court. Once granted this will have the same powers as a Liability Order granted by the court.
CMS may also consider court based enforcement action. Typically this will involve an application for a Liability Order which must be granted by the Magistrates Court before any recovery action is taken.
Again the grounds for appealing a liability order are limited; this court cannot consider your disputes over the calculations or debt that has arisen as a consequence of those calculations.
Once granted, CMS may then proceed to recover the money by any of the following measures;

- Instructing bailiffs. Bailiffs will attempt to reach an agreed payment plan. They can attend premises and remove goods where appropriate. Bailiffs will also charge their own charges to recover the debt.

- Apply for and register a charging order against property. This will secure the debt against any property owned by you, including their family home.

- CMS may then progress to an ‘Order for Sale’ which can result in the forced sale of the property in order to satisfy the charging order secured. CMS will instruct a legal team to oversee this action, and you may be liable for those costs.

In extreme case CMS can also;

- Apply for committal proceedings. For these sanctions, CMS must prove there is a ‘wilful refusal’ or ‘culpable neglect’ in paying the debt. If satisfied, the court may
o Commit you to prison for up to 42 days
o Disqualify your driving licence
o Disqualify you from holding or obtaining a UK passport

CMS enforcement is a serious stage of your journey, and it’s important to understand your legal position as early as possible. NACSA have helped many people faced with enforcement action, and we are here to help you too. Call us now on 01384 572525

16/04/2026

Struggling With a CMS Decision? Get Expert Strategy, Not Guesswork.

Not getting the outcome you expected from the Child Maintenance Service?

We’re not the cheapest advisory service and that’s because we deliver results, not guesswork.

With over 30 years’ specialist experience, we are the trusted Child Maintenance experts that families and family lawyers turn to when cases are complex, disputed, or going wrong.

✅ Recommended by family lawyers nationwide
✅ Involved in shaping discussions around CMS reform
✅ Trusted when accuracy, strategy, and outcomes matter

When you come to us, you don’t just get advice you get a clear strategy.
We will:

✅ Analyse your enquiry against the law
✅ Identify errors in how CMS have applied the rules
✅ Assess the real risks before you take action
✅ Explain how CMS are likely to respond and how to stay one step ahead

15/04/2026

✅ Another Successful Appeal!

This case shows exactly why it’s so important to have the experts at your side when challenging incorrect decisions made by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).

In this case;
➡️ CMS made an invalid decision.
➡️ The Mandatory Reconsideration Team compounded the error and refused to revise the decision
➡️ Even the Decision Maker who reviewed the appeal application failed to address the mistake choosing instead to send it for a full appeal hearing.
➡️ At the hearing, the Tribunal member wasn’t aware of the specific legal details involved.

NACSA stepped in, highlighted the correct legal position, clearly outlined the errors, and demonstrated that the original decision could not stand.

✅ The Tribunal concluded in under 30 minutes that the CMS decision was wrong as outlined in our representations.

Another great example of why expert support matters — and how quickly things can change when the law is applied correctly.

Get in touch with us for appeal support and advocacy.