HM Courts and Tribunals Service

6. Mr D complains about the administrative actions of HMCTS between February 2022 and January 2025. Mr D complains HMCTS:

• did not treat his case with urgency, despite four hearing dates being vacated before the final hearing date was allocated after 20 weeks • did not respond to telephone calls, emails and letters sent and ignored requests to referral the case to a judge • has not yet issued an accurate third party debt order despite it being made on 17 January 2025.

7. As a result, Mr D says he has not been able to recover the financial award ordered by the judge on 29 August 2024 totalling £4,335.44.

8. Mr D would like a further explanation, a financial remedy and service improvements as outcomes to his complaint.

9. On 21 May 2021, Mr D submitted a claim to the County Court Business Centre (CCBC) for £3,424.94. He claimed against a contractor company (the defendant) for the cost of nine internal doors and repairs to a new roof. He also claimed for the court fees.

10. On 7 June, the defendant submitted their defence and counterclaim. The Court sent an N149 allocations questionnaire (proposing to allocate the case to small claims track) on 8 June with a deadline of 25 June. Mr D filed the questionnaire on 18 June. The defendant filed it on 21 June.

11. On 24 June, the Court referred the case file to a District Judge. It allocated the case for a small claims hearing on 1 July.

12. On 26 July, the Judge allocated the case for a small claims hearing at 10.15am on 15 February 2022.

13. On 7 February, the trial bundle was filed. A District Judge ordered the hearing listed for 15 February 2022 be vacated and relisted. The order says this was due to the volume of evidence filed by the claimant meant the estimated time was too short.

14. On 16 February, a hearing notice was generated, listing the case for a three-hour hearing at 10am on 18 August. On 4 August, a District Judge ordered the hearing be vacated due to a lack of judicial time.

15. On 9 September, a hearing notice was generated. It advised a three-hour hearing would take place on 24 November. On 18 November, a Judge ordered the hearing be vacated due to lack of judicial time.

16. On 24 November, the Court issued a notice of hearing. It listed the case for a three-hour hearing on 31 August 2023. This hearing was later vacated on 30 August due to lack of judicial time.

17. On 11 September, the Court urgently referred the case file to a District Judge. On 29 September, the Court issued a notice of hearing to parties. It advised the hearing of Mr D’s application would take place on 13 October.

18. On 6 October, Mr D wrote to the Court advising he was unable to attend the hearing. The Court added the letter to the case file on 12 October. On 13 October, the District Judge ordered the application be adjourned to the first open date for 30 minutes. The Court generated a hearing notice on 18 October, listing the case for 3 November.

19. On 3 November, a District Judge ordered the permission to Mr D to amend his particulars of claim be dispensed with. They ordered the trial be listed for the first open date for a three hour hearing after 22 December. The Court sent the Order to parties on 11 November and moved the file to the small claims three hour track.

20. On 4 December, the Court filed the defendant’s statement and evidence. The Court filed Mr D’s statement and evidence on 5 December. It referred the case to a Judge on 8 January 2024.

21. On 18 January, the Court sent a notice of trial date to parties. The Order advised a small claims trial would take place for three hours on 29 August.

22. A District Judge made a judgement in favour of Mr D on 29 August. They ordered the defendant to pay £4,335.44, comprising of £3,037.94 for debt, £506.50 for interest, and £791 for costs. The Judge ordered the defendant pay Mr D on or before 12 September 2024 and dismissed the counterclaim.

23. On 11 September, the judgement was sent to parties after the hearing. On 16 September, Mr D applied for an interim third party debt order. This is an order of the Court that freezes money that might otherwise be paid to the defendant of a judgement. It can be made against a person or an organisation such as a bank or building society.

24. On 31 October, the Court referred the case to a Judge. The District Judge considered Mr D’s third party debt order application on 6 December. According to the interim order, the defendant still owed the amount set out. The Judge ordered the application be considered on 17 January 2025. They updated the total amount of moneys owed to include the additional fee of £131. This increased the amount awarded to £4,466.44.

