Media sweep reviewed 27 September 2026
The 20% Child Maintenance Service (CMS) collection charge is often discussed as though its purpose and future are already settled. They are not.
The official record shows a live policy debate. The current charge remains in place. The Government has defended it as a way to encourage compliance and help fund the service. Critics, as recorded by the House of Commons Library, argue that the charge can create a perverse incentive: parents may remain in a free but ineffective payment arrangement rather than move to a collection service that could secure regular maintenance.
That distinction matters.
This article is about the policy debate documented in the official record. It is not a repeat of the mechanics of CMS charging. It also separates what applies now from proposals targeted for 2027–28.
The current position: what applies now
The current position is straightforward:
- Direct Pay is fee-free.
- Under Collect and Pay, a 20% charge is added to the paying parent’s liability.
- Under Collect and Pay, 4% is deducted from the receiving parent’s payment.
- The former CMS application fee is no longer charged.
- The proposed 2% rate and removal of Direct Pay are not law.
The official sources for the current position are the House of Commons Library briefing on child maintenance fees and the GOV.UK guidance on making and receiving payments.
The practical question is not simply, “Is 20% fair?” It is also: what arrangement is most likely to result in children receiving the maintenance due to them?
The case against the 20% charge
The criticism identified in the Commons Library briefing is focused on incentives and outcomes.
Direct Pay does not charge a collection fee. Collect and Pay does. That difference can make parents reluctant to move from Direct Pay, even where payments are being missed or made inconsistently.
The concern is particularly sharp when:
- payments are late or incomplete;
- the paying parent disputes the amount or refuses to engage;
- the receiving parent is carrying the financial consequences of missed payments;
- the family needs the CMS to collect money rather than simply calculate it;
- the paying parent views the 20% addition as a reason to avoid formal collection.
The criticism is not that every Direct Pay arrangement fails. Many families may be able to use it successfully. The policy concern is that the fee may discourage movement to Collect and Pay when Direct Pay is not working.
That creates a difficult choice. A parent may face the prospect of paying more for a collection route that is more likely to secure payment, while the free route may remain ineffective.
For children, an unpaid assessment is not the same as money received. A lower-cost arrangement that produces no payment may be more damaging than a fee-bearing arrangement that produces regular payment.
The Government’s position
The Government’s position, as recorded in the official material, is that the charge serves two main purposes:
-
It incentivises compliance.
The structure is intended to encourage parents to pay reliably and use Direct Pay or a family-based arrangement where that is workable. -
It contributes towards the cost of the service.
Collecting payments, administering cases and taking enforcement action require public resources. The charge is therefore presented as helping to fund the CMS and provide value for taxpayers.
The Government’s argument is that parents who comply should not need the more intensive collection service. The financial difference between Direct Pay and Collect and Pay is intended to encourage payment without enforcement.
That is a coherent policy rationale. However, it depends on a key assumption: that the incentive changes behaviour without preventing families from using the collection route when they genuinely need it.
The debate side by side
| Policy question | Criticism recorded in the official debate | Government position |
|---|---|---|
| Why charge for Collect and Pay? | The charge may deter parents from moving away from Direct Pay, even when Direct Pay is failing. | The charge helps fund the service and reflects the additional work involved in collection. |
| What is the risk for children? | A family may remain in an ineffective arrangement, leaving children without consistent financial support. | The charge encourages the paying parent to comply so that formal collection is not needed. |
| What is the impact on parents? | The paying parent faces a higher liability and the receiving parent receives less from each collected payment. | The structure is intended to reward reliable payment and reduce reliance on enforcement. |
| Is the fee always proportionate to the outcome? | A family may pay more for collection but still face delays or arrears, creating frustration and hardship. | Collection and enforcement are costly services, and the fee contributes to their operation. |
| What should reform address? | Access to effective collection should not be discouraged by the price of using it. | Future reform should preserve a strong compliance incentive while making the system fairer for compliant users. |
A simple illustration of the perverse-incentive problem
Assume, purely for illustration, that the assessed maintenance liability is £100 for a payment period.
| Arrangement | Paying parent | Receiving parent | Policy problem |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Pay, if paid successfully | Pays £100 | Receives £100 | No collection fee, but the arrangement depends on payment being made |
| Direct Pay, if payment is missed | Pays £0 for that period | Receives £0 | The arrangement is free but ineffective for that period |
| Collect and Pay | Pays £120 | Receives £96 | Higher cost for the paying parent and a deduction for the receiving parent, but CMS collection is involved |
This is not a prediction of what will happen in any particular case. It illustrates the policy tension.
The paying parent may think: “I would rather remain in the free arrangement.” The receiving parent may think: “A deduction is preferable to receiving nothing.” The child’s interests depend on whether the arrangement produces reliable financial support.
