The Child Support Agency faced fresh controversy last night when 85% of absent parents' maintenance payments were found to contain errors.
Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, refused to accept the CSA's annual accounts because of the high level of mistakes over maintenance payments.
In one in six of the cases, the error was for more than #1000, according to survey by the NAO.
The agency's performance in its early years had left ''a legacy of error'' which continues to affect amounts paid in child maintenance, the survey said.
But, in a glaring contradiction, the agency claimed in its annual report that 87% of cases checked in March this year were accurate to the last penny.
It also claimed a 33% increase in the amount of cash collected from absent parents over the last year, with 98% of cash passed to the parent caring for the child within 10 days.
The agency came under fierce attack in the first couple of years after it was set up in 1993 to track down absent parents, mainly fathers, and extract maintenance payments for their children.
But recently it had appeared to improve its performance.
However, last night Sir John reported that his staff had identified errors in 85% of maintenance balances from absent parents which they examined.
The NAO survey indicated that 39% of receipts from absent parents were for wrong amounts, mainly because of mistakes made by the agency in making assessments.
Sir John estimated that over payments in 1996/97 amounted to #3.8m, some 1.8% of the #215m collected, and underpayments to #9.4m, some 4.4% of the sum collected.
There was also ''a material level of error'' in the amounts the agency claimed were owed by absent parents, amounting to #48m in over statements and #91m in understatements.
But although the agency will be embarrassed by the NAO report, there was little respite for customers as the agency said it did not have the resources to review its full caseload to correct the errors.
It said its top priority was to make sure new maintenance assessments were correct and their second priority was to reach agreements on the payment of arrears.
Although the NAO has carried out previous reports into the operation of the CSA, yesterday's report is the first time it has examined maintenance payments collected by the agency.
Some 74% of assessments made by the agency in 1996/97 were accurate, according to the NAO.
But the survey found that in previous years the level of accuracy was much lower - 63% in 1995/96 and only around 50% in the agency's first two years 1993/94 and 1994/95, creating the legacy of errors
Meanwhile in its annual report published yesterday, the CSA claimed it had collected almost twice as much money from absent parents - #400m - than the NAO figure.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article