Public Interest Disclosure · AC-2025-LON-001412 · May 2026
A sourced public interest disclosure documenting 18 years of forged court documents, fictitious debt, and unlawful enforcement by the Child Maintenance Service — affecting 790,000 families. All claims sourced to primary evidence.
"The evidence is already there. I've just pulled it together into one place."
The Evidence Base
Every fact below is sourced to a primary document — parliamentary record, FOI response, court filing, or government publication. These are not allegations. They are documented.
Every CMS summons issued since 2007 is a false instrument under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. MCA 1980 s.51 requires a Justice of the Peace to issue a summons. CMS serves it — confirmed by GLD in writing (para 8, ref Z2500859). FOI2026/03820 confirms CMS only "requests hearing space": no JP complaint is ever laid.
SOURCE: GLD Z2500859 para 8 · FOI2026/03820 · R v Hill [1983] 1 AC 328 · MCA 1980 s.51
Every CMS "liability order" served on banks, employers, and enforcement agents is a CMS-generated administrative document — not a court order. No court seal. No judicial signature. No court reference. HMCTS confirmed in writing across three courts: "There is no order on our case file." The CS(E)A 2023 was passed because Parliament acknowledged no legal route existed — and has never been commenced.
SOURCE: HMCTS written confirmations (3 courts) · GLD Z2500859 · CS(E)A 2023 (uncommenced)
The NAO confirmed the Child Maintenance Service "has been collecting the Child Support Agency's fictitious debt." £29.7 million in incorrect amounts confirmed in one year (HC 252). The payment engine (TCS BaNCS) was found by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (21 November 2025) to have been built on wilfully misappropriated trade secrets — $194 million verdict, 10-year monitorship. DWP renewed the contract in August 2024, after the original verdict, for up to £49.6 million.
SOURCE: NAO HC 252 · CSC v TCS No.24-10749, 5th Circuit, 21 Nov 2025 · Contracts Finder
s.2 CSA 1991 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the welfare of all children likely to be affected. CMS confirmed in writing in 2025 it has no welfare duty to children in the paying parent's household. No equality impact assessment was ever conducted on the 2012 formula. The duty has not been applied in a single documented case across 34 years of enforcement.
SOURCE: CSA 1991 s.2 · CMS written confirmation 2025 · SI 2012/2677 (no EIA published)
Seven institutions — TVP, IOPC, ICO, FCA, ICE, PAC, and Magistrates' Courts — have each been formally notified with sourced evidence. None has opened a criminal investigation. TVP routed a formally submitted crime report to an unconnected force. The ICE cannot act without a final CMS decision that CMS withholds by design. The SFO (RF26030143832C) has confirmed receipt.
SOURCE: TVP BCA-18321-26-4343-IR · IOPC 1136940 · SFO RF26030143832C · OPCC CO/00784/26
Primary Sources
Every claim in this disclosure traces to a primary document. Below are the key evidence anchors. All FOI responses are publicly available at whatdotheyknow.com.
CMS confirmed in writing it requests magistrates' court hearing space — not that it lays a JP complaint. No summons authority exists. This confirms the s.51 MCA 1980 argument.
Government Legal Department judicial review response, paragraph 8: Ryan Jummun (GLD) confirms CMS served the summons. This is a judicial admission in live High Court proceedings.
The National Audit Office confirmed CMS has been collecting fictitious CSA debt and identified £29.7 million in incorrect amounts in one year. One of ten consecutive adverse audit opinions.
US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld (21 November 2025) that TCS built the BaNCS payment engine — which runs CMS debt calculations — using wilfully misappropriated trade secrets. 10-year monitorship imposed.
HMCTS staff confirmed in writing across Leicester, Milton Keynes, and Brighton magistrates' courts: no liability order exists on any court file. The "VEER email" is preserved as evidence.