That is why the question should not be reduced to the size of the fee alone.
What is proposed for 2027–28, and what is not yet law
The Commons Library briefing records Government plans targeted for 2027–28. These plans include:
- removing Direct Pay as a separate payment route;
- introducing a proposed 2% rate for compliant parents within a single collection service;
- retaining a stronger 20% charge for non-compliant paying parents, according to the planned model.
These changes are proposals, not current law. They require legislation and implementation.
Parents should not assume that the proposed 2% rate applies today. They should also not assume that Direct Pay has already been removed. As at the date of this article:
- Direct Pay remains available;
- Direct Pay remains fee-free;
- the current Collect and Pay charges remain 20% for the paying parent and 4% for the receiving parent.
Policy announcements can change before legislation is passed. Check the latest GOV.UK information before relying on future arrangements.
How fathers can decide between Direct Pay and Collect and Pay
There is no universally correct choice. The decision should be based on the reliability of the arrangement and the family’s practical circumstances.
Direct Pay may be workable where:
- payments are made in full and on time;
- both parents can communicate safely and practically;
- bank records clearly show each payment;
- there is no recurring dispute about dates, amounts or payment references;
- the arrangement is not being used to create pressure or control.
Direct Pay is not “better” simply because it is free. It is useful when it works.
Collect and Pay may be worth considering where:
- payments are repeatedly missed or underpaid;
- the paying parent refuses to follow the CMS payment plan;
- communication is unsafe, hostile or unproductive;
- the receiving parent cannot reasonably manage payment chasing;
- a formal collection route is needed to create a reliable process.
Collect and Pay is not a guarantee that every payment will arrive immediately. It is a different administrative and enforcement route. Ask the CMS what action is available in your circumstances.
What to document if Direct Pay is failing
Good records help the CMS understand the problem. Keep a clear, factual chronology containing:
- the date each payment was due;
- the amount due;
- the amount actually received;
- the date money arrived;
- bank statements or transaction records;
- payment references;
- messages confirming promises, missed payments or disputed amounts;
- copies of CMS letters and payment plans;
- a running total of any apparent shortfall.
Avoid speculation and inflammatory language. Record what happened, when it happened and what evidence supports it.
You can also read our practical guidance on building evidence of your parenting position and our step-by-step guide to representing yourself in the UK family courts.
How to ask the CMS to move the case
If the paying parent has not paid in full and on time, GOV.UK says you can report missed or insufficient payments through the CMS and request a move to Collect and Pay.
Start with the official CMS payments guidance, using the relevant online account or the contact route provided by the CMS.
When making the request:
- State that Direct Pay is not working.
- Identify the missed or underpaid payments.
- Provide the available bank evidence.
- Refer to the payment plan and due dates.
- Ask what further evidence is required.
- Keep a copy of your request and any reference given.
The CMS will assess the case under its own procedures. A request is not the same as an automatic decision, so keep documenting payments while the issue is considered.
The fee is not the same as arrears or enforcement
These issues are connected but separate:
- The fee is the charge for using Collect and Pay.
- Arrears are maintenance payments that remain unpaid.
- Enforcement is action taken to recover money or secure compliance.
Avoiding a 20% charge may appear financially sensible. But if Direct Pay results in repeated missed payments, the unpaid maintenance may become more significant than the charge that was avoided.
Equally, moving to Collect and Pay does not erase arrears, change the underlying calculation or guarantee instant recovery. Ask the CMS how existing arrears will be recorded and what enforcement options may be available.
A fairer debate must keep children at the centre
The official record presents two competing objectives: encouraging parents to comply without enforcement, and ensuring that families can access effective collection when voluntary payment fails.
Both objectives matter. But a policy incentive should never be assessed only by whether it changes adult behaviour. It must also be assessed by whether children receive consistent financial support.
For fathers, the practical message is clear:
- do not treat Direct Pay as automatically safe because it is free;
- do not treat Collect and Pay as automatically fair because it is formal;
- keep evidence;
- report missed payments promptly;
- ask precise questions about arrears and enforcement;
- separate current law from future proposals.
We believe fathers have a vital role in providing stable financial and emotional support for their children. We stand for clear information, equal treatment and accountable systems.
Fathers United. Rights Respected.
Every Dad Matters.
General information disclaimer
This article is general information, not legal advice. It focuses on the CMS payment policy as documented in official sources and is framed primarily for England and Wales. Family law, court procedure and enforcement processes differ in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so fathers in those jurisdictions should obtain advice appropriate to where they live and where their case is being handled.
This advocacy content is produced by Fathers Rights. It contains no names, case numbers, court locations or children’s details and does not identify any protected party.