HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr X complains about the service HMCTS provided in relation to his attempts to recover money owed to him by another person (the debtor). In particular, he says HMCTS did not follow the correct processes when handling the recovery of the debt and should have done more to assist him in recovering the money owed.

4. Mr X says HMCTS’s failings caused him to spend considerable time contacting county courts, bailiffs, Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC), HMCTS and his Member of Parliament (MP). He also says that, as a result of these failings, he has still not received the money owed to him and has incurred additional costs, including court fees, online people-search website fees and warrant of control fees.

5. As an outcome of his complaint, Mr X would like HMCTS to compensate him for the money he has been unable to recover, including the costs he says he incurred in attempting to recover it.

6. In 2021 Mr X pursued a claim through the Small Claims Court in relation to money that he had lost as a result of fraud by the debtor. The court ruled in his favour and issued a CCJ against the debtor in January 2022.

7. Later in 2022 Mr X got a Warrant of Control through the OCMC to recover the outstanding amount. A Warrant of Control is a court order that allows bailiffs to take enforcement action to recover money owed under a CCJ.

8. Warrants of Control are transferred to the relevant County Court based on the debtor's postcode. On each occasion, Mr X was informed that the debtor had moved address before enforcement could take place. As a result, the warrant could no longer be enforced by the assigned court, requiring Mr X to submit a warrant re-issue request when a new address for the debtor became available. Enforcement action was attempted on four occasions between 2022 and 2023 but, unfortunately, Mr X has been unsuccessful in receiving his money.

11. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether the organisation has acted in line with applicable guidelines and standards of service. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and we have not seen anything to suggest that the HMCTS acted incorrectly or that there was a service failure. We explain our reasons below.

12. Mr X says HMCTS did not follow the correct processes in recovering his debt. We understand from our conversation with Mr X that he believes HMCTS should have done more to help him recover his money. We recognise Mr X's frustration that, despite obtaining a CCJ and pursuing enforcement action on several occasions, the debt remains unpaid.

13. The HMCtwo pieces of HMCTS guidance referred to in our ‘evidence’ section explain that getting a judgment means the court has decided someone must pay you money and provides the person owed with options to try to recover it. These are known as enforcement options. Examples of these include a Warrant of Control, an attachment of earnings order, a third-party debt order or a charging order.

14. However, the guidance also explains that the court cannot guarantee that money owed will be recovered. The outcome depends on the circumstances of the person who owes the money and the option chosen to try to recover it. It is the responsibility of the person seeking recovery of the money to decide which option to use.

15. We can see from the available evidence that Mr X obtained a CCJ in January 2022 and applied for Warrants of Control to recover the outstanding debt. Enforcement action was attempted on multiple occasions. However, on each occasion Mr X was informed that the debtor had moved address before enforcement could be completed. Warrants of Control are managed by the County Court bailiff office responsible for the area in which the debtor lives. A change of address meant that the warrant could no longer be enforced by the assigned court, and a warrant re-issue request was required once a new address for the debtor became available.

16. Although the Warrant of Control was issued through the OCMC service, responsibility for carrying out the enforcement action was passed on to the relevant County Court bailiffs’ office. This is also part of the HMCTS civil enforcement process, but as it was no longer an online claim, OCMC could not process any further warrant requests. Essentially, there was nothing further it could do in its role. The success of the enforcement action depended on whether the debtor could be located and whether the money could be recovered.

17. We are sorry to hear of the ongoing inconvenience and frustration this caused Mr X. We have not seen any indication that HMCTS failed to follow the procedures set out in its published guidance or incorrectly processed the warrants. The fact that enforcement action was unsuccessful does not, in itself, indicate the matter was not correctly managed by HMCTS. Consistent with the guidance referred to in our ‘evidence’ section, the court's role is to provide a mechanism for enforcing judgments, rather than to guarantee recovery of a debt. We have not seen anything within that guidance that indicates HMCTS can and should have taken any further or different steps.

18. For the reasons explained above, we consider that HMCTS acted in line with the relevant guidance by providing Mr X with the available options to try to recover the money owed to him. As we have not seen any indication that HMCTS did not follow the correct processes, we will take no further action.

19. We appreciate this has been a difficult time for Mr X, and so we hope we have explained the consideration we have given in reaching our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it. We would like to thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). Mr X complains about the service provided by HMCTS in relation to his attempts to recover money owed to him under a County Court Judgment (CCJ). A CCJ is a court order stating that someone owes money and must pay it. We recognise the ongoing stress and worry this has caused Mr X, particularly as his debt remains unpaid.

2. After carefully considering the evidence available to us, we have found no indication that HMCTS failed to follow the correct process in handling this matter. As such, we have decided to take no further action. We explain the reasons for our decision below.