DWP refused to disclose its own legal advice on Art.6 ECHR compatibility of the liability order process, citing legal professional privilege. The existence of the advice — and its withholding — is itself significant.
Minister Andrew Western MP gave contradictory written parliamentary answers about the commencement of ss.32M/32N CS(E)A 2023 — eight days apart. One answer was materially incorrect.
Parliamentary research confirms paying parents under CMS enforcement die at 14.28 times the national average rate. Estimated 270 suicides per year directly connected to CMS enforcement. This is on the parliamentary record.
30 Years of Failure
Enacted with no meaningful research base, no equality impact assessment, and no affordability modelling. Welfare duty s.2 written in but never applied.
CMS begins issuing summonses on CMEL7211/CMEL7298 templates — not through JPs. No court seal, no court reference, three simultaneous alternative signatories. The forgery architecture is established.
CMS2012 system goes live. Built on TCS BaNCS — software later found by US federal courts to have been developed using misappropriated trade secrets. £45m original budget; final cost: £950m+.
CMS Director Tom McCormack issues instruction explicitly directing maximisation of Collect and Pay volumes for fee income. Revenue generation becomes the operational priority.
Parliament acknowledges no lawful liability order process exists by passing the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 to create one. It has never been commenced. Enforcement on void instruments continues.
US Court of Appeals confirms BaNCS was built on wilfully stolen trade secrets. 10-year monitorship. DWP had renewed the contract 15 months earlier for up to £49.6m.
DJ Arvind Sharma presides over 48 simultaneous CMS bulk liability orders at MK Magistrates. Christina raises s.51 MCA 1980 challenge; removed by security. No documentary evidence produced by CMS. JCIO complaint filed on 11 grounds.
AC-2025-LON-001412 active. SFO referral RF26030143832C confirmed. 301-page sourced dossier submitted to NCA, Metropolitan Police Economic Crime, TVP, IOPC, and parliamentary committees.
Practical Help
Step-by-step guides for affected parents. You do not need a lawyer to take these steps. All routes use free official processes.
Find out whether the document used against you is a genuine court order or a CMS administrative template.
Ask your MP to table two parliamentary written questions that go to the heart of this issue.
CMS has processed your data without lawful authority. You have a right to complain to the Information Commissioner.
If CMS is demanding arrears you do not believe are correct, here is how to challenge them formally.
Journalists need primary documents and case references, not just the dossier. Here is how to make your approach effective.
If you have other children in your household, CMS has a legal duty to consider their welfare. Here is how to invoke it.
Letter Templates
Copy, personalise with your details, and send. All templates are based on the legal framework in the dossier. Replace [BRACKETS] with your own information.
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[DATE]
The Court Manager / Clerk to the Justices
[COURT NAME] Magistrates' Court
[COURT ADDRESS]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Authentication Request — CMS Liability Order / Case Reference [YOUR CMS REF]
I write to formally request authentication of a document served on me by the Child
Maintenance Service (CMS) purporting to be a magistrates' court liability order.
The document I have received bears the reference [YOUR REFERENCE/SCIN NUMBER].
Please confirm in writing:
1. Whether a liability order in this reference/matter exists on your court file.
2. Whether that order bears a court seal.
3. Whether that order bears the signature of a District Judge, Magistrate, or
Justices' Clerk who was present at the hearing.
4. The full case reference number assigned by this court (not the CMS reference number).
5. The date and presiding judicial officer at any hearing.
I ask this because HMCTS staff have confirmed in correspondence with other parents
that no liability order exists on the court file in their matters, and that the
document in circulation is a CMS-generated administrative document. I am entitled
to know whether the document being used to enforce against me is a genuine court
order or an administrative document without judicial authority.
I ask for your written response within 14 days. If you require further identification
from me, please let me know.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT EMAIL/PHONE]
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[DATE]
[YOUR MP'S NAME] MP
House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A 0AA
Dear [MP NAME],
Re: Child Maintenance Service — Unlawful Enforcement — Request for Parliamentary Questions
I am your constituent and I am writing regarding the Child Maintenance Service,
which I believe has been enforcing child maintenance using instruments that are
not genuine court orders.
[BRIEF PERSONAL SUMMARY — 2-3 sentences about your own situation, case reference]
I am writing to ask you to table the following two written parliamentary questions:
QUESTION 1 — TCS Contract Renewal
"To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether the Department
conducted due diligence on the renewal of the TCS/Tata Consultancy Services
CMS2012 contract in August 2024 with reference to Case No.24-10749 before the
US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in which TCS was found to have built the
BaNCS software platform using wilfully misappropriated trade secrets."
QUESTION 2 — Uncommenced Powers
"To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on what date the
administrative liability order provisions of ss.32M and 32N of the Child
Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 will be commenced; and what enforcement
mechanism has lawful authority to create liability orders in the interim."
I would also ask you to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
enclosing the public interest disclosure published at [WEBSITE URL] and asking
for a ministerial response to the five core evidenced facts documented therein.
A detailed sourced dossier (301 pages, all claims evidenced to primary sources)
is available at [WEBSITE URL].
Yours sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS AND CONTACT]
Organisation complained about: Child Maintenance Service (DWP)
Summary of complaint:
The Child Maintenance Service processed my personal data — including my employer
details, bank account information, and driving licence information — in connection
with a liability order and/or summons that I have reason to believe is not a
genuine court document.
Specifically:
- CMS served me with a document purporting to be a liability order.
- The document bears no court seal, no court case reference, and no named
judicial officer.
- HMCTS staff have confirmed in writing to other individuals that no liability
order exists on the court file for CMS matters — the document is
CMS-generated, not court-issued.
- CMS used this document to process my data with third parties (employers,
banks, enforcement agents) without lawful authority.
My case reference is: [YOUR CMS REFERENCE]
The enforcement action taken: [DESCRIBE — DEO/bank deduction/driving licence]
Date of enforcement: [DATE]
Legal basis for complaint:
UK GDPR Article 6 — no lawful basis for processing where the instrument
authorising processing is not a genuine court order.
UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a) — data not processed lawfully, fairly or transparently.
UK GDPR Article 17 — I request erasure of all Registry Trust Limited entries
relating to this matter, as they were entered on the basis of a void instrument.
What I want the ICO to do:
1. Investigate CMS's data processing in connection with its liability order procedure.
2. Require CMS to confirm the lawful basis for processing my data with third parties.
3. Direct CMS to notify Registry Trust Limited to remove all entries based on
void instruments.
Evidence I can provide: [LIST ANY DOCUMENTS — HMCTS confirmation letter,
unsigned liability order, letter telling you not to attend court, etc.]
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[DATE]
Child Maintenance Service
[CMS Address]
Re: Welfare Duty — s.2 CSA 1991 / Departure Direction Application — s.28E CSA 1991
CMS Reference: [YOUR REFERENCE]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to formally invoke my rights under the Child Support Act 1991 in relation
to the above case.
SECTION 2 — WELFARE DUTY
I draw your attention to s.2 CSA 1991, which requires the Secretary of State to
have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected when exercising any
discretionary power under the Act.
I have [NUMBER] children residing in my household: [AGES — no names needed].
The current assessment/enforcement causes the following hardship to those children:
[DESCRIBE IN BRIEF — reduced housing, reduced food budget, lost contact time, etc.]
I formally request that CMS document its consideration of the welfare of the
children in my household in writing, and confirm what weight has been given to
their welfare in the calculation and enforcement decision.
SECTION 28E — DEPARTURE DIRECTION
I apply for a departure direction under s.28E CSA 1991 on the ground that the
current assessment causes undue hardship to the children in my household.
My grounds are: [SET OUT BRIEFLY — income, other children, costs, etc.]
Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide a written response within 30 days.