25. On 17 January 2025, a District Judge ordered the bank to pay Mr D £277.77.

26. Following his complaints of 11 March, 19 April, and 13 October 2024, HMCTS provided responses to Mr D on 22 and 24 April 2025, 30 May, and 12 June.

Lack of urgency when arranging hearing dates

29. 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 found any indications that something has gone wrong.

30. Mr D says HMCTS did not treat his case with urgency between February 2022 and January 2025. This is despite four hearing dates being vacated before the final hearing date was allocated after 20 weeks.

31. As a result, Mr D told us he felt he was denied the opportunity to collect the amount awarded due to the delays and mistakes made by HMCTS. He told us he felt an earlier or more acceptable hearing date would have meant he could have recovered the financial award.

32. We were very sorry to hear of the difficulties Mr D has faced in trying to recover the money. We appreciate those going through the Courts often experience lengthy delays. It can be a very stressful and frustrating time, especially if the claimant has been left out of pocket.

33. We consider the Parliamentary Commissioners Act, which sets out our powers, and our Principles to be most relevant to this matter.

34. Schedule 3(6)(a) of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act outlines we do not have the remit to consider any actions taken by a Judge, or someone acting on their authority. This includes vacating or adjourning hearings. It also includes the urgency of which cases are listed and prioritised.

35. Having reviewed the case file, we can see a Judge ordered the case be vacated and relisted on 7 February 2022, 4 August 2022, 18 November 2022, and 30 August 2023. We note the reasons are due to lack of judicial time. As it was a judicial decision to vacate the hearings, we cannot consider this part of Mr D’s complaint.

36. We note the order vacating the hearing scheduled for 24 November 2022 stated the case ‘has been listed as a matter of priority’. This is a judicial decision as per the order. As such, we cannot consider this further.

37. Similarly, the notice of trial date sent to parties on 18 January 2024 outlined the case had been double booked. It explained the listing system was implemented to enable parties to get the earliest possible date for a hearing by ensuring that judicial time is not lost due to last minute settlements and adjournments.

38. On this occasion, the notice advised the case had been given non-priority listing and would only proceed on the day of the priority case does not. As this is a judicial decision as per the order, we cannot consider it further.

39. Under our Principles, we expect organisations to be customer focused and to explain to service users what they can and cannot expect from the service. We can see, in its responses to the complaint, HMCTS explained the decisions to adjourn and relist the case were judicial and not a matter for court staff. It also explained the decision whether to treat the case as a priority was also a judicial matter. We consider this explanation is in line with our Principles.

40. In his complaint to HMCTS, Mr D requested compensation in respect of the losses incurred since July 2021 and challenged the decision to vacate four hearings.

41. In response, HMCTS reassured Mr D the hearings were listed for the first available date within the Court’s diary. It explained the delays in relisting the case between August 2023 and January 2024 were due to high volumes of work experienced at the time. It acknowledged the frustration this caused.

42. In this case, HMCTS has provided Mr D with an explanation as to why the hearings were listed so far in advance. This explanation is in line with our Principles. We note one of the outcomes Mr D is seeking is a further explanation, which has been provided.

43. We understand there are delays in listing hearings across many Courts and Tribunals. We would not penalise an organisation for having higher demand than capacity. This is out of its control. As previously stated, the decision as to which cases to prioritise is a judicial one.

44. Whilst we appreciate the decisions to vacate four hearings led to delays in Mr D’s claim being processed, we do not have the remit, as per our powers, to consider any actions taken by a Judge. We have considered whether HMCTS acted in line with our Principles by explaining the reasons for the vacated hearings to Mr D. We consider it has done so. We have therefore found no indications of maladministration for this part of the complaint.

Communication

45. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found HMCTS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

46. Mr D says HMCTS did not respond to his telephone calls, emails, and letters. He says it ignored requests to refer the case to a Judge between February 2022 and January 2025.

47. We consider our Principles and HMCTS’ complaints handling guidance to be most relevant to this part of the complaint.

48. Our Principles say public bodies should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, and within reasonable timescales. They should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take. Public bodies should do what they say they are going to do.

