HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. MajorGeneral T complains about the service he received from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) between 8 March 2026 and 10 April 2026. He complains that:

• HMCTS insisted he complete a new application and pay a second application fee, rather than allowing the original order to be amended. This was despite him notifying them of the error within minutes of the application being submitted.

• HMCTS refused to take his disability and reasonable adjustments into account. Its process is discriminatory and breaches the Equality Act 2010.

• Template responses were provided which did not directly address the issues at hand.

5. MajorGeneral T told us that this situation has caused him significant distress and anxiety which lasted several weeks and was made worse because of his long-term disabilities, which were exacerbated by the situation. He explained that he has had to spend a lot of time and effort trying to fix something that should have been dealt with quickly.

6. He has had to pay an additional £70 for a second claim when it should not have been required.

7. This experience has led to him suffering a loss of confidence in HMCTS and its ability to provide an accessible service.

8. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, MajorGeneral T would like to see HMCTS acknowledge that maladministration and Equality Act breaches occurred, and the impact this had on him.

9. He wants HMCTS to explain why his disability needs were not met and his initial application was not processed. He wants to see confirmation that his claim is active, and he believes that the additional £70 fee incurred should be refunded.

10. MajorGeneral T wants to ensure that only written communication is used for him in future, and to see assurances that HMCTS will review its processes for disabled users.

11. Lastly, he feels it would be appropriate for HMCTS to pay financial redress of £750-£1,000 for the distress, disadvantage, and procedural failure its actions have caused.

12. MajorGeneral G.R. T CVO, CGC, DSM, RM (Major-General T) submitted an application form for an Online Civil Money Claim (OCMC) on 8 March 2026, but, in error, entered the Defendant’s name incorrectly on the online portal.

13. He realised the error the same day and contacted HMCTS to inform them and request a correction. The Defendant’s name was entered correctly elsewhere in the evidence, and MajorGeneral T explained it was clear that this was a simple error and he was not trying to change the party involved. Despite this, HMCTS advised that the claim could not be amended administratively and that he would need to submit a new application and pay the application fee again.

14. MajorGeneral T says this was a simple error and that HMCTS failed to take account of his disability (or make a reasonable adjustment). It is his position that HMCTS should have simply amended the original order without the need for a further application.

Refusal to Amend Order

17. MajorGeneral T submitted an application form for an Online Civil Money Claim (OCMC) on 8 March 2026, but in error entered the Defendant’s name incorrectly on the online portal.

18. MajorGeneral T complains that HMCTS insisted he complete a new application and pay a second application fee, rather than allowing the original order to be amended. This was despite him notifying them of the error within minutes of the application being submitted.

19. HMCTS provided its initial response on 16 March 2026. It advised MajorGeneral T that amending a defendant’s named after issue could only be done by formal application, and the fee could not be waived.

20. HMCTS explained that when a claim is issued, the court creates this based solely on the information entered by the claimant. The court does not check or verify any of the details on the claim form.

21. MajorGeneral T was advised that for a claim to progress with a different name, he must apply to amend and re-serve the claim using an N244 form.

22. MajorGeneral T was not satisfied with this response, and after he informed HMCTS of this, a second response was issue on 24 March 2026. It noted he had cited Civil Procedure Rules (CPR provisions) and considered the ‘slip rule’ to be applicable. However, HMCTS explained this concerns correcting a court's accidental slips, not correcting details entered by a party on issue.

23. HMCTS advised again that any change to a party name after issue would require a judicial determination on application.

24. It explained that the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) staff cannot amend the claim record as an administrative act, and once again directed him to complete an N244.

25. Following further correspondence expressing his dissatisfaction, MajorGeneral T received a final response from HMCTS on 10 April 2026, again advising the complaint would not be upheld for the reasons already provided.

26. 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.

27. HMCTS is correct in its explanation that once a claim is issued, it becomes part of the court record.

28. While we appreciate that the error in the application was both accidental and a relatively minor one, this does not mean the process to change a claim can be bypassed. OCMC staff do not have the authority to change a claim without a new N244 being submitted. PHSO also could not recommend that a court document be amended, even if we were to uphold the complaint.

29. For these reasons, we have not seen any indications of maladministration or service failure in HMCTS’s decision not to amend the claim administratively.

