HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr R complains about HMCTS, and the delays incurred for its bailiffs to execute a warrant of possession which was issued on 20 November 2024.

5. Mr R says he was homeless during this time whilst he was waiting for the bailiffs to evict the tenant from his property, which caused him distress and anxiety. He says he also suffered financial hardship due to unpaid rent arrears.

6. As an outcome Mr R is seeking an explanation for the delays and financial compensation.

7. This brief background is only intended to place the key events related to this complaint in context, not to provide a full account of everything that happened.

8. Mr R was renting his property to a tenant. His solicitor applied for a county court bailiff via a N325 form on 17 October 2024. This form is for landlords who want to evict tenants who have breached a court order.

9. HMCTS is responsible for the administration of criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals in England and Wales. It gives people access to justice, which includes people seeking to evict tenants from their property.

10. HMCTS issued Mr R with a warrant for possession on 20 November.

11. The bailiffs evicted the tenant on 2 October 2025.

14. 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 seen indications that something has gone wrong.

15. Mr R says he contacted the bailiff’s office several times to chase when it would evict the tenant. He says the delays caused by HMCTS caused him distress because he was awaiting possession of his property and did not have a permanent place of residence. This restricted when his young child could have overnight stays with him as he had separated from his partner.

16. In its response HMCTS said the warrant for possession was forwarded to its bailiffs to start the enforcement process. It said the lengthy delays were due to the high volume of possession orders its bailiff’s team were working through. It apologised for Mr R’s experience of its service and explained contingency plans were underway to try to reduce the caseload.

17. From the file we can see HMCTS made an order for possession on 8 October 2024 for the tenant to give Mr R possession of his property by 15 October 2024. As this did not happen, Mr R filed a N325 form with HMCTS on 17 October, requesting a warrant for possession of his property because the tenant had breached the previous court order.

18. Mr R paid the fee for this application on 29 October. HMCTS issued the warrant for possession on 20 November, and forwarded it to the bailiff’s office on 26 November, for an eviction date to be set.

19. The file also shows Mr R emailed the bailiff’s office on 4 February and 14 March 2025 to request an update for when the eviction date would be set. We have not seen a reply to these emails on the file.

20. Government guidelines for evicting tenants explains the timescales for processing a N325 application. It says it takes HMCTS up to two weeks to process a N325 form and the defendant is then given 14 days to respond to the application. If no defence is filed, HMCTS can reach its decision within six weeks.

21. From the file we can see HMCTS made its decision regarding Mr R’s N325 application within five weeks. This was an appropriate timescale to process Mr R’s application and is in line with government guidelines.

22. We now turn to how long it took for the bailiffs to evict the tenant. This was just over a ten month period.

23. We understand the time taken between the warrant being issued and the eviction date was longer than Mr R was expecting.

24. We can see this was due to a resource’s issue, in that, the bailiffs were working through a high workload. Setting an eviction date on each case was determined by their availability. Whilst this is unhelpful for Mr R, and it caused him ongoing frustration, this is not an administrative failing.

25. We note there is no fixed timescale for the execution of a warrant of possession in the CPR Rules. However, under CPR Rule 83.3, it explains a warrant for possession is valid for 12 months from the date it is issued. After this 12 month period, it needs to be reissued by the court.

26. We note from HMCTS’ response to Mr R’s complaint dated 25 July 2025, it recognised the delays incurred. It also said it contacted the local bailiff’s office asking it to speed up Mr R’s case and that an eviction notice would be sent to him shortly.

27. Our office expects public organisations to comply with our principles of good administration. This offers a framework for public bodies to act lawfully, fairly, transparently, and responsibly whilst focusing on effective service delivery, accountability and improvement.

28. HMCTS has acknowledged there were delays within its bailiff’s team and explained the reason was due to a high workload. It recognised Mr R had been waiting for the enforcement process to start for some time, and it contacted the local county court to speed up his case.

29. In summary, we have not seen any evidence the delays incurred by the bailiffs in evicting the tenant, was caused by an administrative failing. We have also seen HMCTS acted in line with our principles of good administration when responding to Mr R’s concerns. We will, therefore, take no further action.

30. We are sorry to hear about Mr R’s concerns and the distress he experienced using HMCTS’ service. This was clearly a worrying time for him and the delays caused him further frustration and anxiety.

31. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr R was looking for when he approached us, as he was seeking an explanation for the delays and financial compensation. We hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it.

32. We thank Mr R for bringing his complaint to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We are sorry to hear about the difficult time Mr R has had with HMCTS and appreciate this has been an incredibly worrying time for him.

2. Having looked at Mr R’s complaint, we have decided to not consider it further. This is because we have not identified any administrative failings in how long HMCTS’ bailiffs took to execute a warrant for possession order.

3. We appreciate this complaint is very important to Mr R and we will explain our decision in detail below. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance about how carefully we have considered his complaint before reaching our decision.