HM Courts and Tribunals Service

5. Mr A complains about HMCTS and the way it handled his probate application, which he submitted on 3 September 2024. He complains it took seven months to grant him probate, which he believes was too long. He says part of this delay was caused by HMCTS staff failing to contact a will witness, after it told him it had contacted the witness. It also failed to follow this matter up when it received no response from the witness.

6. He also complains about the way the way it communicated during this period. He was unable to speak to anyone on the probate team for an update in December 2024, and he describes the correspondence he did receive as “cut and paste”. On the odd occasions when he did get through to someone, he says the phone system disconnected his call and nobody called him back.

7. He also highlights that the online tool that is supposed to update applicants was not helpful, as it said HMCTS were awaiting further documentation after he had provided this. He says it showed this for almost the entire length of his probate application, thereby not being a useful tool in showing how his application was progressing.

8. As a result of his experience, he was unable to progress his application was six months. He said he found the process shocking and frustrating.

9. As an outcome of his complaint, he would like HMCTS to introduce service improvements.

Complaint background

10. Mr A’s mother died in 2024, and he applied for ‘Grant of probate’ on 3 September 2024.

11. HMCTS examined the application on 18 September and stopped it due to the condition and contents of the Will. Mr A’s mother had tremors in her hand, which affected the quality of her writing.

12. In addition to concerns about the signature, HMCTS also queried the condition of the Will. This was because the Will had staple holes on its left side and was constructed of single sheets which were not bound together. It wanted to understand what had happened with the Will and whether anything had been removed since Mr A had it. This is because it needed to ensure the Will he had submitted was the original Will his mother had produced and signed (we will cover the standards relating to this further down in the ‘Administrative background’).

13. Mr A acknowledged his mother’s writing was not clear, and this impacted her signature. He also said he had taken the Will apart so he could scan it onto his computer and provide HMCTS with a digital copy. He confirmed nothing had been removed from the Will while it was in his possession and provided HMCTS with a copy the solicitor provided him.

14. HMCTS told Mr A it needed to confirm what happened when his mother signed the Will to ensure it was valid. It asked him to provide the contact details for the Will witnesses so it could verify the authenticity of the Will. A Will witness is someone who was present when the testator (Mr A’s mother) signed the Will. He provided it with the contact details for four Will witnesses on 24 September, and it transferred the case to the team that contacts Will witnesses (the affidavit team). They contacted one of the Will witnesses via email on 22 October, using the correct email address Mr had A provided, and asked them to complete a legal declaration and a ‘Will witness questionnaire’ (WWQ). A WWQ allows Will witnesses to put forward evidence regarding the validity of the Will.

15. Mr A contacted HMCTS’ probate helpline on 23 December. He says he experienced difficulties with the phone line, was repeatedly cut off, and had to make multiple attempts to call HMCTS before he was able to speak with someone. When he finally spoke to a member of staff on 24 December, they told him HMCTS had not received any response from the Will witness and advised him to chase the Will witness up.

16. Mr A was disappointed HMCTS had not received a response, and that it had advised him to chase up the Will witness. However, he did contact the Will witness, at some point between 24 December 2024 and 15 January 2025, and they told him HMCTS had not contacted them, which added to his frustration. They provided him with a new email address to give to HMCTS.

17. Mr A emailed HMCTS on 15 January 2025 to complain about its communication with the Will witness, as it was his belief it had not contacted them and had incorrectly advised him to do this on its behalf during the call on 24 December 2024. In the same email, he provided it with the new email address for the Will witness.

18. HMCTS responded to Mr A on the same day and confirmed it had emailed the Will witness on 22 October 2024, using the email address he had provided, but it had not received a response.

19. On 17 January, it provided the Will witness’ new email address to the affidavit team. They contacted the Will witness, using the new email address, on 6 March, and the Will witness responded on 18 March.

20. The probate case handler received the case back on 1 April and issued the Grant of probate to Mr A on 2 April.

21. In HMCTS’ complaint response, dated 14 February 2025, it acknowledged there had been a delay, which was caused by a significant increase in probate applications. However, in its later complaint response, dated 4 April, it further clarified that it could not see the delay in Mr A’s case was caused by mistakes, as it needed to ensure it had the correct information before it could issue the grant.

