The CMS Enforcement
Regime Is Criminal
Not merely unlawful. Criminal. The government's own lawyers, FOI responses, court confirmations, and recorded calls establish ten confirmed criminal offences. This page documents the complete enforcement chain and the evidence that proves it.
GLD Judicial Admission
Government Legal Defence solicitor Ryan Jummun confirmed in High Court proceedings Z2500859 para 8: CMS served the summons, not the court.
HMCTS Officer Confirmation
HMCTS officer Veer confirmed by email: No liability order on the court file for case reference 2400113035.
CMS Recorded Call (Exhibit CL2)
CMS enforcement official stated on recorded call entered as court evidence: "There are no court orders — they're memorandums."
Six Grounds of Systemic Unlawfulness
Jurisdictional Nullity — s.51 MCA 1980
CMS generated summons CMEL7298 via off-system template rather than a justice of the peace issuing process. The summons was void ab initio. The HMCTS administrative system (Libra) processed CMS's own template — not a judicially-issued instrument. FOI2026/50177 confirms DWP's own admission that the template is "the only document that constitutes the order."
Binding authority: R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Hill [1983] 1 AC 328 — a summons not issued by the court is a nullity.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.51 · Hill [1983] 1 AC 328 · FOI2026/50177
False Instrument — Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981
CMEL7298 bears no court seal, no court case reference, and three alternative signatories simultaneously listed with none identified. It is produced to impersonate a court order. CMEL7298_v011 (IR2026/48392) confirms at least 11 template iterations — CMS has been iterating its court-impersonating document for years. Registration of these instruments at Registry Trust Ltd and as Land Registry charges may constitute additional offences.
Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981 ss.1, 3, 9(1)(g) · IR2026/48392
Article 6 ECHR — Structural Incompatibility
Bulk listing of 48 simultaneous cases before a single district judge is irreconcilable with individual judicial consideration under Article 6. The Secretary of State is simultaneously the statutory applicant, the enforcement authority, and the creditor receiving the 20% surcharge — a structural conflict acknowledged in DWP's own legal advice (withheld under LPP in FOI IR2026/14071). Courts have been reduced to a commercial room-booking service.
HRA 1998 · ECHR Article 6 · CSA 1991 s.33(4) · Tsfayo v UK [2006] · Feldbrugge v Netherlands
Administrative LO Regime — Never Commenced
Sections 32M and 32N of the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 — the administrative liability order regime that would lawfully authorise this enforcement process — were confirmed uncommenced by Andrew Western MP on 18 March 2026. The same minister contradicted this answer on 26 March 2026 — eight days later. CMS has been operating an administrative LO system that Parliament enacted but never brought into force. This is not a technicality. It is the legal basis for 18 years of enforcement.
Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 ss.32M, 32N · Western MP 18 & 26 Mar 2026
s.33(4) CSA 1991 — Constitutional Tension
Section 33(4) of the Child Support Act 1991 expressly prohibits any court from examining whether the maintenance debt is correct. A court that cannot examine the correctness of the debt on which it is asked to issue enforcement orders has had its judicial function abolished. The NAO has confirmed approximately £29.7m in incorrectly calculated amounts. Parents are being imprisoned on debts courts are prohibited from examining.
CSA 1991 s.33(3) & s.33(4) · NAO HC 252 · Unison v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
HMCTS Structural Complicity
HMCTS provided administrative approval to CMS to issue summonses. HMCTS provided the Libra system through which CMS generates enforcement instruments. HMCTS maintained the Marston Holdings contract enabling execution of CMS arrest notices. HMCTS scheduled rooms for bulk hearings producing orders it never judicially issued. For 10 weeks following the N161 appeal filed 16 April 2026, HMCTS has returned no direction. The N244 set-aside of TWM certification remains undetermined after 8 months.
N161 appeal 16 Apr 2026 — 10 weeks silence · N244 — 8 months undetermined
The Four Critical Defects
in Every Summons
Every CMS summons using the CMEL7298 template contains four structural defects that, on binding authority, render the instrument void. CMEL7298_v011 (disclosed June 2026 under IR2026/48392) confirms this template has been in use across at least 11 iterations.
