Huxley v. Child Support Officer and Anor. CCS 1037 1997
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr R.J.C. Angus |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1999 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Child support |
| Docket Number | CCS 1037 1997 |
| Appellant | Huxley v. Child Support Officer and Anor. |
R(CS) 1/00
(Huxley v. Child Support Officer and Anor.)
Mr. R. J. C. Angus CCS/1037/1997
31.7.98
CA (Auld, Pill and Hale LJJ )
14.12.99
Interim maintenance assessment - information to be provided on maintenance enquiry form - whether to be disclosed to person with care
Maintenance assessment - inclusion of an amount in respect of the person with care - whether lawful
The parent with care (PWC) was in receipt of income support and applied for a maintenance assessment under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991. The absent parent (AP) failed to return the maintenance enquiry form (MEF) when the CSA refused to give an assurance that his and his second wife’s financial details would not be disclosed to the PWC. After protracted correspondence, the child support officer issued an interim maintenance assessment of £43.92 per week from 21 February 1995. On a review, the assessment was increased to £56.28 from the same effective date. The AP applied unsuccessfully for a review of that second decision and appealed to a tribunal who dismissed the appeal. He appealed to a Commissioner, arguing that there was no legal authority for the inclusion in the formula of a sum in respect of the PWC, that the Agency had discriminated against him in requiring him to provide information about his family’s financial position but not requiring the PWC to provide him with similar information, that the Agency was not entitled to request details of his partner’s income before an assessment had been made and that the dispute about matters justified his refusal to return the MEF so that there was no “unavoidable delay” by him within regulation 8(6) of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992. The Commissioner rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal. The AP appealed to the Court of Appeal
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:-
1. depending on the context in which it was used, the term “maintenance assessment” in the Act might refer to a completed assessment which had been notified to the parties or to a different part or stage of the assessment but in the context of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 it meant the calculation up to the point at which the protected earnings level came into play and, accordingly, the child support officer was entitled to ask for information about the AP’s new family before there had been a completed maintenance assessment (although it was open to an AP to return a MEF without answering questions about his new partner in which case he would be required to pay an amount calculated without any adjustment to take account of his protected income) (paragraphs 11 to 36)
2. the AP was not justified in withholding information about himself on the basis that the child support officer would be in breach of section 50(1) of the Act by disclosing his housing costs and details of his second wife’s income to the PWC because the PWC had a direct interest in the method of calculation of the maintenance assessment as well as the outcome and the rules of natural justice required that the information needed to explain the end product was communicated to both parties (paragraphs 37 to 45)
3. the AP could have provided the required information about himself and had chosen not to do so and, accordingly, the delay in returning the MEF had not been “unavoidable” (paragraph 46);
4. there was no presumption arising from the decisions of the benefit authorities awarding income support that prevented the AP from challenging the finding that the PWC “has no partner” or had other undisclosed income (the case being distinguishable from Secretary of State for Social Security v. Harmon [1999] 1 WLR 163 (also reported as R(CS) 4/99)) but such issues of fact did not arise on the appeal before the Court which was on a point of law only (paragraphs 47 to 49);
5. the Secretary of State had power to prescribe a sum with respect to the PWC and the words “if any” in paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Act did not imply otherwise (paragraph 50).
DECISION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER.
1. The decision of the Child Support Appeal Tribunal dated 18 October 1996 is not erroneous in law.
2. The appellant is, for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991, the absent parent of a qualifying child, his son. The first respondent to the appeal is the child support officer now concerned. The second respondent is the child’s mother who, for the purposes of the Act, is the parent with care.
3. The appeal is taken, with the leave of a Child Support Commissioner, against the tribunal’s decision that there had been no unavoidable delay in the appellant’s return of the maintenance enquiry form issued to him on 17 January 1995 and that the Interim Maintenance Assessment of £56.28 per week from 21 February 1995 had been correctly calculated.
4. The background to the case is that on 21 September 1993 the second respondent applied to the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 for a maintenance assessment to be made in respect of the qualifying child. She stated on the maintenance application form that she was living with the qualifying child and two other children. She was in receipt of income support. A maintenance enquiry form was issued to the appellant on 17 January 1995. That was followed by a reminder and on 2 February 1995 the appellant and the second respondent were notified of the child support officer’s intention to make an interim maintenance assessment if the appellant had not returned the maintenance enquiry form within 14 days. The form was not returned within that time and a child support officer issued an Interim Maintenance Assessment at the rate of £43.92 per week with an effective date of 21 February 1995. That assessment was reviewed on 24 January 1996 under regulation 8B(2) of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992 and the revised assessment was for £56.28 per week with the same effective date.
5. There was then a protracted correspondence between the appellant and the Child Support Agency in which the appellant asked for details of the child support officer’s calculations and for specification of the provisions in the child support legislation and the Data Protection Act which entitled the Child Support Agency to require financial information from him without passing to him similar information obtained from the second respondent. In the copies of that correspondence on the appeal file there is a letter of 6 February 1996 from the appellant requesting information about the calculation of the Interim Maintenance Assessment and also requesting that the assessment be cancelled because, in the appellant’s view, the maintenance requirement so assessed must contain an amount in respect of the carer of the child for which carer’s maintenance, since she was his ex‑wife, the appellant had no liability. According to the child support officer’s submission to the tribunal the appellant’s letter of appeal to the tribunal is dated 24 April 1996 and he includes in his submission the text of a letter referring to “a letter from the Child Support Agency refusing to hold a review of my child support maintenance dated 22 April” and stating that the appellant wanted to appeal that decision.
6. The tribunal’s reasons for dismissing the appellant’s appeal are recorded as being:
“1. Please note that the record of proceedings refers to the receipt into evidence of approximately 94 fax pages from the appellant. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of discrimination against the appellant. The appellant’s argument that his assessment includes an element of maintenance for his ex‑wife, is not accepted.
2. The appellant argues that these two matters mean that there has been unavoidable delay in returning his MEF. He says that he is willing to co‑operate. The tribunal find the argument insupportable. CS (MAP) Regs 1992 reg. 8(6) .”.
7. The grounds for appealing the tribunal’s decision are stated to be that the appellant had put to the tribunal the arguments that:
Firstly, there was no legal authority for the inclusion in the formula applied by the Child Support Agency in arriving at the Interim Maintenance Assessment of an amount for the maintenance of the qualifying child’s carer for whose maintenance the appellant had no liability;
Secondly, the Child Support Agency had discriminated against him in applying the rules as to the supply of information to the respective parents of the qualifying child and the rules as to the confidentiality of information; and
Thirdly, the Child Support Agency had requested details of the finances of any partner of the appellant’s before having made an assessment, which request was contrary to the 1991 Act’s provision that such a request can be made only...
To continue reading
Request your trial