49. HMCTS’ complaints handling guidance sets out what it should do if it identifies it has made a mistake or given a poor service. Examples of maladministration include delays, inaccurate statements, and failure to reply.

50. Staff should understand the impact on a customer when things go wrong, and where possible, should aim to put the customer back in the position they were in before the mistake. Appropriate remedies include: apologising if a mistake has been made and giving assurance that measures have been taken to improve future services.

51. Regarding financial redress, the guidance says staff should consider whether the mistakes have caused an injustice or had a serious or significant impact on the customer and make a payment on this basis.

52. We reviewed the documents provided to us by HMCTS and Mr D. We identified the most relevant events regarding communication.

53. On 14 February 2022, Mr D telephoned the Court. According to the case notes, he was concerned he could not get through to the Court and was worried his cheque for the hearing fee had not been cashed. The Court confirmed the hearing fee had been received.

54. Mr D wrote to the Court on 20 December requesting the case be sped up. We note this followed the Judge’s Order dated 24 November 2022 listing the case for a hearing on 31 August 2023.

55. On 30 August 2023, Mr D telephoned the Court to request an update on the hearing. The Court confirmed the hearing was going ahead. The hearing was vacated later that day.

56. Mr D emailed the Court on 13 September to chase a new hearing date. We note the Court urgently referred the case file to the District Judge two days prior. A notice of hearing was issued to parties on 29 September.

57. Mr D emailed the Court about mediation on 22 September. Under the additional information on the case, the Court noted ‘explained mediation is a voluntary service’.

58. On 6 October, Mr D wrote to the Court advising he was unable to attend the hearing. The Court added the letter to the case file on 12 October.

59. Mr D wrote to the Court on 16 October to chase his email and request a new hearing date. The Court generated a hearing notice on 18 October, listing the case for 3 November.

60. Following this hearing, Mr D emailed the Court to advise the Judge indicated his bundle of papers, submitted on 31 January 2022, could not be located and may have been destroyed in error. Mr D requested the papers be located. We cannot see this email was responded to.

61. On 24 November, Mr D wrote to the Court to chase his earlier requests for a new hearing. We note he references the adjournment email which says ‘a new date will be sent in the post as a matter of urgency’. We cannot see this email was responded to.

62. Mr D sent further communication to the Court regarding a witness being unable to assist with the case. The Court received this on 8 December. It also received a further letter on 19 December chasing a relisting date. We cannot see either emails were responded to.

63. On 11 March 2024, Mr D complained to HMCTS his case was not being treated as a priority, despite being vacated four times. In his complaint, Mr D noted he had not received a response to his last letter, sent on 25 January 2024.

64. Mr D chased his complaint on 19 April. We cannot see the complaint was responded to at the time. In total, we identified eight occasions in which HMCTS did not respond or acknowledge Mr D’s communication between 20 December 2022 and 19 April 2024. We consider this to be an indication of a failing. HMCTS has not acted in line with our Principles.

65. We note HMCTS provided verbal updates via telephone on 14 February 2022, 30 August 2023, and 13 September 2023. It also responded to requests for new hearing dates via hearing notices sent on 29 September and 18 October 2023.

66. In its complaint responses, HMCTS apologised for not responding to Mr D’s attempts to contact the Court. It advised it had spoken with all staff about this and stressed the importance of properly processing all correspondence. HMCTS offered an initial £100 as an ex gratia payment but later increased this to £400.

67. We consider HMCTS has taken steps to put things right. It has apologised, spoken to the staff involved to prevent the communication failings reoccurring, and offered a financial remedy of £400. We note Mr D’s desired outcomes are an explanation, service improvements, and a financial remedy. These outcomes have been provided through the local complaint process. We would not ask an organisation to repeat actions it has already taken.

68. We understand Mr D is unhappy with the amount of financial remedy of £400. He says, as a result of the events, he has been left out of pocket and unable to recover the £4,335.44 awarded to him. We have considered whether we feel the £400 offered is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

69. HMCTS’ guidance says when a customer has been given a poor service, staff should consider several factors which could affect the impact on that person. This includes whether there has been any financial loss, any injustice, and what the impact is on the customer.