No Court Seal
CMEL7298 bears no court seal. A court order must bear the seal of the issuing court. The absence of a court seal is not a procedural irregularity — it is confirmation that no court issued the document. The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s.9(1)(g) specifically addresses instruments "purporting to be made by a court."
No Court Case Reference
CMEL7298 contains no court case reference number. The SCIN field identified on the document is a CMS internal reference — not a court reference. HMCTS confirmed to this investigation that no corresponding court file exists for cases where only a SCIN is available. FOI2026/50177 confirms the template is a CMS document, not a court document.
Three Simultaneous Signatories — None Identified
CMEL7298_v011 lists three alternative signatories simultaneously in the signature field — none individually identified as the officer who issued this particular instrument. A document with three alternative signatories has no signatory. A summons with no identified issuing officer has no issuing authority. This is confirmed in the CMS internal handbook (10 August 2017) and in CMEL7298_v011 (IR2026/48392, June 2026).
Plymouth/Wolverhampton Issue — Not Court Address
CMS summonses are issued from CMS operational addresses in Plymouth and Wolverhampton — not from the court. FOI2026/03820 confirmed CMS "requests hearing space" from courts rather than initiating proceedings through them. A summons issued from a government department address rather than a court is not a court summons. This is confirmed by DWP's own FOI response.
The Government Has
Admitted This Itself
These are not allegations or assertions by the investigation. These are the government's own admissions — in writing, on record, and in court proceedings.
| # | Admission | Source | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | "This is the only document that constitutes the order." | DWP FOI2026/50177 — 25 Jun 2026 | CMS admin template = the order. No court order exists. |
| A2 | CMS served the summons — not the court. | GLD Z2500859 para 8 (Ryan Jummun) | Judicial admission destroying jurisdiction in live HC proceedings. |
| A3 | "There are no court orders — they're memorandums." | CMS recorded call — Exhibit CL2 | CMS enforcement staff confirm in their own words. |
| A4 | No liability order on the court file for case ref 2400113035. | HMCTS Officer Veer email | CMS enforcing orders the court has no record of. |
| A5 | ss.32M/32N Child Support Act 2023 not yet commenced. | Andrew Western MP — 18 Mar 2026 | Admin LO regime CMS operates doesn't legally exist. |
| A6 | CMS "requests hearing space" from courts. | FOI2026/03820 | Courts are a room-booking facility, not a judicial authority. |
| A7 | DWP withholds Article 6 ECHR legal advice under LPP. | DWP FOI IR2026/14071 | DWP knows the Article 6 position but won't disclose it. |
| A8 | CMEL7298_v011 confirmed — three simultaneous signatories — "Taken before me" blank. | DWP IR2026/48392 — 29 Jun 2026 | Template itself confirms the defect across 11+ versions. |
| A9 | System will "uncouple" from court processes. | Baroness Sherlock, Lords Grand Committee — 8 Jun 2026 | Confirms enforcement was previously "coupled" without authority. |
| A10 | ~£29.7m in incorrectly calculated maintenance amounts. | NAO — HC 252 | Courts prohibited from checking correctness under s.33(4) CSA 1991. |
Ten Confirmed
Criminal Offences
The legal analysis in Volume 2 identifies ten separate criminal offences arising from the CMS enforcement regime. These are not civil wrongs. They are criminal acts — committed systematically, at scale, and with the knowledge of senior officials.
Making a False Instrument
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s.1. CMEL7298 is designed to be accepted as a court order when it is not. Producing a document designed to resemble a court order without judicial authority is the core s.1 offence.
FCA 1981 s.1
Using a False Instrument
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s.3. Every CMS enforcement action that relies on CMEL7298 to extract money, seize wages, register charges, or imprison constitutes use of a false instrument.
