Everything You Need
to Take Action

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS] [DATE] Data Protection Officer Child Maintenance Service Department for Work and Pensions Dear Sir/Madam, SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST — UK GDPR ARTICLE 15 I write to exercise my right of access under Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Please supply all personal data held about me by the Child Maintenance Service, including but not limited to: 1. All calculations of maintenance liability made in relation to my case, including all inputs used and the dates on which calculations were performed. 2. All enforcement notices, liability orders, summonses, and related documents generated in relation to my case. 3. All correspondence — internal and external — relating to my case. 4. All records of telephone calls, notes of calls, and any recordings made. 5. All court-related documents including any documents submitted to or received from HMCTS in relation to my case. 6. My CMS case reference number(s) and SCIN number(s). 7. All records relating to any Deduction from Earnings Order, charging order, or driving licence sanction in relation to my case. My CMS reference number (if known): [INSERT CMS REF] My National Insurance number: [INSERT NI NUMBER] My date of birth: [INSERT DOB] I expect a response within the statutory 30-day period. If you require proof of identity, please advise me by return. Yours faithfully, [YOUR NAME]

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS] [DATE] The Court Manager [NAME OF COURT — e.g. Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court] [COURT ADDRESS] Dear Sir/Madam, REQUEST FOR COURT FILE RECORDS I write to request inspection of, and copies of, any documents on the court file relating to the following proceedings, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules and my right to access court records: CMS Case Reference / SCIN: [INSERT] My full name: [INSERT] Date of any hearing: [INSERT if known] Specifically, I request: 1. Confirmation of whether a liability order in relation to my case exists on the court file. 2. A copy of any such liability order — bearing the court seal and identifying the judicial officer who made it. 3. A copy of any summons issued by this court in connection with my case. 4. The case reference number assigned by this court to proceedings in my name. I note that a Freedom of Information response (FOI2026/50177, 25 June 2026) from DWP's Central FOI Team has confirmed that the document served on me as a "liability order" is a CMS administrative template. I am therefore writing to confirm whether any court-issued instrument exists on your records. Please confirm by return whether you hold any such documents. If no court-issued liability order exists on your file, please confirm this in writing. Yours faithfully, [YOUR NAME]

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS] [DATE] Child Maintenance Service [CMS ADDRESS / DWP] WITHOUT PREJUDICE — FORMAL CHALLENGE TO ENFORCEMENT INSTRUMENT Dear Sir/Madam, RE: CMS Case Reference [INSERT] / SCIN [INSERT] I write to formally challenge the lawfulness of the enforcement instrument(s) issued in my case and to put CMS on notice that I dispute the legal basis for all enforcement actions taken or threatened. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE: 1. JURISDICTIONAL NULLITY — s.51 MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980 The summons in my case was not issued by a justice of the peace as required by s.51 MCA 1980. It was issued from a CMS address on a CMS template (CMEL7298/CMEL7211). This renders the summons void: R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Hill [1983] 1 AC 328. 2. DWP'S OWN ADMISSION DWP's Central Freedom of Information Team confirmed in writing on 25 June 2026 (FOI2026/50177) that CMEL7298 "is the only document that constitutes the order" — admitting that this CMS administrative template is the entirety of the enforcement instrument. No court seal. No judicial authority. No valid court order. 3. HMCTS CONFIRMATION HMCTS has confirmed that no signed liability order exists on the court file for my case. 4. ARTICLE 6 ECHR Any proceedings in which 48 or more cases are listed simultaneously before a single judge — without individual judicial consideration — are incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was subject to such proceedings. DEMAND: I demand CMS immediately: (a) Suspend all enforcement actions in my case pending resolution of these challenges; (b) Produce, within 14 days, a copy of the original signed court-issued liability order bearing the court's seal and the name of the judicial officer who made the order; (c) Confirm whether the administrative LO regime under ss.32M/32N Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 has been commenced. If CMS cannot produce (b), I require written confirmation that no valid court order exists. Any enforcement action taken after receipt of this letter will be treated as taken in full knowledge of the challenged status of the instrument, and will be referred to the SFO, TVP, and reported to the CMS Files investigation at thecmsfiles.com. Yours faithfully, [YOUR NAME]

