4th Report - Work of the County Court

The criminal justice system is often the focus of mainstream attention and gets recognition for delivering justice, but with over a million claims each year, and a vast jurisdiction, the County Court is where most citizens and businesses encounter the justice system. It is imperative that the improvement of the County Court becomes a key priority of the Ministry of Justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16) Delays in the County Court

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ has never been more relevant to the work of the County Court: the current level of delays is unacceptable. Whilst we recognise the pandemic significantly contributed to the backlog in cases, the available data clearly shows it only exacerbated existing trends. The rising caseload, and increased delays were in motion before 2020, and post-pandemic there has been little by way of improvement. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

The civil justice quarterly statistics do not aid transparency or allow for effective data-led scrutiny into the performances of individual courts. The County Court is known to house significant regional variation across England and Wales yet there is no evidence of pro-active measurement of these regional differences, analysis of why such variation occurs, or sharing of good practice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 31)

HMCTS must collect and publish data on individual court and tribunal performances to allow for the identification of regional disparities, and support investment planning in reducing County Court delays. The data must include the timeliness of pre-trial stages, rates of settlement and enable HMCTS’ performance to be measured against published key performance indicators. (Recommendation, Paragraph 32)

As part of any future review, HMCTS must develop a manageable programme to reduce the delays to pre-2015 levels by the end of this Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33) 55

We recognise the role that block listing plays in providing flexibility to the schedule considering the high settlement rate in the County Court. However, we have heard concerns that it negatively impacts court users through financial implications and the increased frustrations of all parties resulting in more people settling as a means to end the cycle of uncertainty. This ultimately undermines trust in the system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

HMCTS, together with the Judiciary, must work together to collect the necessary data on listing and settlement rates to allow for data-informed listing practices ensuring any over-listing is minimised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)

Litigants must be able to recover the legal, travel, and subsistence costs from HMCTS wasted as a result of over-listing and/or poor court administration preventing their cases from being heard. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)

HMCTS, and the Ministry of Justice, must facilitate the greater use of remote hearings, working alongside the Senior Judiciary to provide national guidance outlining when virtual hearings should be used. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44) Contacting the County Court

Despite its intended aim of simplifying the operation of the County Court, the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and results in debilitating delays for all parties. The current methods of contacting a county court do not work. Users cannot find the necessary contact information, and centralised inboxes and phone numbers appear unmonitored as they fail to provide the required response rate. (Conclusion, Paragraph 53)

The CNBC must be integrated with local court case management systems to improve coordination and responsiveness. Allocated claims handlers and a clear point of contact must be introduced to ensure claimants can speak with someone knowledgeable and responsible for their case as it progresses through the County Court system. (Recommendation, Paragraph 54)

‘Court and tribunal’ finder must be updated with up-to-date information about each county court, what type of claims they hear and all essential contact information. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55) 56 Judicial and staff capacity

While we welcome the recent introduction of location-based advertising for full-time judicial roles, the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession. It is vital more is done to attract high performing candidates to the district-bench. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

Any review into the County Court must include an evaluation of its judicial recruitment offer. This has to consider pay and progression opportunities, an assessment of the current working conditions, and evaluate the regional recruitment initiatives. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)

The Committee would like to pay tribute to the dedication and hard work of frontline staff in the County Court. However, the current staffing crisis in HMCTS is untenable, impeding its ability to support County Court users and ensuring efficient access to justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 74)

A future review must include an in-depth assessment of the recruitment and retention crisis of the County Court, extending the existing discussions regarding HMCTS pay scales to include assessments of current and required workload capacities ensuring any additional resource is effectively allocated where it is needed most. This assessment needs to learn from areas of good practice such as Wales, and Manchester, and understand why these areas are more successful in retaining staff. (Recommendation, Paragraph 75) Access to justice

Despite persistent calls, litigants-in-person are not adequately supported through the court process. The language used in court applications is inaccessible, court procedure is not explained, and there is limited support available. The insufficient data collection on the prevalence of litigants-in- person means the Ministry of Justice cannot understand how to direct and provide the support needed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 85)

HMCTS must increase the collection and publication of data on litigants-in- person. This needs to include the type of claim, timeliness of issue to trial or settlement, and court location. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86)

The Ministry of Justice and Civil Justice Council must publish guidance for litigants-in-person. It needs to explain the claims process, their responsibilities, and the implications of failing to comply with deadlines. This must be written in clear, accessible language and be available in accessible formats. (Recommendation, Paragraph 87) 57 Condition of the court estate

It is unacceptable that the court estate has been allowed to enter such disrepair due to years of capital underfunding. While we welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of the “chronic” underinvestment within the court estate, this Government must end the cycle of underfunding. (Conclusion, Paragraph 99)

We are concerned by HMCTS’ failure to recognise the importance of the condition of the physical estate for both the functioning of courts and the public’s perception of civil justice. We have both seen and heard of unacceptable examples of poorly maintained court buildings, its impact on staff morale, and the ability to deliver swift access to justice. We are concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding capital funding announcements in tackling the £1.3 billion court maintenance backlog and how successful its Estate Strategy will be in handling the scale of the backlog. (Conclusion, Paragraph 100)