FCA 1981 s.3
Fraud by False Representation
Fraud Act 2006 s.2. Presenting a CMS administrative template as a court order to extract payment from a paying parent — with knowledge that it is not a court order — satisfies the s.2 test.
Fraud Act 2006 s.2
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Fraud Act 2006 s.4. CMS officials in positions of trust — as statutory enforcement authority — abusing that position to generate and enforce void instruments is within s.4. Applies to each named signatory and senior official in the approval chain.
Fraud Act 2006 s.4
Obtaining Services Dishonestly
Fraud Act 2006 s.11. Using void instruments to obtain court resources — listing time, judicial officer time, and enforcement officer time — from HMCTS on the false basis that valid court proceedings are being conducted.
Fraud Act 2006 s.11
False Imprisonment
Common law tort / criminal. Any paying parent imprisoned under a committal warrant issued pursuant to void liability orders is a victim of false imprisonment. C.J. — 42 days HMP Peterborough from 18 November 2025 — LO 821013797101. No valid underlying order. Debt subsequently confirmed paid.
Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
Proceeds of Crime
POCA 2002 s.327–329. The 20% surcharge (approximately £106m/yr) extracted through enforcement based on void instruments may constitute criminal property — proceeds obtained through criminal conduct. The Marston Holdings arrest warrant contract may additionally engage POCA.
POCA 2002 ss.327-329 · £106m/yr
Misfeasance in Public Office
Common law. Public officials who have exercised or failed to exercise the power of their office — knowing it was unlawful, knowing or recklessly indifferent that it would cause harm — satisfy the Three Rivers test. Named: DJ Sharma (SRA 25195), Andrew Western MP, Baroness Sherlock.
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1
Harassment
Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Persistent enforcement actions under void instruments — repeated demands, DEOs, charging orders, credit registrations — may constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment where the enforcer knew or ought to have known the instruments were invalid.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Contempt of Court
Where HMCTS and CMS have continued enforcement during live High Court proceedings — including after the N244 application to set aside the TWM certification — this conduct may constitute contempt. The N161 appeal and the enforcement pause application have received no court direction in ten weeks.
Supreme Court Act 1981 s.45 · HC AC-2025-LON-001412
History Is Repeating
Itself
The structural parallels between the Post Office Horizon scandal and the CMS enforcement regime are not rhetorical. They are documented in a nine-column structural comparison in Volume 2 of this investigation. The differences are in scale — CMS is larger.
| Feature | Post Office / Horizon | CMS / CMEL7298 |
|---|---|---|
| Core technology | Fujitsu Horizon — software with systemic errors producing incorrect debt figures | TCS BaNCS — judicially confirmed to be built on wilfully stolen intellectual property |
| Document status | Documents produced by a computer system accepted as valid court evidence without challenge | CMS administrative templates presented as court orders — accepted without challenge |
| Court role | Courts accepted Horizon-generated evidence without scrutiny of the system's reliability | Courts process CMS bulk listings without scrutiny of whether instruments are validly issued |
| Enforcement chain | Subpostmasters prosecuted, imprisoned, bankrupted on the basis of incorrect data | Paying parents imprisoned, charged, credit-registered on the basis of invalid instruments |
| Duration | Approximately 20 years before public exposure | 18+ years confirmed — 2003 to present |
| Mortality | Multiple suicides and excess deaths documented post-conviction | 14.28x mortality rate — approximately 270 suicides/yr in paying parent population |
| State response | Initial denial, suppression, then reluctant acknowledgement only after sustained campaign | GLD, DWP, HMCTS all maintain position — enforcement continues during JR |
| IP ownership | Fujitsu owned Horizon — reliable or not, it was Fujitsu's code | TCS BaNCS — US courts confirmed TCS stole the IP it used to build the platform |
| Parliamentary inquiry | Business and Trade Select Committee · Malicious Prosecutions — statutory inquiry | Work and Pensions Select Committee — formal submission made, not yet called |
The key difference: In the Post Office scandal, Fujitsu's code was at least theirs to use. In the CMS case, the US 5th Circuit has confirmed that TCS BaNCS — the platform generating every debt figure CMS enforces — was built using wilfully stolen intellectual property. Every calculation CMS has produced since 2013 runs on a platform under a US court permanent injunction.
