HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr X says that a 25-day driving disqualification was incorrectly applied on 18 December 2023 and complains about the length of time it took HMCTS to rectify the error. Mr X says that although HMCTS relisted the case, and the court confirmed on 28 December that the disqualification should be lifted, the ban remained in effect until 11 January 2024.

4. Mr X also complains that the formal responses provided at both HMCTS’ review and final stages, together with the £300 of redress, do not adequately reflect the impact this has had on him, including the effects on his mental health. He further complains that the subsequent response, which includes an additional £200, does not properly recognise that impact.

5. Mr X says that this situation, had both emotional and financial consequences, including preventing him from spending Christmas with his family, which resulted in him spending it alone. Mr X says this also severely impacted his physical and mental health.

6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr X is seeking an increased offer of financial compensation.

7. On 18 December 2023, a court considered an allegation that Mr X had committed a motoring offence. We understand this related to an allegation that he failed to provide information about the identity of the driver (an MS90 offence).

8. Before the hearing, Mr X sent documents to the court related to his case. Because of an administrative error, HMCTS did not provide these documents to the court. Mr X was therefore convicted and disqualified from driving. HMCTS then notified DVLA so the disqualification could be added to Mr X’s driving licence record.

9. On 28 December 2023, HMCTS identified its error and informed the court. The conviction was overturned and the driving disqualification was lifted. On 29 December 2023, HMCTS sent an electronic notification to DVLA confirming that the disqualification had been removed and asking DVLA to remove the endorsement. This was through HMCTS’ Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) System, a secure digital system used by the courts to transmit information about driving related offences, directly to the DVLA.

10. On 3 January 2024, Mr X complained to HMCTS that the endorsement had not been removed. He said this caused him significant distress because he could not drive and had to cancel plans to see family over the Christmas period.

11. HMCTS replied on 19 January 2024. It said it could not explain why DVLA did not act on the electronic notification. It also said that, when Mr X first raised the issue, HMCTS provided him with manual confirmation that the conviction had been overturned. HMCTS noted that the endorsement was removed on 11 January 2024.

12. HMCTS acknowledged the distress caused by its initial error. It apologised and offered Mr X £300. After further correspondence with Mr X, and following contact from our office, HMCTS increased the offer to £500.

13. Mr X is dissatisfied with this offer and says it does not reflect the distress and inconvenience he experienced. He says he has a long-term mental health condition, which was worsened by these events. He also says that, despite the conviction being overturned, he still had to attend court for a retrial which would not otherwise have been necessary. He says he has had to “fight for justice” and that this has been “an uphill battle all the way.”

17. There is no dispute HMCTS made an error when it failed to put Mr X’s documents before the court. Our role has been therefore to look at the impact of that error and at whether HMCTS has yet done enough to put matter right for Mr X. In our view, it has.

18. The evidence we have seen shows that, between 18 December 2023 and 28 December 2023 Mr X was unfairly prevented from driving lawfully. It also shows this was a direct result of HMCTS’s error, something which it has already acknowledged and apologised for.

19. We have also seen that, on 29 December, HMCTS put matters right by telling DVLA the driving disqualification had been lifted. We would not have expected it do more. We note that DVLA did not action this until 11 January, but we cannot hold DVLA responsible for this. This is a matter Mr X would need to pursue with DVLA directly.

20. Under our Principles of Good Administration being customer focused - we expect organisations to deal with individuals helpfully and promptly. We are satisfied that DVLA met our expectations in this instance.

21. We have noted Mr X’s contention that HMCTS’s offer of remedy does not adequately reflect the impact these events had on him, including the effects on his mental health. In particular, the struggles he says he experienced to get HMCTS to properly consider his complaint.

22. As we had said, the evidence shows that HMCTS responded quickly to Mr X’s concerns and made a prompt offer of remedy. Although Mr X remained dissatisfied with this offer, and continued to pursue his complaint, we cannot say HMCTS did anything wrong in remaining consistent in its response.

23. It is important to note that, when HMCTS provide a review or a final response, they will often repeat information given in their first reply. A review response is issued when a complaint has already been answered once, but referred for reconsideration, usually by someone more senior or independent to ensure the original reply was reasonable and fair. A final response is the last stage of HMCTS’ internal complaints process and confirms its position, explains the outcome, and sets out what further steps can be taken if a complainant remains dissatisfied. The evidence shows that HMCTS followed this process.

24. We can see that as HMCTS’ first response contained an apology and an offer of compensation. At the review stage, HMCTS explained that its initial response was appropriate. It reiterated its apology and confirmed that if Mr X accepted its offer of financial remedy, it would be paid promptly. HMCTS also explained that it had to be ‘mindful of public money’.

25. Under our Principles of Good Administration - putting things right, we would expect an organisation to acknowledge its mistakes and apologise, and, where appropriate, provide a financial remedy for any distress or inconvenience caused. HMCTS actions are aligned with our expectations.

26. We have carefully considered the adequacy of HMCTS’s offer of financial remedy. To assist in assessing the appropriate level of financial remedy, as well as policy and guidance, we use our Severity of Injustice scale (our scale). We also refer to previous cases where we have made similar recommendations.

27. Our scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent our judgement about the sort of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend. The scale will be used for complaints where the person affected has asked for financial remedy and we consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

28. The evidence shows that HMCTS offered Mr X £500 in recognition of the impact. This is in line with level two of our scale, which applies when the injustice occurred has had a relatively low impact, often involving a degree of distress or inconvenience, or where a more serious injustice occurred, but was in short duration, or a one-off.

29. As we have said, the period of unfair disqualification lasted between 18 December 2023 and 28 December. As noted earlier, we cannot attribute the additional days (to 11 January 2024) to HMCTS. Even if we did, we would still consider the total duration of just over three weeks to be a short period, and therefore still consistent with level two of our Scale.

30. Financial awards at this level of our scale are typically between £120 and £550. HMCTS’s offer of remedy sits within this scale.

31. We recognise that spending Christmas alone would have been highly upsetting and distressing for Mr X, particularly given that he had planned the day in advance, and made preparations. We also acknowledge that this experience adversely impacted his mental health, as he experienced feelings of ‘cabin fever’ and perceives that HMCTS’ responses demonstrated an ‘uncaring nature’. We are satisfied that HMCTS also recognised this and made adequate attempts to put matters right.

32. It is our view that the financial remedy offered by HMCTS is proportionate and consistent with what we would have recommended in these circumstances. For this reason, we have decided not to investigate this complaint further.

33. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr X was looking for from his complaint. We hope we have explained why we have come to our decision. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention and wish him well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) We were sorry to learn of the events which led to Mr X’s complaint, which were undoubtedly stressful for him.

2. Although we have seen evidence that HMCTS incorrectly imposed a driving disqualification, we have decided that it has already done enough to put this right. We will explain the reasons in more detail, below.