Disability Discrimination

30. MajorGeneral T complains that HMCTS refused to take his disability and reasonable adjustments into account. He explained to HMCTS that due to his disability, he had difficulty with the interface use to complete the OCMC. He advised that he presented HMCTS with evidence to support this.

31. The OCMC requires continuous online completion without interruption, which MajorGeneral T says is not accessible for some applicants (himself included). HMCTS requires a paid N244 application for simple clerical misnomers, even if reported immediately, and that making a payment requires a telephone call.

32. Major-General T complained that the process itself is discriminatory as the system is not accessible, but also that HMCTS’s refusal to make allowances in his case was also discriminatory. He explained that HMCTS did not escalate his reasonable adjustment request. He maintains that this was a breach of the Equality Act 2010, and also of Civil Procedure Rules.

33. In its 16 March 2026 response, HMCTS acknowledged that it has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments when a user is placed at a substantial disadvantage because of a disability.

34. It explained that such adjustments can include providing information in alternative formats, completing forms by phone, or offering additional support.

35. MajorGeneral T was informed that a change to the court's process would not viewed as a reasonable adjustment, and that staff cannot waive mandatory steps or remove the requirement for an application where one is needed.

36. In its 24 March 2026 response, HMCTS stated that these matters would not be considered a reasonable adjustment.

Analysis and Decision:

37. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable route for the person to use.

38. During our investigation, we reviewed the UK Government Guidance ‘Reasonable adjustments: a legal duty”. This is a section of the Equality Act 2010, which currently forms the basis of anti-discrimination law in England. The Act protects people against discrimination, harassment of victimisation in employment or as users of private and public services based on nine protected characteristics, including disability.

39. The guidance includes the following information about reasonable adjustments in the section “What we mean by reasonable adjustments”:

40. “Under the Equality Act 2010 public sector organisations must make changes in their approach or provision to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else. Reasonable adjustments can mean alterations to buildings by providing lifts, wide doors, ramps and tactile signage, but may also mean changes to policies, procedures and staff training to ensure that services work equally well for people with learning disabilities.”

41. In short, organisations such as HMCTS have a legal duty to ensure that a disability does not prevent someone from accessing its services where it can make a reasonable adjustment that would allow them to do so.

42. MajorGeneral T’s claim is that HMCTS has repeatedly failed to adhere to his reasonable adjustment request or to take any steps to make its services accessible.

43. A failure to do so could be considered a breach of the Equality Act.

44. We should explain at this point that we do not have the authority to determine whether the law has been broken. Only a court can do this. For that reason, we cannot take a view on whether HMCTS has acted in line with the law. Although, if a court finds that an organisation has acted unlawfully, we may be able to consider whether this was the result of an administrative failing,

45. In our view, Major- General T’s complaint is framed as a breach of the Equality Act. The appropriate route for deciding whether there had been a legal breach is therefore though the court process. MajorGeneral T may wish to seek independent legal advice on how he may do this but this is not something we ca help him with. We therefore will end consideration of this point here.

Failure to Address Issues

46. MajorGeneral T complains that template responses were provided by HMCTS between 9 March and 10 April 2026, which did not directly address the issues at hand, and do not engage with disability-related content.

47. We can see that HMCT’s responses did not always engage in detail with the disability-related points Major-General T raised. However, HMCTS did explain the relevant process and why staff could not amend the claim administratively. It also explained why it could not waive mandatory court processes as a reasonable adjustment.

48. Whilst it may have been better administrative practice for HMCTS to address those points more directly, even if the responses could have been more tailored, this would not have changed the position that HMCTS could not amend the claim administratively once it had been issued. Providing template responses, if that is indeed what happened, did not change the outcome.

49. For these reasons, we have not seen indications of maladministration in HMCTS’ complaint handling.

1. We have carefully considered MajorGeneral T’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We would like to thank him for bringing this matter to our attention and recognise it has been a frustrating and difficult process.

2. For the complaints that HMCTS refused to amend an error made on the claim, and that it provided template responses during the complaints process, we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

3. For the complaint that HMCTS breached the Equality Act 2010we do not have the authority to decide whether HMCTS acted lawfully. That is a matter for the courts. We have therefore not considered this point further.