HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr I complains that HMCTS did not email him a court order, as agreed, meaning there was a delay in him receiving this.

5. Mr I says this resulted in:

• a feeling of uncertainty on the court’s position for over two months.

• being unable to prepare and submit informed responses in good time.

• unnecessary stress.

6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr I is seeking service improvements and a financial remedy.

7. Mr I took part in a hearing on 18 December 2024. The written court order was posted to him on 30 January 2025.

8. In preparation of this hearing, Mr I informed HMCTS that all updates regarding his case should be sent by email, as he was often unable to access or review documents sent by post.

9. Mr I queried the progress of the case on 3 January 2025 as he had not received the court order.

10. HMCTS sent Mr I a copy of the court order generated on 30 January 2025 via email on 17 February.

11. The order stated that Mr I could request permission to appeal the decision by 6 March 2025, with a hearing date of 25 April if permission to appeal was granted.

12. Mr I submitted his request for permission to appeal on 6 March, in line with the deadline set out in the order.

13. When the application for the permission to appeal was considered, it was refused. This was on the grounds that it was an ‘abuse of process’ and ‘totally without merit’. Mr I went on to receive a general civil restraint order from the court in question, meaning he is unable to make further claims or applications on that court for three years.

14. In its complaint response HMCTS accepted that it failed to communicate details of the court hearings via email as Mr I had requested. It apologised to Mr I for this and offered him a £50 payment to acknowledge the delays in providing him with the court order via email.

18. Mr I explains that he is unhappy that HMCTS did not email him the court order and posted it instead. Mr I’s court hearing took place on 18 December 2024, and Mr I states that he did not receive the court’s documentation via email until 18 February 2025 resulting in a two month delay.

19. There is a dispute between Mr I and HMCTS as to whether the email with the court order was provided on 17 or 18 February 2025. The evidence form HMRC persuades us that on balance, the email was sent on 17 February 2025.

20. This complaint appears to be based on a misunderstanding around when the court order was drafted and ready for issue. The evidence shows that whilst the hearing took place on 18 December 2024, the documentation detailing the court order was not complete until 30 January 2025.

21. HMCTS should have sent it to Mr I by email that day, rather than post. It emailed the order just over two weeks later.

22. With this in mind, the documentation was delayed by eighteen days, not two months. But that does appear to have been an avoidable delay.

23. Once in receipt of the documents Mr I submitted his request for permission to appeal on 6 March 2025 in line with the deadline set.

24. Mr I feels the delay in receiving the correspondence affected his ability to fully prepare his responses to the court and in consequence the decision in his case. We appreciate administrative issues can contribute to a sense of being unable to participate fully in the process.

25. But we cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that the delay impacted Mr I’s ability to prepare his case. It is worth noting that at this stage he was simply asking for permission to appeal, rather than submitting his grounds of appeal. We cannot know, beyond mere speculation, how having 18 more days might have changed what he submitted. Nor could we say whether any such impact had a bearing on the judge’s decision on his case – a judge’s decision is not in our remit to look at.

26. For this reason, we cannot say the outcome would have been different, or more favourable for Mr I had he received the correspondence sooner and had more time to prepare his submission. He submitted his request for permission to appeal in line with the deadline.

27. We next considered the stress and uncertainty Mr I said he experienced as a result of the delay and whether HMCTS has done enough to put that right for him.

28. HMCTS’s complaint handling guidance says: ‘if we have treated people unfairly or given poor service, we should apologise. In many cases thanking the customers for their feedback and saying sorry for a mistake or lack of service is a suitable way of making amends. In some circumstances, we should also consider making a goodwill offer (ex-gratia)’.

29. The guidance also explains how it considers whether ex gratia is appropriate. It says ‘Where there has been no financial loss, consider whether our mistakes have caused an injustice or had a serious or significant impact on the user, and make a payment on this basis’.

30. It goes on to say that an ex gratia payment of up to £50 is considered when there is a ‘one-to-two-month delay in responding to correspondence’. Although this scenario is not exactly a delay in ‘responding to’ correspondence, the impact of delaying issuing the order is the same – it was stressful for Mr I to discover and left him feeling rushed. Therefore, we think HMCTS was right to issue an ex-gratia payment in line with this part of its guidance – this means we think £50 was an appropriate sum to put right the sense of uncertainty and stress Mr I suffered.

31. We recognise that Mr I does not feel this is enough. That is primarily because he thinks the delay impacted on the judge’s decision, but we have not reached a view that it did and therefore do not consider that HMCTS needs to do anything to put that right.

1. We have carefully considered Mr I’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

2. We have decided not to consider Mr I’s concerns further. This is because we think HMCTS has already taken appropriate action to put things right.

3. We thank Mr I for bringing his complaint to us. We understand this has been a distressing time and Mr I feels let down by HMCTS actions. We hope our explanation fully explains our decision and reassures him about the service received.