HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr S complains about the service he received from (HMCTS). He complains that:

• After issuing two separate court orders listing a hearing for different dates, the court failed to clarify which was correct in time for him to avoid having to retain legal services and prepare for the first date. This date was not in fact the date the hearing was to take place.

• The court failed to provide directions for a hearing to take place on 10 November 2023

4. Mr S told us that these events have had a profound and far-reaching effect on his mental wellbeing, physical health, family life and employment. The prolonged and unresolved nature of the situation placed him under severe strain and made it difficult for him to focus on anything else.

5. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr S is seeking recognition that the way his case was handled by the court fell below acceptable service standards, particularly in relation to communication, procedural clarity, and the handling of hearing notices and directions.

6. He would like PHSO to determine whether the failures he experienced amount to maladministration, and that this is formally acknowledged by HMCTS. Besides seeking this for his own sense of closure, he wants to ensure others do not encounter the same issues.

7. Lastly, he would like PHSO to make recommendations that HMCTS improve its communication and administrative processes within the courts, so that future litigants are supported fairly and transparently.

8. Mr S was awaiting a date for a court hearing. On 14 June 2023, he received two separate court orders. One confirmed the hearing as 7 July 2023, the other confirmed it as 19 July 2023.

9. Mr S contacted the court by telephone to confirm the correct date and says he was told both hearings were listed (and would proceed).

10. Mr S then emailed the court requesting clarification but says he received no formal update or cancellation of the 7 July hearing.

Acting on the first order, he engaged legal representation for the hearing on 7 July. However, the court then treated 19 July as the correct hearing date and refused to acknowledge the issue or provide any reimbursement for the unnecessary legal expense caused by the administrative confusion.

12. The law (namely the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967) says a person needs to make their complaint to us or their 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.

13. We can see that HMCTS provided a complaint response on 29 July 2023. HMCTS outlined its position on the complaint, and informed Mr S that if he was not satisfied with the outcome, he would need to contact the Operations Manager at the Court to request a review.

14. A request for further response was then not made by Mr S until May 2025.

15. We asked Mr S to provide some information about this delay and any reasons behind it. He explained it was because the legal process was ongoing, and the distinction between legal and administrative issues was not clear to him. He was not sure which matters would be addressed by the complaints process rather than the court, and that he thought t it was appropriate to allow the litigation and related proceedings to conclude before pursuing the administrative concerns separately.

16. We can see that HMCTS clearly advised Mr S on 29 July 2023 that if he was not satisfied with the response that he should contact the Operations Manager at the Court to request a review.

17. We appreciate that Mr S was not clear on the distinction between legal and administrative issues, but he could have spoken to HMCTS for clarification on this, and if he had contacted the Operations Manager as directed, they would have been able to provide this.

18. Mr S could have also contacted PHSO at this point to seek our advice.

19. We asked Mr S whether he had sought or had any advice on this point, and he explained that he had not, and that it was his general understanding that he should wait until the legal proceedings had finished to escalate the complaint further.

20. This meant that there was a delay of almost two years where no action was taken in relation to the complaints process. We have seen no reason to justify setting the time bar aside, and so must end consideration of the complaint here.

1. We have carefully considered Mr S’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We would like to thank Mr S for bringing this matter to our attention, and we recognise this has been a lengthy process.

2. We have decided that the complaint falls outside of our time limit, and that there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.