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS] [DATE] [MP NAME] [CONSTITUENCY] House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Dear [MP NAME], RE: UNLAWFUL CMS ENFORCEMENT — MY CASE AND A NATIONAL SCANDAL I am writing to you as your constituent to ask for your urgent assistance in relation to the Child Maintenance Service enforcement action against me, and to draw your attention to a matter of major public concern that I believe demands parliamentary scrutiny. MY PERSONAL SITUATION: [DESCRIBE YOUR SITUATION — the summons you received, whether it bears a court seal, any enforcement action taken, the impact on you and your family] THE WIDER CONTEXT: This is not an isolated problem. The CMS Files investigation (thecmsfiles.com) has documented that: • DWP's own Central FOI Team confirmed on 25 June 2026 (FOI2026/50177) that the CMEL7298 "liability order" template is "the only document that constitutes the order" — confirming it is a CMS administrative document, not a court order. • The Government Legal Defence confirmed in High Court proceedings (AC-2025-LON-001412, ref Z2500859 para 8) that CMS — not the court — served the summons. • 790,000 paying parents are under enforcement on instruments the government has now admitted are not court orders. • The IT system calculating every debt (TCS BaNCS/CMS2012) has been confirmed by the US 5th Circuit Court (November 2025) to have been built using wilfully stolen intellectual property. • The mortality rate among paying parents in arrears is 14.28 times the national average. WHAT I AM ASKING YOU TO DO: 1. Please write to Baroness Sherlock (Minister of State, DWP) on my behalf requesting an explanation of the legal basis for enforcement in my case. 2. Please submit the following parliamentary written question: "To ask the Minister of State for Work and Pensions: whether the document CMEL7298 used by the Child Maintenance Service constitutes a court order within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.51; and what steps she has taken following FOI2026/50177 confirming it is 'the only document that constitutes the order.'" 3. Please refer this matter to the Work and Pensions Select Committee (Chair: Debbie Abrahams MP). I am happy to provide further evidence. The complete investigation is available at thecmsfiles.com. Yours sincerely, [YOUR NAME]

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS] [DATE] Registry Trust Limited 153–157 Cleveland Street London W1T 6QW Dear Sir/Madam, FORMAL CHALLENGE — RTL REGISTRATION BASED ON VOID INSTRUMENT I write to formally challenge the registration held by Registry Trust Ltd in my name arising from a Child Maintenance Service liability order, on the basis that the underlying instrument has been confirmed as a CMS administrative template — not a court order. MY DETAILS: Full name: [INSERT] Date of birth: [INSERT] RTL reference (if known): [INSERT] GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE: On 25 June 2026, DWP's Central Freedom of Information Team confirmed in writing (FOI2026/50177) that the CMEL7298 document served on paying parents as a "liability order" is "the only document that constitutes the order" — admitting it is a CMS administrative template with no judicial origin. A registration at RTL must be based on a valid court judgment or order. An administrative template produced by a government department, with no court seal, no court reference, and no identified judicial officer — as confirmed by the government's own written admission — does not qualify as a basis for RTL registration. HMCTS has separately confirmed that no liability order exists on the court file for my case. DEMAND: I demand Registry Trust Ltd: 1. Immediately suspend any enforcement of the entry in my name pending review of its validity; 2. Remove the entry within 28 days on the basis that the underlying instrument is not a court order; 3. Notify all credit reference agencies to which this entry has been supplied. If Registry Trust Ltd proceeds to maintain an entry it has been formally notified may be based on a void instrument, I reserve all rights to seek judicial relief and to report the matter to the FCA and ICO. Yours faithfully, [YOUR NAME]

[YOUR FULL NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS / "Submitted via online portal"] [DATE] Serious Fraud Office 2–4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BS reporting@sfo.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam, REFERRAL — CHILD MAINTENANCE SERVICE — FALSE INSTRUMENTS / PROCEEDS OF CRIME LINKED REFERRAL: NCA Referral I write to make a referral to the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the Child Maintenance Service's enforcement document regime, in support of existing NCA referral submitted by the CMS Files investigation. GROUNDS: 1. FALSE INSTRUMENT (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 ss.1, 3): The CMS CMEL7298 summons template bears no court seal, no court reference, and no identified judicial officer. DWP confirmed in writing on 25 June 2026 (FOI2026/50177) it is "the only document that constitutes the order" — a CMS administrative template, not a court order. Its production and use to extract payment and authorise detention constitutes making and using a false instrument. 2. PROCEEDS OF CRIME (POCA 2002): The 20% surcharge (~£106m/yr) extracted through enforcement based on these instruments may constitute criminal property under POCA 2002 ss.327–329. 3. TCS/CMS2012 — IP FRAUD: DWP paid licence fees for TCS BaNCS throughout CMS2012 operations. The US 5th Circuit Court (November 2025, No.24-10749) confirmed TCS built BaNCS using wilfully stolen intellectual property. DWP awarded TCS a new £42–49m contract one month after the District Court's $194m damages ruling. No debarment assessment was published. MY PERSONAL CASE: [DESCRIBE YOUR CASE — what documents you received, enforcement taken, money extracted] I ask the SFO to: 1. Link this referral to NCA Referral and treat it as supporting evidence; 2. Investigate whether the surcharge extracted through void instruments constitutes proceeds of crime; 3. Investigate TCS's licence fee receipts for a platform built on stolen IP. All evidence is available at thecmsfiles.com. Yours faithfully, [YOUR NAME]

