HM Courts and Tribunals Service

5. Mr D complains he was unable to attend a virtual hearing via the Cloud Video Platform (an internet-based video meeting service) due to technical difficulties. He also complains he tried to contact the court for help but was unable to speak with someone.

6. Mr D says the court made no attempt to contact him and the hearing proceeded without him. He says this breached his right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act as well as his rights under the Victim’s Code. He says HMCTS started to replace the Cloud Video Platform in 2024 due to widespread criticism and system failures which shows it is not fit for purpose.

7. Mr D says he was denied the opportunity to present his case, and this has caused him and his family lasting financial harm. He would like HMCTS to acknowledge what happened, apologise and make service improvements. He says he would also like a fair review of his case.

8. Mr D was the defendant in a court case. We understand he attended two earlier virtual hearings about the same case. The court originally listed an in-person hearing for 2pm and later changed this to a virtual hearing.

9. Mr D told us he attempted to join this hearing at 1.50pm and waited in the digital waiting room for 50 minutes. He says he was then cut off so rejoined and waited for another 50 minutes. He says he was then cut off again, rejoined and waited another 20 minutes. We recognise this must have been very stressful at the time.

10. Mr D told us he tried to contact the court by telephone and sent an email. He says the court contacted him and told him the case had gone ahead in his absence and the judge had made an order in favour of the claimant. Mr D applied to set this judgment aside and a judge dismissed this.

13. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If we see something went wrong, we look at whether events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not yet put right.

14. Mr D complains he tried to join the virtual hearing, but it did not work. We understand this was the third virtual hearing he had attended so he knew how to join the hearing meaning there was likely some kind of technical fault. He says he tried to phone the court but could not get through to speak with someone.

15. In its first complaint response, HMCTS apologised Mr D was unable to connect to the hearing. It said the court does not keep a record of incoming calls, but it acknowledged he emailed at 3.55pm. It also explained HMCTS cannot comment on the judge’s decision to refuse his application to set aside the order made in his absence.

16. In its second complaint response, HMCTS explained virtual hearings are held by judicial direction and individual courts are unable to investigate technical issues. It also explained HMCTS staff would only contact people who have not joined a hearing on the direction of the judge.

17. In its second and third complaint responses, HMCTS again said Mr D had applied to set the order aside and a judge had dismissed this. It explained HMCTS cannot comment on judicial decisions or intervene in the decisions judges make.

18. Our Principles of Good Administration says public bodies should ensure people can access services easily. We recognise there will sometimes be technical issues with virtual court hearings. It is therefore important HMCTS provides people with clear information on what to do when this happens.

19. The court’s letter to Mr D about the virtual hearing did not include the number for the helpdesk to contact for technical support. We note it did include a link to the ‘How to join Cloud Video Platform (CVP) for a video hearing’ page on HMCTS’s website which does list the number.

20. Overall, we consider the information HMCTS provided to Mr D about the virtual hearing was not in line with Our Principles of Good Administration. We believe HMCTS should provide people with the contact number for its helpdesk within its letters about virtual hearings in case they have any issues.

21. We contacted HMCTS about this. It confirmed the helpdesk number is now included in the court’s letter template for virtual hearings. Mr D told us he used this number when he encountered technical issues with a later hearing and they helped him. We are satisfied this should prevent what happened to Mr D from happening again.

22. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say public bodies should acknowledge mistakes, apologise where appropriate and seek continuous improvement. In this case, HMCTS has already acknowledged what happened and apologised. The court’s revised letter template should also prevent other people from experiencing the same issue.

23. We recognise Mr D would like his court case to be considered again. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act says we cannot look at the actions of the judiciary or decisions of the courts. We can only look at the administrative actions of HMCTS. HMCTS is responsible for the administration of courts and judges do not work for HMCTS.

24. In Mr D’s case, a judge decided to go ahead with the hearing, made an order and later refused Mr D’s application to set this aside. We cannot comment on the outcome of court proceedings or speculate on whether the outcome might have been different if Mr D had attended the hearing.

25. We would like to thank Mr D for bringing his complaint to us. We hope our consideration provides him with some reassurance around what happened and that it should not happen again. We would like to take this opportunity to wish him and his family the very best for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We are very sorry to hear what happened. We think HMCTS could have provided a better service but consider it has since taken appropriate action to put this right. We will therefore not be considering Mr D’s complaint further.

2. Mr D complains he was unable to join a virtual court hearing due to technical difficulties. He also complains he tried to contact the court for help but was unable to speak with someone. We understand the judge decided to make a judgment in his absence.

3. HMCTS has already acknowledged Mr D was unable to join the hearing and apologised. We have made enquiries with HMCTS, and it has told us the court now provides people with the number for the HMCTS helpline in case they have any technical issues joining a virtual hearing.

4. While we can look at the administrative actions of a court, we cannot look at the actions, conduct or decisions of judges. This means we cannot consider what happened because Mr D missing the hearing. We understand Mr D later applied to set the judge’s order aside and a judge dismissed this.