If you do not respond within 30 days I will escalate to the Independent Case
Examiner and the Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT DETAILS]
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
[YOUR DATE OF BIRTH — for identification]
[DATE]
Data Protection Officer
Child Maintenance Service / Department for Work and Pensions
[DWP Address]
Re: Subject Access Request under UK GDPR Article 15
CMS Reference: [YOUR REFERENCE]
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am making a subject access request under Article 15 of the UK General Data
Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and s.45 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Please provide all personal data held by CMS/DWP relating to me, including
but not limited to:
1. All correspondence sent to or from CMS concerning my case.
2. All calculations of the maintenance amount assessed, with the underlying
data inputs for each calculation.
3. All arrears calculations, showing how each arrears figure was derived,
step by step, including any adjustments.
4. All notes, records, or internal communications relating to enforcement
action taken against me (DEOs, charging orders, driving licence removal,
committal proceedings).
5. All data shared with third parties in connection with my case, including
employers, banks, bailiff/enforcement companies, and Registry Trust Limited.
6. All data held on the IT system (TCS BaNCS/CMS2012) relating to my account,
including any system logs of changes to my arrears figure.
7. Any welfare assessments conducted under s.2 CSA 1991 in relation to my case.
Please note that this request is not subject to any fee and must be responded
to within 30 days of receipt.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
[CONTACT EMAIL]
Build the Evidence Base
We are collecting one-page case summaries to build the evidence base for parliamentary submissions, legal proceedings, and media briefings. Strict anonymity rules apply.
Your data is held securely and used only for the purposes of this disclosure. You will not be added to any mailing list. You will only be contacted if your case is relevant to an active legal or parliamentary matter and only with your explicit consent. You may request deletion of your submission at any time by emailing thebigchildmaintenancescandal@gmail.com with subject line "DELETE [your initials + case ref]".
Version 4 · May 2026 · AC-2025-LON-001412
The full 301-page public interest disclosure. All claims sourced. 64 clickable hyperlinks. Submitted to NCA, SFO, TVP, IOPC, and Parliament.
Who Can Act
Different recipients have different legal obligations once formally notified. These are the highest-priority contacts for the public and for media.
Referral RF26030143832C already filed and confirmed. Send supplementary evidence to this reference. sfo.gov.uk
→ Mark for attention of case officer, ref RF26030143832C
Economic Crime Command referral active. NCA accepts public disclosures via the SAR portal. nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk
→ Submit SAR online — any affected parent can do this
Chair, Work and Pensions Select Committee. Has power to compel witnesses and demand documents from DWP. parliament.uk
→ Write with subject: "CMS Enforcement — Public Interest Disclosure"
Jurisdiction over NAO findings. NAO HC 252 adverse opinion is a core evidence anchor. Accepts public submissions. parliament.uk/pac
→ Submit referencing NAO HC 252 and the TCS contract renewal
Any affected parent can file a GDPR complaint about their own case. Use Template T-ICO above. ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint
→ Free. No lawyer needed. Use T-ICO template above.
Procurement Act 2023 debarment proceedings should be opened against TCS. Contact the PRU with the Fifth Circuit judgment reference.
→ Reference: CSC v TCS No.24-10749, 5th Circuit, Nov 2025
Track record on DWP enforcement investigations. Need primary documents: your unsigned liability order, your case reference, your CMS letter. panorama@bbc.co.uk
→ Send primary documents + 1-paragraph summary
Broke the Post Office Horizon scandal. BaNCS stolen code angle is directly in their expertise. computerweekly.com/contact
→ Lead with the Fifth Circuit verdict and DWP contract renewal
Deep investigative capacity. Strong on Post Office / DWP parallels. theguardian.com/tips
→ Lead with the mortality data (14.28×) and HMCTS admissions
Researcher, lay representative, director of The CMS Files. Available for interview. Primary documents and exhibit schedule available on request.
→ thebigchildmaintenancescandal@gmail.com