22. We had a meeting with HMCTS to discuss its service improvements in May 2025. During this meeting, HMCTS explained that it had implemented a recovery plan to improve its service. It explained it did have a backlog of cases prior to the meeting, but this was reducing.

23. With regards to communication with probate applicants, HMCTS said it has created a ‘citizens hub’ and updated its online portal. Probate applicants can now use these resources to check for updates regarding their applications, rather than having to call its contact centre team. The applicant can view where their application is up to and use it to upload evidence for their case (not including original documents, such as the will).

24. HMCTS said it had started manually contacting applicants if their case has stopped for 8 weeks. It is in the process of introducing an automatic feature that will automatically contact the applicant once the 8-week period has passed.

Administrative background

25. In order for a member of the public to be granted probate, they need to apply for it via HMCTS’ probate service.

26. The probate application process is explained in HMCTS’ online guidance, titled ‘Apply for probate’. We have reviewed the guidance version that was visible when Mr A applied for probate in September 2024.

27. At the time Mr A applied for probate, the online guidance said it would usually grant probate within 16 weeks from when the applicant submitted their application. However, it said the process could take longer if the applicant needed to provide more information. This guidance is further supported by the automated email Mr A received from HMCTS on 3 September 2024, which also said it would aim to process his application within 16 weeks.

28. If there is a Will, only executors can apply (in this case, the most entitled person, which would be a close family member like Mr A). They will need to submit the original Will with their probate application.

29. UK government guidance, ‘Making a Will’, explains what makes a Will legally valid. It says any Will accepted by HMCTS must be legally valid. This means the testator (the person who made the Will) must: • be 18 or over • make it voluntarily • be of sound mind • make it in writing • sign it in the presence of two witnesses who are both over 18 • have it signed by the testator’s two witnesses, in their presence, and they must all sign the same document.

30. It also says a Will cannot be changed once it has been signed and witnessed. Which would include the removal of papers after the original will was bound (stapled together).

Probate delays

33. Mr A complains HMCTS took too long to grant him probate. It took 30 weeks (seven months) in total, which was longer than the 16 weeks the online guidance said it should have taken.

34. His case was not straightforward because HMCTS needed further information from a Will witness. We considered whether the approach seemed reasonable, and whether it appeared to take a reasonable amount of time to get the information it needed.

35. As we can see from the background, there were issues with the validity of the Will, as the writing was not clear and it had been taken apart. HMCTS had to stop the application process while it gathered further evidence from a Will witness, as it needed to determine the validity of the Will. The purpose of the Will witness is to confirm this and contacting them was therefore important for HMCTS to confirm Mr A was entitled to be executor of his mother’s estate.

36. This approach is supported by the government guidance, ‘Making a Will’, which we covered in the ‘Administrative background’. The guidance says the Will needs to demonstrate the testator completed the Will in writing, voluntarily, and with sound mind. It needed to be satisfied the testator completed the Will herself and that the version Mr A submitted had not been altered. In any case, Mr A accepts the writing was unclear, that he did take the Will apart, and has not taken issue with HMCTS’ decision to contact a Will witness. Therefore, HMCTS’s actions here appear reasonable.

37. Let us next consider the length of time it took HMCTS to contact the Will witness and process the probate application.

38. Under our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, we explain that we expect public bodies, like HMCTS, to behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits.

39. Applied to this case, HMCTS had a 16-week target, which is set out in the guidance, ‘Apply for probate’. However, the guidance also says it can take longer than this if the application is not straightforward and it requires further information. As demonstrated above, Mr A’s application did not appear to be straightforward due to the condition of the Will, potentially impacting whether the 16-week standard applied. So, it does not appear it should have processed this application within the 16-week period, but we also would not expect to see avoidable delays that unreasonably delayed it for longer than this period.

40. HMCTS told us that even though Mr A provided it with the contact details for four individuals on 24 September 2024, only two of them were Will witnesses. In any case, it contacted one of the two Will witnesses on 22 October 2024. We asked HMCTS whether it contacted the second Will witness, considering it accepted two of the contacts Mr A provided were Will witnesses. It told us it would only contact another Will witness if the evidence from the first Will witness was negative or inconclusive.

41. We asked HMCTS to tell us what the internal process was for contacting Will witnesses during the period in question. It said that once it contacts a Will witness, it adds their contact details to an ‘affidavit spreadsheet’ (an internal spreadsheet it uses to refer cases to the affidavit team) and sends out the appropriate Will Witness Questionnaire (WWQ) to the ‘witnesses’ via email. In some cases, it may call the Will witness, such as when the Will is a ‘Video Will’ (the testator makes a verbal Will in a video).

42. We asked why it did not chase up the Will witness by telephone, which may have resolved the matter sooner. It said it would only do this if email contact was inconclusive or it needed to clarify something. It said that it refrains from calling them, as this can be time consuming and may require it to send the Will witness a ‘statement of truth’ to sign to verify anything they have said over the telephone.

43. We asked HMCTS what the timeframe was for contacting a Will witness. It said the internal measure is that it aims to respond to all types of correspondence within four weeks of receiving correspondence. However, it said this timeframe can vary, as it is dependent on the volume of correspondence it receives.

44. We can see HMCTS emailed the Will witness on 22 October 2024, less than a month after Mr A provided the Will witness contact details, but it did not receive a response. It had no success until it contacted the Will witness using the new email address Mr A provided on 15 January 2025.

45. While we can appreciate why Mr A questions the time it took for HMCTS to contact the Will witness, there is no standard that says it should chase up Will witnesses. Also, HMCTS have provided an explanation in paragraph 41 for why they don’t chase by telephone and this explanation does not appear unreasonable, We cannot say this was an expectation of the service that it failed to deliver.

46. However, it appears the Will witness responded to the second email address Mr A provided on 15 January 2025 and never responded to the original email address he provided on 24 September 2024. Had HMCTS received this second email address sooner, HMCTS may have received a response from the Will witness sooner. As such, the time it took for HMCTS to receive the correct email address contributed to delays processing the application between 22 October 2024 and 15 January 2025, which was 12 weeks in total, and does not appear to be an indication of maladministration on the part of HMCTS.

47. Let us consider, if we take away the 12 weeks HMCTS waited for the correct email, how long HMCTS took to progress the probate application outside of that time period.

48. Mr A submitted his probate application on 3 September 2024 and provided the Will witness contact details to HMCTS 3 weeks later on 24 September. On 15 January 2025, Mr A provided the correct email address for the Will witness and HMCTS granted probate 11 weeks later on 2 April. This was 14 weeks in total, and less than the 16-week standard HMCTS sets itself for standard probate applications. As such, the period of time it took, outside of its wait for the Will witness’ response, was not unreasonable or outside of the standard waiting time.

49. Overall, while HMCTS’ standards show there is a timeframe by which it should aim to process probate applications, this standard is put aside in complex cases like Mr A’s and there is no service standard that says it should chase up unresponsive Will witnesses. There is no firm expectation set out in the relevant standards that puts an obligation for HMCTS to chase up Will witnesses, or to do this within a particular period of time. Based on this evidence, we cannot say there are indications of service failure by HMCTS that caused delays.

Probate communication

50. Mr A complains about the way HMCTS communicated with him during the lifespan of his probate application. He says he was unable to speak to anyone at the probate team (describing it as ‘faceless’), and the correspondence he did receive felt like it was ‘cut and paste’. He wanted to know what was happening with his application, and he does not feel it adequately explained this to him while handling his case.

51. He tried to use HMCTS’ online portal to see what the progress was, but he did not find this helpful. He says it just said HMCTS was waiting for further information from him, up until it granted him probate in April 2025.

52. HMCTS explained on 14 February 2025 that it recognised Mr A said he sent an email requesting an update in November 2024, but it did not have a record showing it received this. In any case, it said its staff did update him when he spoke to them on 24 December 2024 and when they corresponded with him over email in January 2025. It did not comment on the nature of this communication.

53. Under our Service Model Guidance, section 2.268, we say that we expect service users to complete an organisation’s complaints process before bringing their complaint to us, and we usually consider a complaint to not be ready for us until it has completed this process. However, we have decided we will look at this issue, as it does not seem proportionate to send Mr A back to HMCTS when we have sufficient information to make a thorough decision now.