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS publish a detailed breakdown of how the £220 million in capital funding was spent between March 2023 and March 2025. The breakdown should include further information as to the type of maintenance and repairs completed, and at which courts they were completed, to aid transparency in Government spending. This detailed breakdown must be published by the end of March

HMCTS must collect and publish regular data on the condition of the court estate. This is imperative to informing preventative repairs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)

We recognise the difficulty in retrofitting old court buildings to meet the required accessibility standards set out in Section 20 of the Equality Act

All works to increase accessibility, in all of its aspects, of the court estate must be prioritised and delivered at pace. It is not satisfactory for lift repairs to take months, or for disabled users to be taken through back entrances in order to access the County Court. Any review must cover accessibility for both users and staff. There should be measurable targets, a clear timeline and a fully costed budget for such improvements to be made. (Recommendation, Paragraph 111)

HMCTS must introduce a standardised process by which Court and judicial listing staff proactively engage with court users on any access requirements for litigants, witnesses or legal practitioners prior to listing cases. (Recommendation, Paragraph 112) 58 Digitisation

The Reform programme was over ambitious and ultimately under-delivered. We acknowledge the diverse range of jurisdictions that fall within the County Court which may have contributed to the challenges the programme faced. However, we are not satisfied with HMCTS’ evidence: it offered weak justifications and failed to adequately acknowledge the extent to which the Reform Programme failed to deliver the necessary, and promised, digital transformation of the County Court. (Conclusion, Paragraph 126)

The civil projects that were delivered under the Reform programme were not sufficiently tested with practitioners in mind. As a result, the avoidable failures of Reform have led to unacceptable amounts of dual running, with one claim requiring interactions with multiple systems, and further inefficiencies in the County Court. (Conclusion, Paragraph 127)

All future digital reforms must be co-designed with users and stakeholders and should not be rolled out until they have proven reliable through extensive piloting and testing. (Recommendation, Paragraph 128)

The Ministry of Justice must, as a matter of urgency, review all descoped work and prioritise its digitisation. Without this, we are left with an incomplete and inefficient system at significant public expense. (Recommendation, Paragraph 129)

A single case management system must be introduced to provide real time status updates for all cases, integrating both Reform and legacy systems. (Recommendation, Paragraph 130)

It is very difficult to understand why the County Court continues to rely on paper files, which need to be shipped around the country at great cost. Paper is a serious cause of the delays in the County Court, caused by a “patchwork” of systems and case reference numbers, and standing at direct odds with the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to digital transformation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 136)

All claims must be issued a single reference number regardless of the “off-ramps and on-ramps” between paper and digital systems. (Recommendation, Paragraph 137)

Use of postal services for sending paper files must be replaced with email or other electronic methods. Postal options should be an opt-in service as already implemented across multiple Government agencies to effectively mitigate against digital exclusion. (Recommendation, Paragraph 138)

HMCTS must enhance existing electronic systems to support the upload of larger documents for all types of claims heard in the County Court. (Recommendation, Paragraph 139) 59 Other opportunities for reform

Mediation is a viable out of court route with early signs of success in the County Court. It offers claimants a quicker route to seeking justice, one not beset by delays or missing files. (Conclusion, Paragraph 146)

As part of any future review into the County Court, an evaluation of mandatory mediation must be undertaken to understand whether it can be effectively deployed in other claim types. (Recommendation, Paragraph 147)

Despite the bold ambitions of the Ministry of Justice, the piecemeal approach that has been taken to digitisation hampers any intentions of adopting a fully digital court process. Existing systems inhibit the early adoption of AI or a move to digital court bundles despite the innovation occurring in the legal sector. (Conclusion, Paragraph 154)

Following the completion of the £1 billion Reform Programme, HMCTS must prioritise the roll out of existing systems from other jurisdictions, such as CE Filing, which are well-regarded by legal professionals. These should not be replaced for the sake of change alone; instead, efforts must focus on integration and interoperability, ensuring successful tools are preserved and enhanced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 155)

The Ministry of Justice must launch a consultation, into how it plans to effectively use AI to improve the performance and operations of the County Court and report its conclusions by the end of 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 156) Conclusions on the Work of the County Court

The County Court is the ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system in England and Wales. It is beset by delays as a result of a failed attempt at digital reform, recruitment and retention issues, and a complex and dysfunctional “patchwork” of outdated paper-based and digital systems. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157)

The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are well- established, and openly recognised by Ministers and officials, yet it is unclear how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, intends to address them. The recent reviews into both sentencing and the criminal courts, highlight an absence of any attention or commitment to improving the dire situation currently facing the County Court. The Committee found that such problems would 60 be all the greater without the highly commendable efforts of court staff to operate a system that ultimately fails to deliver civil justice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 158)

We recommend an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court. This review must be launched by Spring 2026 and encompass recruitment and retention challenges within both the Judiciary and HMCTS, establish a realistic and sustainable plan for future digitisation and capital investment, and explore the future role of artificial intelligence. The overarching goal must be to reduce the systemic delays and inefficiencies entrenched across the County Court. It is not tenable to continue without fundamental reform. (Recommendation, Paragraph 159) 61