Real People, Real Harm
C.J. — 42 Days Wrongful Imprisonment
Imprisoned for 42 days at HMP Peterborough from 18 November 2025. Leicester Magistrates' Court, 10 August 2022. Committal warrant issued under liability order 821013797101. HMCTS subsequently confirmed no valid order on court file. Debt confirmed as paid at time of committal. C.J. lost 42 days of his life under a void instrument enforced by a court that had no record of a valid order.
R.B. — Home Charging Order on Void LO
N322 Order of Recovery obtained against R.B.. Claim 074RG199. Underlying liability order 821017573031. A charging order has been registered against Mr Baggett's home — a Deeds restriction on his property — pursuant to a liability order that cannot be produced and that bears all the structural defects of the CMEL7298 template series. N379 charging order application examined in Volume 2 contains five documented defects.
Alexander Nicholson — 27 March 2026 Hearing
Core case in High Court proceedings AC-2025-LON-001412. . Hearing at Milton Keynes Magistrates' Court on 27 March 2026 — one of 48 bulk-listed cases before DJ Sharma. Lay representative Christina Little raised s.51 MCA 1980 jurisdictional nullity as preliminary objection. Removed by court security. JCIO complaint, TVP referrals, MoJ complaint all filed following this hearing.
Equita Enforcement — Criminal Contract Analysis
Volume 2 Part 8 establishes that Equita operates on CMS arrest notices that CMS has declared to be its own instruments — not court warrants. DWP's FOI admission of June 2026 confirms the only document constituting the order is CMS's own template. Equita holds no contract published under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. No Contracts Finder entry for arrest warrant enforcement through CMS. DWP confirmed Marston Holdings contract: ecm_12469.
The CMS Files — Legal Action
The Judicial Review Claim — AC-2025-LON-001412
What Is Happening
Right Now
N161 Appeal Filed
N161 appeal filed in County Court against Milton Keynes County Court order. Ten weeks passed without direction as of the date of this publication. Enforcement continues during this period.
N244 — Set-Aside TWM Certification
Application to set aside the TWM (Transfer to Magistrates' Court) certification. Filed. Undetermined after eight months. No direction issued. Enforcement continues.
High Court JR — AC-2025-LON-001412
Administrative Court judicial review. GLD has confirmed service of its Acknowledgement of Service. Z2500859 para 8 is a confirmed judicial admission. Help with Fees application being processed by HMCTS (five Administrative Court applications plus N161 to MKCC). Rights of audience application being prepared for Christina Little as lay representative.
JCIO — 11-Ground Complaint vs DJ Sharma
Filed. Under active review. DJ Arvind Kumar Sharma SRA 25195 — bulk listing, removal of lay representative, failure to address preliminary jurisdictional objection, undisclosed prior CMS/DWP connection as fee-paid FTT judge.
Land Registry Objection
Formal objection to Land Registry regarding registration of charges based on void liability orders. Seeking removal of LR restrictions registered in reliance on instruments confirmed as administrative templates.
Why the 2023 Act Cannot
Lawfully Be Commenced
The 2023 Act is Parliament's own admission that what CMS has been doing is unlawful. Parliament had to pass a new law to authorise what CMS was already doing without authority. But that law has never been commenced — and the analysis below shows why, even if it were commenced, it would be incompatible with Article 6 ECHR in its current form.
The Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 was Parliament's response to CMS operating outside the law. Parliament created a legal framework that would authorise what CMS was already doing. But that framework has not been brought into force. CMS continues to operate as though it has administrative liability order powers that Parliament has provided for but not enacted. This is not merely unlawful. It is the government continuing to enforce orders with no legal authority, knowing that Parliament has attempted to create that authority, while choosing not to exercise the commencement power that would create it.