54. Let us next consider what our general expectation is when it comes to communication from public bodies, like HMCTS.

55. Under our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, we expect public bodies, like HMCTS, to ensure applicants are clear about what they can expect from the service and its responsibilities and explain why it cannot meet any requirements or a published standard.

56. They should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it or explain why they cannot deliver.

57. They should treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. Where appropriate, they should deal with customers in a co-ordinated way with other providers to ensure their needs are met; and, if they are unable to help, refer them to any other sources of help.

58. If we consider Mr A’s first issue with HMCTS’ communication, he says he was unable to speak to anyone handling his case. Let us consider what HMCTS’ standards say about this.

59. HMCTS’ guidance, ‘Apply for probate’, says who probate applicants should correspond with about their application. In the section, ‘After you’ve applied’, it says applicants can track the progress of their application on the online portal or they can contact the CTSC. The CTSC is made up of call handlers who are there to provide advice and support to probate applicants, such as checking the case on the probate system, and it does not consist of the case handlers. The guidance does not say the applicant can, or should be able to, correspond with the probate case handler.

60. This guidance is further supported by HMCTS guidance, ‘Apply for probate with MyHMCTS’, which explains applicants are not able to directly email or call the caseworker handling their application. However, if the applicant contacts the CTSC, the guidance says the applicant can refer to the caseworker, whose details should be in the online portal, and this may help with their query.

61. If we apply these standards to this case, HMCTS’ CTSC team and the online portal were Mr A’s only avenue for contact and updates about his case. While we appreciate he wanted to have a direct line with the people handling his case, this is not an expectation that HMCTS sets in the guidance.

62. With regards to the clarity of HMCTS’ correspondence with Mr A, the MyHMCTS guidance says applicants can use the online portal to see their case status. Here is a list of the statutes the portal uses:

• ‘Application created – Application is started by the legal professional but not yet submitted.

• Application updated – Application is updated by the legal professional but not yet submitted.

• Grant of probate created – Grant of probate is selected by the legal professional but the application is not yet submitted.

• Intestacy grant created – Letters of administration is selected by the legal professional but the application is not yet submitted.

• Admon will grant created – Letters of administration with will annexed is selected by the legal professional but the application is not yet submitted.

• Case created – Application has been submitted by the legal professional and can be viewed by case workers.

• Awaiting documentation – Case worker is waiting to receive mailed documentation.

• Case stopped – Case worker has found an error with the application and will contact applicant.

• Caveat permanent – Registrar or district judge has confirmed a stop to the application as applied through a caveat.

• Ready to issue – Case worker satisfied that all information is provided and correct.

• Case selected for QA – Case has been selected for quality assurance.

• Case matching (issue grant) – Case worker checking if application details match any other cases in the system.

• SME referral – Case has been referred to an experienced member of the team for further guidance.

• Grant issued – Application passed all checks, grant issued and to be dispatched within 48 hours.

• Case closed – Application has been withdrawn and closed on system.

• Case imported – Case was submitted before March 2019.

• Post grant issued – A post grant issue has been identified, and case worker will review accordingly.

• Examining (reissue) – Case worker looking at the application, which has been returned due to an error.

• Case matching (reissue grant) – Case worker checking if application details match any other cases in the system.

• Case stopped (reissue) – Case worker has found an error with the application and will contact applicant.

• Awaiting redeclaration – Case worker waiting for a response to a stop letter.

• Redeclaration notifications sent – Email sent to applicant to confirm new statement of truth will be sent.

• SOT generated – New statement of truth is created and sent to applicant.’

63. Applied to this case, Mr A says the portal said HMCTS was waiting for information, and it said this until it granted probate. As we have highlighted in the background, HMCTS was waiting for the Will witness to provide a completed WWQ between 24 September 2024 and 18 March 2025. Based on what Mr A has told us and the list of case statuses, it is likely the portal said ‘Awaiting documentation’ during the period in question. However, there are no other statuses that the portal uses that would have allowed it to be more specific (i.e. a status saying it was waiting to hear back from a Will witness). As such, it appears the portal communicated as expected, and there is no standard that suggests it should have provided further clarification.

