Sign in / up

back to article MoJ digital software glitch sends thousands of divorcees back to negotiating table

A software glitch on the government's online divorce settlement form, present since April 2014, could lead to thousands of couples having to tear up their financial agreements and re-open negotiations. The technical fault was found on HM Courts and Tribunals “Form E”, with the online calculator failing to deduct liabilities …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. BearishTendencies

    So is this.....

    An internal error, a GDS error or a supplier error?

    Whichever it is, the testing sounds shockingly bad

    1 0 Reply
    1. unwarranted triumphalism
      Reply Icon

      'Testing'

      What testing?

      'Let's deploy this into live without testing it'

      'It's broken'

      'Quick, blame QA'

      7 1 Reply
    2. Mark 85
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      Re: So is this.....

      They use the MS motto: "We let our customers do our testing."

      2 0 Reply
  2. Sykobee

    Simple form testing should have caught this really early. End-to-end tests are not difficult to write with modern testing frameworks. And obviously there should have been a calculation service within the application that could also be unit tested. There are multiple points of failure here.

    But I suspect the blame leads with outsourcing the software development to a big IT house for a lot of money, and that IT house putting it's cheapest developers onto the problem (often grads lured by slightly above average graduate salary rates).

    5 0 Reply
    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      The people writing the tests are only human, too. Code has bugs; tests have bugs.

      7 1 Reply
      1. Vic
        Reply Icon

        Code has bugs; tests have bugs.

        That's why you get a different group to write the tests. The chances of both groups making the same error are small, so if you get a discrepancy, you investigate. Sometimes it's the test. Often, it isn't.

        Vic.

        4 1 Reply
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        You agree and write the tests long before you write a line of code (not that websites are proper code, but the principle is the same).

        0 1 Reply
        1. The First Dave
          Reply Icon

          In what way are they not 'proper'?

          0 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Testing'

    "What testing?

    'Let's deploy this into live without testing it'

    'It's broken'

    'Quick, blame QA'"

    or

    "What testing?

    Let's test it quickly.

    It's broken.

    Did we test it?

    Yes, but it's broken.

    You said yes, so it's been tested - let's deploy it"

    4 0 Reply
  4. Mage Silver badge

    digital software?

    So did they previously use an analogue hydrological computer programmed by dials?

    3 0 Reply
    1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      Re: digital software?

      Why of course, it's called the Glooper and is run by Hubert (assisted by Igor).

      Lot better than an abacus, but you will need a raincoat or umbrella

      4 0 Reply

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. BebopWeBop
        Reply Icon

        Re: digital software?

        And watch out for reality based sideffects (obviously dreamt up by a real programmer)

        0 0 Reply
      3. Tom 38
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: digital software?

        Haha! Ahahahaha!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ... Can you get me a glass of water please? ... HAHA HAHA!!!

        Wait, that can't be right Igor

        (RIP TP)

        0 0 Reply
  5. x 7

    lets sue the MoJ

    now I know why the figures for my last two wives were so much higher than the previous ones......they're ripping me off

    1 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous C0ward
      Reply Icon

      fool me once, shame on you

      fool me twice, shame on me

      0 0 Reply
      1. DavCrav
        Reply Icon

        Re: fool me once, shame on you

        "fool me once, shame on you

        fool me twice, shame on me"

        As George W. Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

        1 0 Reply

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge
    FAIL

    whats the betting several people spotted this ,did the correct figures manually , and told them about it , and they ignored it?

    16 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      At least two. My ex and I, having come up with as near an amicable as possible settlement both did so - our subsequent conversation (began with an wtf moment, was a classic 'the bastards are lying to us' followed by a recognition that cockup rather than conspiracy was the most likely explanation). And no, neither of us was contacted, although the judge - calculator in hand agreed with us). He might make a third.

      8 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Needless to say, neither of our solicitors picked it up!

        0 0 Reply
        1. Mark 85
          Reply Icon

          The only error that a solicitor or lawyer would pick up is an error in their billing.

          2 0 Reply
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            May I correct. An error in their billing that disadvantages them.

            9 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      It's an Acrobat form

      Like others I found (by doing my own checks and addings up) that the form E wasn't doing it right. So I put in the correct answers using Foxit (an earlier one without the adware etc) and submitted. But then that is the least of my woes!

      0 0 Reply
  8. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    I can't believe this wasn't spotted ages ago. House worth £300k, mortgage £200k, net position, assets of £300k. WTF?

    2 0 Reply
    1. The Nazz
      Reply Icon

      Could be worse ....

      Judge : Wife keeps house worth £300k, husband keeps mortgage £200k and given directions to nearest park bench.

      4 1 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Could be worse ....

        Well that's progress, at least directions are now being given.

        0 0 Reply
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where there's blame, there's a claim!

    Compo?

    0 0 Reply
  10. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    It's all legal, innit.

    Why on earth would they want it to be right?

    This way all the lawyers get paid three times. Once to do the job, once to do it all over again with different numbers and once to sue whoever's responsible for it being wrong in the first place.

    0 0 Reply
  11. kain preacher

    Let me guess. This was written in house with access and VB in under a hour.

    0 0 Reply
  12. Cincinnataroo

    If nobody discovered this, or bothered to report it for that long: Society is full of wallies. Going down the gurgler is deserved.

    0 0 Reply
  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If there's one thing I can't stand......

    ......It's analogue software

    0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon