HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr I says he sent HMCTS a Help with Fees application (EX160) along with an application fee on 27 October 2022, but HMCTS had no record of this. Mr I also says HMCTS did not respond to his complaint until he contacted our office, and that its final response did not address the concerns he raised.

4. Mr I says this situation has had a severe emotional and psychological impact on him. He describes experiencing prolonged distress over more than three years due to repeated administrative failures, lack of communication, and what he feels has been an obstruction to accessing justice. He says this has affected his mental health, left him feeling ignored and powerless, and damaged his trust in the judicial system.

5. Mr I seeks the following outcomes:

• a formal finding of maladministration in relation to HMCTS’ handling of his Help with Fees application, its record-keeping, and its communication with him • a recommendation that HMCTS correct the administrative record to reflect that errors were made in 2022 • a recommendation that HMCTS formally acknowledge its errors to the court • recommendations for procedural improvements to prevent similar issues occurring in future.

6. In October 2022, Mr I submitted his initial claim to HMCTS. This included a Help with Fees application (EX160) and supporting documents. Mr I says he provided all required information at that time and later supplied evidence to show that the documents had been submitted by email and acknowledged by the court.

7. HMCTS subsequently informed Mr I that it had not received payment information and later indicated that a cheque may have been received. However, HMCTS did not process a valid payment or Help with Fees application before the relevant deadline.

8. On 23 September 2022, the court had ordered that a hearing fee of £346 must be paid by 30 December 2022, failing which the claim would be struck out. As no valid payment or application was recorded by that date, the claim was struck out on 10 January 2023 and the scheduled hearing of 30 January 2023 was vacated.

9. In 2023, Mr I applied to reinstate his claim. A hearing was listed for 26 July 2023. Prior to the hearing, Mr I submitted a witness statement and says he also requested a remote hearing or an adjournment due to illness (COVID-19). He told us this request was not passed to the judge, and as a result he was unable to participate in the hearing or pursue an appeal within the required timeframe.

10. HMCTS has said that Mr I’s witness statement was received in July 2023 and placed on the court file before the hearing. It explained that administrative staff are not legally trained and cannot assess the content of documents submitted, and that it is for the judge to consider the evidence. HMCTS also said it cannot comment on or intervene in judicial decisions.

11. Mr I complained to HMCTS about these issues. HMCTS sent its initial complaint response on 29 September 2023, apologising for delays in responding due to staffing pressures. It maintained that it could not find evidence that the hearing fee had been paid or that a valid Help with Fees application had been received before the deadline.

12. Mr I remained dissatisfied and requested a review. In its review response of 19 December 2023, HMCTS reiterated that the claim had been struck out in line with the court order due to non-payment of the hearing fee. It also confirmed that Mr I did not attend the hearing on 26 July 2023.

13. HMCTS issued its final response on 23 January 2024, not upholding the complaint. It offered Mr I £50 as an ex-gratia payment in recognition of delays in handling his complaint.

14. On 26 June 2025, Mr I submitted a new Help with Fees application, along with supporting evidence including bank statements, a witness statement, and an application for relief from sanctions. Between July and September 2025, Mr I says he was repeatedly asked to provide documents he had already submitted and did not receive a substantive decision.

15. On 23 September 2025, Mr I submitted a further complaint to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. He also copied this correspondence to senior bodies including HMCTS, the Ministry of Justice, and others. Mr I says he did not receive an acknowledgement or response.

16. In October 2025, more than three months after his June 2025 application, Mr I had still not received a decision or a substantive update.

17. In January 2026, Mr I made a further complaint to HMCTS. In its other final response of 26 February 2026, HMCTS acknowledged that it had located Mr I’s earlier email of 27 October 2022, which included a Help with Fees application. It said this email had been overlooked and subsequently deleted in line with its data retention processes.

18. HMCTS apologised for this error and confirmed that the documents had now been referred to a judge as a matter of urgency. It also confirmed that an order had been made to set aside the earlier decision and that a hearing had been listed for 30 March 2026 to consider Mr I’s application submitted in October 2025.

19. HMCTS offered Mr I £300 in recognition of the poor handling of his correspondence and the impact this had on the progression of his claim.

Mr I says he sent HMCTS a Help with Fees application (EX160) along with an application fee on 27 October 2022, but HMCTS had no record of this. Mr I also says HMCTS did not respond to his complaint until he contacted our office, and that its final response did not address the concerns he raised.

22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found HMCTS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

23. We have found that HMCTS did make an error in the way it handled Mr I’s application. In particular, it failed to identify and act on the Help with Fees application Mr I submitted in October 2022. HMCTS has since acknowledged that this information was overlooked. This was an administrative failing.

24. This error contributed to Mr I’s claim being struck out in January 2023, as the court proceeded on the basis that no valid payment or Help with Fees application had been received. We recognise that this had a significant impact on Mr I, including the loss of an earlier opportunity to have his case considered.

25. We have also considered Mr I’s concerns about communication and complaint handling. We have seen that HMCTS delayed in responding to his complaint and, on more than one occasion, did not respond as promptly or clearly as it should have. HMCTS has acknowledged these failings and apologised.

26. In its final response of 26 February 2026, HMCTS accepted that it had overlooked Mr I’s Help with Fees application and explained how this occurred. It apologised for this error and confirmed that steps had been taken to refer the matter back to a judge. An order has now been made to set aside the earlier position, and a hearing has been listed to consider Mr I’s application.

27. We consider this to be an important step in putting things right. It restores Mr I’s access to the court process and gives him the opportunity to have his case considered. While this cannot undo the time that has passed, it addresses the key practical impact of the earlier error.

28. HMCTS has also offered Mr I £300 in recognition of the poor handling of his correspondence and the distress and inconvenience caused. Taking into account the nature of the failings identified and the steps taken to restore his position, we consider this to be a reasonable and proportionate financial remedy.

29. We have also considered Mr I’s concern that his request for a remote hearing or adjournment was not passed to the judge. HMCTS has explained that documents submitted are placed on the court file and that decisions about hearings are matters for judicial discretion. We have not seen evidence that HMCTS failed in its administrative role in this respect. In any event, the relisting of the hearing provides Mr I with a further opportunity to present his case.

30. Overall, we have found that HMCTS acted in line with the Principles of Good Administration in ‘putting things right’. This includes acknowledging its mistakes, providing an explanation, apologising, offering compensation, and taking practical steps to address the consequences of its error.

31. We recognise the significant impact this situation has had on Mr I over a prolonged period. We understand how frustrating and distressing it must have been to feel that his concerns were not being acknowledged and that his access to the court process had been affected. We appreciate the effort he has taken to pursue this matter.

32. While we recognise this is not the outcome Mr I was hoping for, we hope our explanation helps to clarify what happened and why we have reached this decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mr I’s complaint about HMCTS. We have found that HMCTS did make errors in how it handled Mr I’s application, particularly in failing to identify and act on information he had submitted in October 2022.

2. However, we have also found that HMCTS has since acknowledged for these errors and taken steps to put things right. This includes apologising, offering financial compensation, and taking action to restore Mr I’s position within the court process. Taking all of this into account, we consider that HMCTS has now done enough to put right the injustice caused.