Source: Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 (c.35) · Andrew Western MP 18 Mar 2026 · Baroness Sherlock Lords Committee 6 Mar 2026
1. The Legislative Chain — Three Acts, None Commenced
| Legislation | What It Did | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 s.25 | Inserted ss.32M and 32N into CSA 1991 — creating the original framework for administrative liability orders | NEVER COMMENCED — 16+ years |
| Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 ss.2–4 | Amended ss.32M and 32N — which were themselves not yet in force. Amended a provision that did not exist in operative law. | NEVER COMMENCED |
| Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 s.6(4) | Provides that ss.2–4 come into force ONLY when s.25 of the 2008 Act comes into force. The tail cannot wag the dog. | In force — triggers not met |
2. The Six Sections of the 2023 Act — What Each Does
| Section | Provision | Status |
|---|---|---|
| s.1 | Interpretation only — definitions of the 1991 Act and 2008 Act | IN FORCE (Royal Assent) |
| s.2 | Making of administrative LO — Secretary of State may make an ALO where DEO is inappropriate or has proved ineffective | NOT IN FORCE |
| s.3 | Power to vary a liability order by regulations — amends s.32N(2) | NOT IN FORCE |
| s.4 | Mandatory appeal right — inserts s.32N(3)–(5). The Secretary of State MUST by regulations make provision for appeal. s.32N(4) bars examination of the calculation on appeal — mirroring s.33(4). | NOT IN FORCE · regulations not made |
| s.5 | Consequential amendments to 2008 Act transitional provisions | IN FORCE (2 months after Royal Assent) |
| s.6 | Extent, commencement, short title — ss.2–4 come into force only when s.25 of the 2008 Act comes into force | IN FORCE — triggers not met |
3. The s.33(3) / s.33(4) Constitutional Paradox
s.33(3) CSA 1991: "Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates' court shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid."
s.33(4) CSA 1991: "On an application under subsection (2), the court shall not question the maintenance calculation under which the payments of child support maintenance fell to be made."
These provisions do not technically contradict each other — but they create a structural paradox. Section 33(3) requires the court to be "satisfied" that payments are due. Section 33(4) prohibits the court from examining whether the calculation generating those payments is correct. The court is therefore asked to be satisfied of the debt while being barred from examining whether the debt was correctly calculated.
The constitutional position: This converts the judicial function from a genuine determination into an administrative endorsement of CMS's own position. The court's "satisfaction" is limited to confirming that CMS has asserted a debt exists. Section 33(3) appears to give the court an independent role. Section 33(4) makes that role hollow. The combination is the Article 6 problem — and it is replicated exactly in the new s.32N(4) of the 2023 Act.
Source: s.33(3) & (4) CSA 1991 · Farley v Child Support Agency [2006] UKHL 31 — Lord Nicholls confirmed the bar is absolute · DWP FOI IR2026/14071 — Article 6 advice withheld under LPP
4. Nine Requirements That Must Be Met Before Commencement Is Lawful
The 2023 Act cannot be commenced without secondary legislation. Based on the statutory framework and the ECHR analysis, the following regulations must be made before the ALO regime can lawfully operate. None have been made.
Pre-Order Notice and Representations
Article 6 requires notice before determination of civil obligations. Regulations must provide the paying parent advance notice of the proposed ALO with at least 21 days to submit representations. Consequence of omission: ALOs made without notice are void for breach of natural justice.
Mandatory s.2 CSA 1991 Welfare Assessment
Section 2 CSA 1991 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected when exercising discretionary powers. CMS has already admitted in writing it has no duty of care to children in the paying parent's household. Every ALO made without documented s.2 compliance is unlawfully made.
Right of Appeal with Power to Set Aside
Section 32N(3) makes the appeal right mandatory — it must be in regulations. Those regulations must specify: the court; the grounds; the period (not less than 28 days); and critically, the power to set aside entirely — not merely remit to CMS. A court that can only send the matter back to the body that made the original decision is not independent for Article 6 purposes. Consequence of omission: Commencement without these regulations is itself unlawful.
