In case either of a child’s parents (usually it is the father) avoids paying maintenance, the local government is obliged to aid the child and pay the allowance. Money for that purpose comes from the state budget. The municipalities make maintenance payments quickly and efficiently. NIK has pointed out, though, that as a result of indolence of public officials, in 42 percent of cases covered by the audit, decisions were taken based on incomplete documents. Hence, there was no guarantee that the allowances always went to the most needy.
Local governments are also obliged to collect money from parents who do not pay maintenance. In this regard local governments are ineffective and negligent. After the so-called old Maintenance Fund that was liquidated in 2004, PLN 6 billion remained to be collected from debtors. Despite the change of law, in 2005-2010 the debt of people avoiding maintenance payments increased by another PLN 4 billion. It went up because the system cannot handle debt collection. The recoverability of money in such cases totals about 13 percent. It means that in PLN 100 of paid maintenance, only PLN 13 is recovered from debtors and the rest is added by tax payers.
It is the case because municipalities delay e.g. establishing the debtors’ financial standing and the reasons why they do not pay maintenance. It takes them too long to collect the debtors’ health data or income statements. As a consequence, the decision to return the money is also delayed. Moreover, the local governments often delay even informing bailiffs that action needs to be taken against the debtor. Another problem is that bailiffs operate without determination, so much needed in such circumstances. According to NIK, municipalities in such cases should regularly go to courts to complain about the bailiffs’ inactivity or indolence. Usually they do not do that, though, saying they do not want to spoil good relations with the bailiffs.
In case the parent avoiding maintenance payments does not work, the municipality has the right to encourage him or her to take a job. The audited municipalities took such measures only with 35 percent of debtors. Only 3 percent of them started to work. In some cases the issue was the lack of offers from Job Centres, in others debtors were not interested in offers presented to them. NIK has also noted that the local governments did not use at all the possibility of sending an unemployed debtor to do public works.
Another sanction, being the request to seize the driving licence of the person avoiding maintenance payments, was not used by the municipalities to a sufficient degree. It was applied in 35 percent of cases. Every tenth person with seized driving licence started to make due payments.
In most cases the local governments, ineffectively fighting with stubborn debtors, simply notified law enforcement bodies. Nevertheless, this way of recovering money proved ineffective, either. An accusation was brought only against every tenth person. Other proceedings were cancelled or their institution was declined. Besides, the very accusation of a person avoiding maintenance payments does not guarantee that the debtor will start to pay. According to NIK, such a tool would be more effective if the accused debtor was obliged to take up work (including public works).
The possibility of reporting debtors to the Economic Information Bureau gives some hopes of improving the situation. There is a chance that it will increase debt recoverability and encourage parents to pay child support.