70. The guidance outlines the types of harm a customer may suffer from poor service. For example, minor harm resulting from lost time, moderate harm such as severe stress or anxiety affecting their work or health, and major harm which includes life-changing impacts such as homelessness, public embarrassment, or lost guardianship.

71. If a payment is appropriate, staff should refer to the payment ranges, depending on a customer’s personal circumstances. We have identified the most applicable payment ranges for non-financial loss in this case:

• £100 - £250 awarded if the Court ‘had not fully addressed all the issues of the complaint at early stages, causing additional frustration and distress’.

• £250 - £500 awarded if ‘the user’s correspondence was not responded to over many months. The user complained about this, but there was a long delay in dealing with the complaint. Not all issues were addressed in the response, which led to further correspondence. There was no evidence the ultimate judicial decision on the case had been affected’.

72. Based on the descriptions above, we consider a payment between £250 to £500 appropriate. This is because Mr D’s correspondence was not responded to over many months. We saw evidence he complained about this but did not receive a response until he raised a new complaint on 13 October 2024.

73. In his complaint to us, Mr D told us he has been unable to recover the financial award. He has not provided us with further information about his impact. However, from our review of the complaint file, we understand it is likely Mr D has suffered lost time and minor stress in chasing the Court for updates.

74. We need to consider whether we can link Mr D’s claimed impact to the failing of poor communication. We note that HMCTS’ guidance says there may be occasions where a complainant has indicated, as a result of a mistake by HMCTS, they have incurred significant losses. The guidance makes clear it is not the responsibility of HMCTS ‘to make good of any financial losses a complainant has been pursuing from a third party’.

75. In this case, Mr D is pursuing a financial award owed to him by a third party (the contractor company via its bank). HMCTS have explained in the complaint responses there is no guarantee the amount awarded will be received through the third party process. We consider this explanation is reasonable.

76. Ultimately, it is the defendant’s responsibility to pay the awarded amount to Mr D. We understand, in this case, the defendant has suffered health problems during the lifetime of the case. This has impacted their ability to pay the amount awarded on 29 August 2024.

77. We consider it would not be the responsibility of HMCTS to pay this. We note HMCTS explained it could not reimburse the full judgement amount awarded as there is no guarantee the amount will be received through the third party debt order process. It has signposted Mr D to obtaining legal advice. This is reasonable in the circumstances.

78. There is online guidance as to what to do if you have a judgement, but the defendant has not paid. This notes the Court cannot guarantee you will get your money back. Regarding third party debt orders specifically, the online guidance does note the defendant may stop paying money into the bank or building society account.

79. We appreciate this is very distressing for Mr D. The amount he has been awarded is substantial and we understand he remains out of pocket. It would not be the responsibility of HMCTS to pay this in the event the defendant is unable or unwilling to do so.

80. In this case, HMCTS have remedied the administrative failings via an apology, speaking with staff involved, and a financial remedy of £400. It has explained why it cannot give Mr D the full financial award. We consider this explanation is reasonable and in line with HMCTS’ complaints handling guidance, which covers this event.

81. As HMCTS have already done enough to put right the failings identified, we do not consider it needs to take any further action. For the reasons above, we cannot say that HMCTS’ communication errors led to Mr D being able to recover the amount awarded to him. For this reason, we are taking no further action on this part of the complaint.

Third Party Debt Order

82. Mr D says HMCTS has not yet issued an accurate Third Party Debt Order, despite it being made on 17 January 2025.

83. We consider our Principles and HMCTS’ complaints handling guidance to be most relevant to this part of the complaint. As we have already referred to these standards, we will not duplicate them here.

84. On 16 September 2024, Mr D applied for an interim third party debt order. We note Mr D, in his request for an update, told the Court he found out the defendant had ceased trading and cleared all bank accounts, leaving only £322.37.

85. On 6 December, a District Judge considered Mr D’s third party debt order application. According to the interim Order, the defendant still owed the amount set out. The Judge ordered the application be considered on 17 January 2025.

