Woman was overpaid Child Support when the child was no longer in custodian’s care—despite advising the then Department of Social Welfare (now Ministry of Social Development) and the then Child Support Agency, Inland Revenue Department advised custodian she needed to repay payments—complainant custodian claimed she had no means of knowing payments were being made incorrectly—Ombudsman’s investigation indicated appropriate action had not been taken by the Department when the complainant made inquiries—as a result, IRD agreed to write-off the debt in accordance with s152 of the Child Support Act 1991 and apologise to complainant
Early in 1996, the complainant received notification from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) that she had been overpaid child support in respect of her grandson from July 1992 until November 1995. She approached IRD requesting information as to how this had come about as she had not had her grandson in her care since 1992. In March 1992, she had advised the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) that her grandson had left her care.
Although she continued to receive child support payments during the years 1992 to 1995, she believed these payments related to her son, who was still in her care. She had made inquiries of IRD regarding the child support payments in 1994 and again in 1995 when her son had left her care.
Despite assurances that that her queries would be investigated and that staff would get back to her, the IRD failed to respond satisfactorily to the complainant’s questions in 1994, 1995 and 1996. Finally, in 1996, she was told that it did not matter how or why she had been overpaid, the fact was she had been overpaid and she was therefore liable to repay the debt as well as the penalties which were accruing.
Upon investigation, the IRD acknowledged that the complainant had done everything required of her to inform the DSW and then the Child Support Agency (CSA) of her circumstances so that her correct entitlement for Child Support could be determined. However, when the files concerning her grandson were transferred from the DSW to the CSA in 1992, child support payments were commenced automatically, without any inquiries being made as to why the Unsupported Child Benefit to the complainant on behalf of her grandson had ceased.
Further, IRD acknowledged that in the issuing of entitlement notices during the years 1992 to 1995, where there was more than one liable parent, as in this case, the notices combined the entitlements and did not record the separate children’s names. Therefore, it was quite possible that the complainant would not have known she was receiving payments for two children, not just one. (Notices of entitlement now record the names of the children.)
In reviewing this case, IRD also determined that appropriate action had not been taken when the complainant approached staff with questions. In particular staff had not kept in touch with the complainant when they had advised they would and, in 1996, had not established whether she had the ability to repay the amount outstanding.
In light of the above, the IRD came to a decision to apologise to the complainant and write-off her debt in accordance with section 152 of the Child Support Act 1991. On this basis the complaint was resolved.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.