HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Ms E complains about the service she received from HM Courts and Tribunals Service. She complains that:

• The court refused her request to postpone a hearing, or hold it remotely, providing inconsistent reasons for the decision.

• The court breached the Equality Act 2010 in failing to consider her disability in its decision • Because of the time taken by HMCTS to respond to her request, she then did not have time to make an application for an adjournment

5. Ms E explained that she was traumatised by the events.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Ms E is seeking to ensure that similar issues do not occur for her, or any other person, in future. She also feels it would be appropriate from HMCTS to pay £1,000 in compensation.

7. While awaiting a scheduled court appointment in November 2024, Ms E became seriously unwell with a heart condition and other medical issues.

8. She requested that the hearing either be postponed or held remotely because of this, as she was too unwell to safely attend in person.

9. Ms E explained that she was told that because it was within two weeks of the hearing, it could not be adjourned without an application. However, because of the time taken by HMCTS to respond, she then did not have time to apply.

Failure to Postpone

12. Ms E complains the court refused her request to postpone a hearing or hold it remotely. She told us that HMCTS provided inconsistent reasons for the decision. She says she was eventually told that because it was without two weeks of the hearing date, she would need to make a formal application, and that ultimately it became too late to do so.

13. HMCTS responded to the complaint on 9 January 2025. It noted that Ms E had requested a postponement because of Covid. It explained that a postponement is not an action that can be made administratively and would require judicial intervention. It notes that no application was received by the court.

14. In its response of 14 February 2025, HMCTS reiterated that the decision on whether to postpone the hearing or hold it remotely would lie with the judge.

15. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

16. HMCTS is correct to say that judicial decisions can only be challenged by appropriate application or appeal. We therefore cannot find that it was a failure of HMCTS that the request was not granted.

Breach of the Equality Act 2010

17. Ms E told us that the court breached the Equality Act 2010 in failing to consider her disability in its decision.

18. Ms E said that according to their own rules, they must meet and consider adjustments. She says she asked for the notes from that meeting, and I was told none were kept. She does not believe that the meeting ever took place because there were no adjustments considered as far as she is aware.

19. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms E to understand the circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

20. During our investigation, we reviewed the UK Government Guidance ‘Reasonable adjustments: a legal duty.” This is a section of the Equality Act 2010, which currently forms the basis of anti-discrimination law in England. The act protects people against discrimination, harassment of victimisation in employment or as users of private and public services based on nine protected characteristics, including age.

21. The guidance includes the following information age discrimination:

22. “The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012, and it is now unlawful to discriminate based on age unless:

• the practice is covered by an exception from the ban • good reason can be shown for the differential treatment (‘objective justification’)

23. The ban on age discrimination is designed to ensure that the new law prohibits only harmful treatment that results in genuinely unfair discrimination because of age. It does not outlaw the many instances of different treatment that are justifiable or beneficial.”

24. In short, organisations such as UKRI have a legal duty to ensure that it does not prevent someone from accessing its services based upon their age.

25. Ms E claim is that UKRI has failed to adhere to its responsibility in this regard. A failure to do so could be considered a breach of the Equality Act.

26. We should explain at this point that we do not have the authority to determine whether the law has been broken. Only a court can do this. For that reason, we cannot take a view on whether UKRI has acted in line with the law. If Ms E wishes to pursue this matter, he would need to do so through the court process.

27. In conclusion, the appropriate route for Ms E take here would be to seek advice from a solicitor regarding possible legal action. We therefore will end consideration of this point here.

Delays

28. Ms E complaints that because of the time taken by HMCTS to respond to her request, she then did not have time to make an application for an adjournment.

29. She said that she was unaware the court had an email address, and even when she asked for it says she was told to just look online. She did make a search, and found three possible addresses, but two turned out to be not in used. She tried unsuccessfully to get through by phone and so felt she had no choice but to make her request for a postponement by post. These delays meant it was not possible.

30. In its response of 9 January 2025, HMCTS noted that it had contributed to the delay, and so offered a payment of £50 as a gesture of goodwill.

31. In a further response (provided on 31 2025), HMCTS explained that it is not possible for the court to signpost customers to every possible means of correspondence.

32. HMCTS said it appreciates that it was very frustrating for Ms E to have to wait longer than she would have liked to speak to someone by phone, but the contact centre was experiencing a high volume of calls which impacted on its ability to respond. HMCTS maintained that Ms E had been informed of additional means in contacting the court, including by email.

33. When looking at any complaint, one of the factors we need to consider is impact. The impact claimed here is that the hearing awas not postponed, but this would not be something that the court of HMCTS is empowered to do in any event. Regardless of the actions taken by HMCTS, the decision not to postpone does lie with the judge, so we cannot find that the actions of HMCTS resulted in this.

34. It is worth noting that even if there had not been a delay, the judge may still have asked for a formal adjournment application anyway (and there is no guarantee it would have been accepted).

35. HMCTS as offered an ex-gratia payment of £50, which we would consider reasonable in light of the inconvenient Ms E had in being able to contact the court. As we would not expect to recommend anything significantly different from this even if the complaint were upheld, we will take the decision to end consideration of this point here.

1. We have carefully considered Ms E’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We were very sorry to read of the circumstances that led to her approaching our office and recognise that this has been a very difficult time for her.

2. For two of the points Ms E raise (the refusal to postpone her hearing and the delays in HMCTS responding to her request), we found no indication that anything went wrong.

3. For the remaining point, a claimed breach of the Equality Act 2010, it is our decision that this would be a matter for a court, not PHSO.