86. The Judge ordered the defendant’s bank search for all accounts held by the defendant and give details to the Court as to whether they held sufficient funds to cover the amount awarded. The Judge updated the total amount of moneys owed to include the court fee of £131. This increased the amount awarded to £4,466.44.

87. On 14 January 2025, the bank submitted a letter to the Court. On 17 January, a District Judge ordered the bank to pay Mr D £177.77.

88. An amended final third party debt order was issued on the same day. It did not list the defendant’s bank but did correct the amount to £277.77. A further amended order was issued on the same day listing the defendant’s bank.

89. On 6 February, the Court issued a final third party debt order and referred the case to a local County Court. On 11 February, the Court amended the final third party debt order.

90. On 11 June, a final third party debt order was issued.

91. In this case, HMCTS did not send out an accurate third party debt order until 11 June 2025 following the hearing of 17 January 2025. We consider this to be an indication of a failing. Specifically, our Principles say public bodies should handle information properly and appropriately. We cannot see that was the case here.

92. In its complaint responses, HMCTS offered a financial remedy of £100 in respect of its mistake with the final third party debt order and poor handling of correspondence. It later increased this to £400, which included the mistake with the amended final order and the delay this caused in recovering the award.

93. HMCTS explained it had amended the debt order as soon as it was aware of the mistake. It offered assurance that the amount the defendant was ordered to pay on 11 February 2025 accurately reflected the District Judge’s notes on the case. It acknowledged the bank details should have been included as the named third party on the Order and apologised for the error.

94. HMCTS advised it had contacted the Court and requested an amended order be sent to parties. We confirmed with HMCTS that this occurred.

95. Based on the evidence reviewed, we consider HMCTS has taken the appropriate actions to put things right. It has acknowledged the errors with the order, apologised, and offered a financial remedy. We note one of the outcomes sought by Mr D was a financial remedy, which has already been provided.

96. In his complaint to HMCTS, Mr D stated during the time his third party debt order was being processed, he found out the defendant had ceased trading and emptied their bank accounts. He provided the Court with filing accounts for the defendant as listed online. Mr D stated he felt he would not have faced an issue obtaining the settlement had the case been heard within an acceptable time after the claim was filed.

97. We have considered Mr D’s claimed impact and whether we can link it to the delays in issuing a correct third party debt order. We consider the explanation provided by HMCTS to be reasonable.

98. We also have considered the online guidance around third party debt orders, which does not guarantee the Courts will get the claimant’s money back. Unfortunately, this appears to have been the case here. Whilst his application was being processed, Mr D told the Court the defendant had cleared all bank accounts.

99. In this case, we cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, that the delays in processing the correct third party debt order between January and June 2025 caused Mr D to be unable to recover the amount awarded to him. It appears this was related to the actions of the defendant, rather than any administrative failings from HMCTS.

100. We consider HMCTS has taken sufficient action to put things right for the administrative delay in issuing the correct order. For this reason, we do not consider we need to do any further work on Mr D’s complaint. We appreciate this may be disappointing for Mr D. We hope he is reassured by our explanation.

1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We were sorry to hear of the circumstances that led Mr D to approach us.

2. We understand a judgement was awarded in Mr D’s favour in August 2024, but he has been unable to recover the amount. This must be very distressing for him.

3. Mr D has asked us to consider his complaint that HMCTS did not treat his case with urgency, despite four hearing dates being vacated. We do not have the remit or discretion to consider judicial decisions and so have not looked at this issue further. We have instead considered whether HMCTS offered an explanation in line with relevant guidelines, which we feel it has done so. We have found no indications of failings on this matter.

4. We do consider there is an indication HMCTS provided poor service by not responding to Mr D. It also sent inaccurate third party debt orders in January and February 2025. HMCTS has apologised and acknowledged these errors, spoken with staff involved to ensure the failings do not happen again, and offered a financial payment of £400. We consider these are reasonable actions to put things right.

5. Overall, we have decided not to take any further action on Mr D’s complaint. We hope he is reassured by our explanation below.