The second annual report by the Independent Case Examiner says the CSA is getting better at handling complaints.

But it identifies a number of continuing problems, such as delays and poor communication and some new ones, including paternity issues.

BBC News Online looks at some of the complaints made.

Paternity

The report describes how Mr W did not realise until his child was taken into foster car tht he was not the father, although he had been asked for maintenance.

He raised his concerns with the CSA, but was given no information on how to proceed.

He also claimed he had been given misleading information that he would be remunerated for the cost of a DNA test.

The Independent Case Examiner says it appears parents who cooperate with the CSA are penalised by having to pay for a DNA case, while those who do not are not obliged to cover the costs.

Poor enforcement

Mrs R applied for child maintenance in May 1995, giving some details of her ex-partner's address and full details of his phone numbers.

The CSA's business unit did not contact Mrs R for four months, asked for more details and then, after several phone calls from her, imposed an interim maintenance assessment for �103.95 a week in September 1996.

The unit contacted the ex-partner in October 1996. He made it quite clear he would not cooperate from the offset, but a liability order was not obtained until July 1997.

The case file was then mislaid in August 1997 and not found for a month.

Bailiff action was begun in September 1997, but only �140 was collected and Mrs R only received �48.59 after bailiff fees had been deducted.

On 31 March 1998, the business unit manager asked the enforcement manager to consider taking the next step in enforcing payment which secured �489.46 for Mrs R.

Falsely raising client's expectations

Mr A, who had care of his child, was told in May 1997 that he was owed maintenance arrears of �7,559.45 for the period from April 1993 to March 1997.

But the figures provided to him by the CSA were inaccurate and he was only owed �3,097.94 as about �4,000 was owed to the government.

Even after he complained, the CSA continued to give Mr A inaccurate information and only apologised for its mistake after intervention from the Independent Case Examiner.

In addition, Ms B applied for maintenance in May 1995. An inquiry form was sent to her former partner in July 1995 and an interim maintenance assessment for �57.26 a week was imposed in January 1996.

Ms B was advised she would be receiving weekly maintenance payments.

However, the CSA took some time to secure payments and its job was made more difficult because Ms B's ex-partner was self-employed.

A liability order was granted on 11 December 1997 for �4,359.94.

However, several days later the interim assessment was reviewed and found to be invalid.

This meant the liability order was also invalid.

However, in the meantime, the ex-partner gave more details, allowing a maintenance assessment to be made and in February 1998 his liability was calculated, backdated to July 1995.

The CSA decided that he only owed �260.89 in total.