Automatic Stay Pending Appeal
Without a stay, an ALO could be enforced before the appeal is determined — seizing wages, registering charges, initiating arrest. Regulations must provide automatic stay on filing an appeal. Consequence of omission: Enforcement during appeal period breaches Article 6 and Article 1 Protocol 1 HRA 1998.
The Calculation Bar — Article 6 Must Be Addressed
Section 32N(4) replicates the s.33(4) bar. The paying parent still cannot have the calculation independently examined at any stage of the ALO enforcement process. Tsfayo [2006] applies: the fact-finding function must at some stage be exercised by a genuinely independent body with power to rehear the facts. The ALO regime has no such stage — the FTT can examine the calculation but its findings have no binding effect on the ALO enforcement.
Surcharge Disclosure
CMS earns 20% on every collection. This financial interest must be disclosed to the paying parent and to any appeal court. A body with a financial interest in the outcome of a decision cannot be impartial for Article 6 purposes (Tsfayo). The surcharge structure may need to be fundamentally restructured for the ALO regime to pass Article 6 scrutiny.
Service Requirements
Regulations must specify how the ALO is served, when service is effective, and what documents must accompany it — including the calculation on which it is based, the appeal rights notice, and a statement of the enforcement powers that will follow.
Treatment of Disputed Calculations
Where a First-tier Tribunal appeal against the calculation is live, regulations must address whether the ALO can be made or enforced pending the FTT determination. Making an ALO while the debt is under FTT appeal risks enforcing a figure that may be varied or set aside.
Scotland-Specific Provisions
Section 6(1) of the 2023 Act extends to Scotland. The judicial system is devolved. Separate regulations are required covering which court hears Scottish ALO appeals; the Acts of Sederunt needed; and the relationship with Scottish civil procedure. Baroness Sherlock admitted in Lords Grand Committee (8 June 2026) she is "personally speaking with key powers in the Scottish judicial system" — confirming the Scottish dimension is unresolved. Without Scotland-specific provisions the regime cannot be commenced in Scotland.
5. Article 6 Compatibility — The ALO Regime as Constructed
| Article 6 Requirement | ALO Regime Position | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Independent tribunal | Secretary of State (CMS) makes the ALO — the same body that calculated the debt and has a financial interest in collecting it | FAILS — Tsfayo [2006] |
| Impartial tribunal | CMS receives a 20% surcharge on every payment collected — a direct financial interest in making and enforcing orders | FAILS — financial interest |
| Challenge to the debt | s.32N(4) replicates s.33(4) — the calculation cannot be questioned on appeal. No forum at any stage can both examine the calculation and vary the order. | FAILS — s.32N(4) bar |
| Notice and opportunity to respond before order | Order made by CMS without any prior hearing. Regulations not yet made specifying notice procedure. | FAILS — regulations not made |
| Effective right of appeal | s.32N(3) makes appeal mandatory — but the regulations have not been made. Commencement without them means no appeal right exists. | FAILS — regulations not made |
| Established by law | 2008 Act s.25 and 2023 Act ss.2–4 never commenced. CMS operates as though they are in force. No commencement order exists. | FAILS — never commenced |
"The new system will uncouple from court processes."
This admission — made in the Lords Grand Committee on 8 June 2026 while debating the Public Services Committee report on CMS — confirms that the existing enforcement regime has been "coupled" to court processes in a manner that the government now acknowledges needs to be changed. If the new regime must "uncouple" from courts, the logical inference is that the current regime has been using court infrastructure without the corresponding judicial authority. This is the government's own minister describing in one word the entire thesis of this investigation.
Hansard: Lords Grand Committee, 8 June 2026 — Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)
Justice Lawyers —
We Need You
This case needs pro bono or reduced-fee representation. The legal arguments are fully documented. The evidence bundle is complete. The judicial admissions are in writing. We are looking for barristers and solicitors specialising in public law, human rights, or criminal law to join this fight.
Legal Professionals — Make Contact Download Full Legal Analysis