Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 445 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CCS 3795 2012
Appellant:	SM
Respondent:	SSWP and FS (CSM)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge N J Wikeley
Date Of Decision:	10/09/2013
Date Added:	20/09/2013
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 15. Child support – contact costs – court order for supervised contact at contact centre – centre fee not recoverable as contact cost The appellant lived in Lancashire. He was the non-resident parent of a child who lived with her mother in the West Midlands. Under a court order he was only allowed supervised contact with his daughter at a contact centre. The Child Support Agency decided the appellant was liable to pay child support and that the contact centre costs and his travel costs to the centre could both be offset against his income. The mother appealed against the maintenance calculation. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) judge adjourned the initial hearing; she considered the decision regarding the contact centre costs was outside regulation 10 of the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000 (SI 2001/156). The reconvened F-tT allowed the appeal. The father appealed and the issue before the Upper Tribunal (UT) was whether his contact centre costs could be included in his application for a variation of his child support maintenance calculation under regulation 10(1)(f). Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 10(1)(f) of the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000 must be read in its proper statutory context and, in particular, against the background of the preceding heads of the sub-paragraph. Regulation 10(1)(a)–(d) all refer to different types of travel cost and so travel was a precondition for such costs to be allowed. Contact centre costs were not “minor incidental costs” within the meaning of regulation 10(1)(f) as they are not travel-related (paragraphs 17 to 24); 2. the examples of various travel-related contact costs given in regulation 10(1) was a complete and exhaustive list and there was no discretion to add other expenses (paragraphs 25 to 28); 3. contact centre costs could not fall within regulation 10(2) because that referred to “the presence of another person on the journey or part of the journey”, and the Child Support Agency’s internal guidance to the contrary was misleading (paragraphs 29 to 36); 4. the F-tT’s decision did not involve any breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the appellant’s challenge on this ground also failed: R (on the application of Qazi) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWHC 1331 (Admin) R(CS) 5/04) and TD v Secretary of State & HLD (CSM) [2013] UKUT 282 (AAC); [2014] AACR 7 were considered (paragraphs 37 to 43).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 15bv.doc