64. We can appreciate this status update would not have clarified matters in the way Mr A would have liked, especially when his case reached the 16th week, which meant the case was taking longer than expected. He spoke to HMCTS on the 16-week deadline, 24 December 2024, to find out what was happening. According to the call note for 24 December, the call handler noted: ‘I have checked our inbox during call and there is no response from the witness. He [Mr A] will chase it up’. This call note, along with Mr A’s description of the call, suggests HMCTS explained the delays were caused by issues contacting the Will witness. Prior to this, he said he emailed HMCTS in November 2024 but received no response (we have not seen a supporting record to show he sent this email, or that it was received by HMCTS).

65. Following this, a Probate support officer (emailed Mr A on 15 January 2024 to say that HMCTS had contacted the Will witness and had not received a response and was still waiting to hear back from the Will witness. On 24 January, it confirmed it had tried the new email address and confirmed on 18 March it was still waiting to hear from the Witness after contacting them on the new address.

66. So, HMCTS did provide Mr A with a more informative update when he contacted them after receiving no response to an email he sent in November. It acted in line with our expectations by providing him with an update that explained where the application was up to. When Mr A contacted HMCTS in December 2024, it would have no reason to believe, at this point, that there was an issue with the Will Witness’ email, and it could not have advised anything further than that it was waiting to hear back from the Will witness. This communication would have reasonably felt repetitive when Mr A emailed HMCTS again in January, and his frustration was apparent. While these updates may not have felt satisfying, we consider this communication to be clear and there was not much else HMCTS could have added. It was not able to tell him much, as there was not much to tell.

67. Overall, we can appreciate Mr A’s frustration due to the small amount of progress between October 2024 and January 2025, but there was little for HMCTS to say due to the issues around contact with the Will witness (which we have covered above). We do not take the view it should have communicated differently, or that he should have been able to make direct contact with the case handler. The communication appeared sufficient for him to provide HMCTS with the correct contact email address for the Will witness which resulted in his application progressing. So, we take the view there are no indications HMCTS’ communication was not in line with the relevant standards.

Probate’s phone line

68. Mr A also complains about HMCTS’ phone line. On the odd occasions when he did get through to someone, he says the phone system disconnected his call, and nobody called him back.

69. Our Principles of good administration say public services should have effective services that do what they are supposed to do. Applied to this case, they should have phone lines that work for the service user and work as intended. Therefore, there are indications of maladministration here, HMCTS acknowledges its phone line was not working correctly.

70. In HMCTS’ complaint response, dated 14 February 2025, it acknowledged there had been technical issues with its phone line when he called the service in December 2024, which Mr A told us caused him frustration. It apologised for this and said it has monitored the issue with its phone line, and its technical team have fixed it.

71. Mr A acknowledges he was eventually able to speak to someone over the phone on 24 December, which suggests the issue was fixed.

72. Mr A’s impact in this case would be classed as a level 1 impact on our financial remedy scale of injustice (which can be viewed on PHSO’s website). This is because we consider the phone line caused him a one-off instance of frustration when he called the service on 23 December. We consider an apology, which HMCTS provided on 14 February 2025 in its complaint response, to be an appropriate remedy for these sorts of injustices.

73. As such, we take the view HMCTS have remedied this complaint in line with the aforementioned Principles of remedy. We do not think it should take further action, as the problem with the phone line appears to have been fixed.

1. We are sorry to learn about Mr A’s loss and the length of time his probate application took. Probate is the legal process of managing a deceased person’s property, money, and possession. We can appreciate the probate process did take a long time for Mr A, and this would have added to what was already a difficult time for him following the death of his mother.

2. Having looked at Mr A’s case, we have decided to not investigate it further. This is because, while we identified technical issues with its phone line, we consider it has put right the impact he experienced.

3. With respect to the length of time the application took, we recognise it did take a longer than it should have, but this mainly due to issues contacting the Will witness. Ultimately, we have seen no indications anything went wrong with the way HMCTS processed the application, nor with its communication.

4. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr A and we will explain our decision in more detail. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance about how carefully we are considering his complaint.