To: DWP Central Freedom of Information Team dwp.foi.requests@dwp.gov.uk Subject: FOI Request — Article 6 ECHR Legal Advice — CMS Enforcement Regime Dear Freedom of Information Officer, I write under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information: 1. All legal advice obtained by DWP or CMS since 2012 on the compatibility of the Child Maintenance Service enforcement regime — including the summons, liability order, and hearing processes — with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2. All instructions given to legal advisers requesting such advice, and all correspondence relating to such instructions. Note: I am aware that a previous request (IR2026/14071) resulted in a refusal citing legal professional privilege. I request this information on the basis that Parliament cannot meaningfully scrutinise a system whose legal foundation is withheld by the department responsible for it. LPP cannot properly be invoked to withhold from Parliament evidence that an entire enforcement regime is known to be incompatible with Convention rights. If any information is withheld, please identify the specific exemption(s) claimed and confirm that the public interest test has been applied. [YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS]

To: DWP Central Freedom of Information Team Subject: FOI — TCS Debarment Assessment — CMS2012 Contract Dear Freedom of Information Officer, I write under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request: 1. Copies of any exclusion or debarment assessment conducted by DWP in relation to Tata Consultancy Services following: (a) The 7th Circuit ruling in Epic Systems v TCS (2021); (b) The US District Court ruling of June 2024 ($194.2m damages for wilful IP theft); (c) The US 5th Circuit ruling of 21 November 2025 (No.24-10749 — permanent injunction on BaNCS version). 2. If no such assessment was conducted following any of the above, the name and grade of the official who decided no assessment was required, and the documented reasons for that decision. 3. Whether CMS2012 is currently operating the version of TCS BaNCS that the 5th Circuit has barred TCS from using pursuant to its permanent injunction. 4. The total licence fees paid by DWP to TCS for BaNCS since 2013, broken down by year. [YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS]

To: DWP Central Freedom of Information Team Subject: FOI — CMS2012 Project Management Cost Breakdown Dear Freedom of Information Officer, The NAO Report HC 104 (June 2014), Table 4 identifies £71 million in "project management and support" costs as part of the CMS2012 programme. This is 88% of the £81 million "design and build" cost — a ratio with no equivalent in any documented legitimate IT programme. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request: 1. A line-by-line breakdown of the £71m categorised as "project management and support" in the CMS2012 programme, including: - Names of all firms or individuals billed under this category - Contract references for each - Daily or hourly rates charged - Periods for which billing occurred - Deliverables specified and received 2. Any conflict of interest declarations made by officials who approved payments under this category. 3. The total payments made to Oracle Corporation for CMS2012-related licences and services 2009–2024, broken down by year and contract reference. [YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS]

To: HMCTS FOI Team hmcts.foi@justice.gov.uk Subject: FOI Request — CMS Bulk Listing Policy Dear Freedom of Information Officer, I write under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request: 1. All policies, guidance, or instructions issued by HMCTS to court staff, listing officers, or judicial officers in relation to the listing of Child Maintenance Service enforcement hearings — including any "bulk listing" or "block listing" arrangements. 2. The administrative agreement(s) between HMCTS and the Child Maintenance Service governing: (a) the provision of hearing space for CMS enforcement proceedings; (b) the role of HMCTS in the issuance or processing of CMS enforcement documents; (c) the use of the Libra case management system by CMS. 3. The maximum number of cases permitted to be listed in a single CMS enforcement session before a single judicial officer, and the basis for that limit. 4. Any guidance issued to district judges on the appropriate procedure where a defendant raises a preliminary jurisdictional objection at a CMS enforcement hearing. [YOUR NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS]