HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr N complains about the service he received from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). He complains that:

• The Court gave contradictory information about whether the audio recording existed. It eventually took three years to confirm that it did not, and that there was no transcription. During this time, they sent the wrong audio file to the transcription company • The Court failed to follow-up an email at a critical point • You were forced to submit Grounds of Appeal without the use of the transcript, which would have been crucial evidence. This was to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) deadline of 1 July 2019 • The Court failed to give answers to multiple requests between 2019 and 2022 • The Court’s offer of compensation of £150 (made on 31 August 2022) did nothing to mitigate the costs awarded against you • The Court has never acknowledged the knock-on effects of its failings, which caused you to suffer a loss of justice in your divorce hearing on 11 November 2019

4. Mr N explained that the failings by the court meant that he missed the deadline to appeal, and the judge refused to allow his case to proceed. This has led to him incurring court costs of £9,000 as well as the potential to achieve justice in his case. He has had additional costs on top of this, including those which arose from having to seek further legal advice.

5. This has had a knock-on effect, leading to Mr N being signed off from work due to the stress caused. The court’s failings have caused untold damage and parental difficulties between Mr N and his ex-wife, which could have been avoided, and this has had a hugely detrimental effect on their children. He has also had to seek clinical support for his mental health.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr N wants to see the court held responsible for its technical failings, including the loss of documents.

7. He also feels it would be appropriate for HMCTS to provide financial remedy.

8. Mr N is separated from his ex-wife, and their children live with her. In November 2019, a divorce hearing took place to confirm parental disparity, after Mr N’s ex-wife won £1.3m on the lottery.

9. Mr N explained that his living conditions, in contrast to his ex-wife’s improved circumstances, made it easier for her to infringe on the court order regarding the arrangements for the children. She was demanded that he pay for items that were already covered by his existing Child Maintenance Service (CMS) payments, so he was effectively paying twice. He was also covering a joint debt they had while married of £60,000.

10. When Mr N tried to resolve his issue, he says his ex-wife retaliated by having him place on the CMS’s ‘Collect and Pay’ system, which increases collection costs by 24%. Mr N says the CMS did this without considering the financial disparity between the two. This escalated into an enforcement order which, if it goes ahead, will force Mr N to sell his home and clinic, losing his livelihood.

11. The court hearing did not go in Mr N’s favour, which he says was due to errors being introduced in the Directions Hearing. He wished to pursue an appeal but says that the court failed to produce a transcript in May 2019.

12. Mr N says it took until August 2022 for the court to admit there was no transcript. Because of the time that has now passed, Mr N has been told that his appeal cannot now go ahead.

13. HMCTS offered compensation of £150 in recognition of its errors.

15. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us or an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.

16. We have discussed this with Mr N to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Mr N. This case has a complex timeline, but having examined each step, we do not seen that there is enough reason to set aside the time bar for the delays.

17. Looking at the ongoing correspondence between Mr N and HMCTS, there does appear to have been a significant amount of back and forth as he pushed for the transcript and for answers regarding the failure by HMCTS to provide it.

18. An initial look at the evidence post-final; response though suggested a delay between Mr N receiving a final response from HMCTS and in bringing the complaint to us (via his MP)

19. We asked Mr N about this. Specifically, we could see that emails sent to him by HMCTS advised him to contact PHSO (via his MP) on both 31 August 2022 and 15 May 2023 if he was not satisfied with their responses to his complaints.

20. From the details Mr N provide on his complaint form, it appeared he didn’t contact his MP to ask that they refer the complaint to PHSO until 24 September 2024, which would be two years after he was first advised to do so by HMCTS, and around over one year and four months after the final response was provided.

21. There didn’t appear to be anything in the documents bundle to explain this gap, though we could see that Mr N mentioned on his complaint form that he was suffering from stress (and had to be signed off from work), and that he was having difficulties with the Child Maintenance Service (CMS.)

22. We asked Mr N to provide some more detail about this time, including information about what else, if anything, contributed to the delay in the complaint being brought to his MP.

23. Mr N provided the following explanations:

Time between August 2022 (this was when HMCTS first directed him to PHSO) and May 2023 (when he received the final response):

24. When he was first directed to us, Mr N was not satisfied with the response from HMCTS and so returned to them for a further attempt at resolution. He asked further questions of them and submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. He argues that he was making attempts to resolve with HMCTS and avoid escalation, and this appears to be reasonable. We feel it would be fair to set this time aside.

1 May 2023 (date of final response) to 24 September 2024 (the date Mr N took his complaint to his MP)

25. Around the time he received the final response, Mr N received the first of three Magistrates' Court liability orders from the CMS. He explained this was a significant shock and required his immediate attention, deflecting him from progressing the PHSO referral.

26. He explained from that point he was actively responding to enforcement proceedings which continued through to September 2024 (and beyond). He explained this was a large, complicated matter which engulfed his time and headspace.

27. Mr N also explained that he had no idea there was a 12-month time limit, as this was not mentioned in either of the letters where HMCTS directed him to us. Having reviewed the letters, we can see that while he was directed to contact us if he wanted to escalate, no timeframe was mentioned. However, we must also recognise that HMCTS has no duty to inform a complainant of another organisation’s time limits, as these may be subject to change and HMCTS may not have been aware of the correct advice to provide. It is also important that complaints are brought as soon as possible, as the more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to gather reliable evidence.

May 2024 to September 2024:

28. On 7 May 2024, the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) issued its formal report regarding the CMS. Mr N explained from then until September 2024 he was attempted to resolve this matter without escalation to PHSO, before ultimately contacting his MP in August 2024 when it became clear this would be necessary.

29. Mr N also noted that he has two other ongoing cases with PHSO, which were in play before this one. He explained that the cumulative burden of bringing another case at the same time on top of those was too much.

30. Lastly, Mr N explained that throughout this period in question, he was signed off work by his GP on several occasions, each time in direct response to acute institutional pressure, including the threat of a sale order on his home and clinic. He also underwent a formal psychiatric assessment 31. during this period, which resulted in a clinical diagnosis, and was engaged in continuous professional counselling support throughout, which is ongoing at present.

Consideration

32. We recognise that this has been a very difficult process for Mr N and appreciate him taking the time to discuss the delays and the reasons for them.

33. It should be made clear here that the point of the time-bar is so that complaints can be dealt with as quickly as possible. This gives the best chance of the relevant evidence still being available.

34. We understand that Mr N explained he was not aware of the time bar. However, this is made clear on PHSO website and complaint forms, and Mr N would have been advised of this had he contacted us at any point to discuss this.

35. We appreciate that he had other matters ongoing, but it is clear that this matter was of vital importance to Mr N, he has made this very clear during our conversations and in his correspondence with HMCTS, and so it is no reasonable to expect that such an important matter would have been raised when possible. If Mr N felt that he had too much to deal with at this time, he could have asked a family member or friend for assistance or contacted an advocacy service who could have done this for him. He could also have contacted PHSO to make us aware of the complaint and to ask about options, but there appears to be no evidence that this occurred.

36. With all this taken into account, it is our decision that there are not reasonable grounds to set aside the time bar.

1. We have carefully considered Mr N’s complaint about HMCTS. We were very sorry to read of the circumstances which led to him bringing this complaint to us.

2. It is out decision that the complaint falls outside of our time limit. Mr N has provided comments on the reasons for the delay, and these have been considered. Having done so, we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.