HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr G complains that HMCTS:

• did not allow him to submit his defence through the Money Claim Online (MCOL) portal and the portal did not say he needed to submit his defence in November 2024 • prematurely issued a default judgment against him in December 2024.

5. Because of this, Mr G says he now needs to pay a £330 fee to apply to have the default judgment set aside. Mr G says this has affected his credit score, his mood, caused him distress, and aggravated his health conditions.

6. By bringing this complaint to us, Mr G wants HMCTS to waive the appeal application fee or void the original claim.

7. In November 2024, a parking enforcement company issued a claim against Mr G through MCOL, a digital service provided by HMCTS for making money claims.

8. HMCTS served Mr G with notice of the claim and sent him a response pack, which included guidance for defendants.

9. On 27 November 2024, Mr G filed an acknowledgement of service (AOS) using the MCOL portal. This is a formal court document filed by a defendant to confirm receipt of a claim and to extend the time to respond or contest the court’s jurisdiction. Filing an AOS is not an admission of liability or confirmation of agreement with the claim. It simply informs the court, and the claimant, that the defendant is aware of the proceedings and intends to respond. The AOS also extends the time to do this from 14 to 28 calendar days from the date of service.

10. Following this, HMCTS sent Mr G information which stated that if he did not file a defence within 28 days, a judgment may be issued against him.

11. Mr G did not file a defence. Therefore, on 10 December 2024, HMCTS issued a default judgement against him.

Defence submission and instructions on the MCOL portal

14. 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.

15. To put this complaint, and our decision, into context, it may be helpful to say more about the MCOL process.

16. Money Claim Online, or MCOL, is an online service run by HMCTS. It lets people make or respond to a money claim online. It is usually used when someone says another person owes them money.

17. The person making the claim must register on MCOL and give details of the money they say they are owed. HMCTS then sends a claim pack to the other person. That person usually has 14 days to respond. This can be extended to 28 days if they file an AOS.

18. The other person can accept the claim or defend it. If they accept it, both sides should agree how the money will be paid. If they defend it, they should send a written defence online, by email or by post. This should explain the main facts of the case and the legal points they want to rely on if the case goes further. They usually cannot change the defence later, but they may be able to add more detail and provide evidence if the case goes to court.

19. After the claimant receives the defence statement, they must decide whether to continue with the case. If the other person does not respond in time, the claimant can apply through the MCOL for a default judgment. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which govern civil court proceedings in England and Wales, make clear that it is the defendant’s responsibility to submit a defence. If they do not, a default judgement may be made against them.

20. Mr G complains that after filing his AOS, the MCOL portal did not allow him to submit his defence. The evidence suggests there may have been a misunderstanding about how the MCOL process works.

21. The portal allowed Mr G, like any other defendant, to set out a summary of his defence. It is not designed to collect supporting evidence. Instead, it helps the claimant decide whether to continue with the case and submit it for consideration by a judge. If the matter proceeds, supporting evidence may be required. This evidence would not be submitted though the portal but as documents submitted to the court for the judge to consider.

22. We have seen nothing to suggest Mr G was unable to submit his defence statement (albeit without the documents he would have liked to attach). Unfortunately, it is his failure to do so which led to the default judgment being made against him.

23. We appreciate that Mr G was representing himself and may have been unfamiliar with the process. HMCTS provides information online through the GOV.UK website and in the response pack it sends with the claim form. It also provides telephone contact details for enquiries. If Mr G had been unsure of what he needed to do, he could have contacted HMCTS. Alternatively, he could have sought independent legal advice.

24. Our Principles of Good Administration say organisations should be customer focussed and help people understand their responsibilities. The evidence shows that HMCTS made information about MCOL available online, through its enquiry service and in the defendant’s response pack. We are satisfied this was in line with our expectations.

25. We have not seen any evidence to support Mr G’s view that HMCTS prevented him from filing his defence or failed to make this requirement clear. Therefore, we have decided not to take any further action on this part of Mr G’s complaint.

Default judgement

26. Mr G said HMCTS prematurely issued a default judgement against him. He said HMCTS should have known he wanted to defend the claim and contest the jurisdiction (the court hearing the case), as he indicated this on his AOS. Mr G said he expected HMCTS to ‘pause for thought’ before issuing a default judgement.

27. We understand Mr G’s concerns. However, we would not expect HMCTS to interpret a defendant’s intentions beyond the action that had taken. Its role was to consider whether Mr G had taken the required action by the deadline.

28. In this case, HMCTS had explained that Mr G needed to submit his defence by a set date. It had also explained the potential consequences of missing that deadline, namely that judgement may be awarded in the claimant’s favour. We would not have expected it have done more.

29. We are sorry to hear Mr G felt disadvantaged as a litigant in person. We appreciate he may have found the process confusing because he was unfamiliar with it. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome he was looking for when he approached us, but we hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.

30. We would like to thank Mr G for bringing his complaint to us for our consideration.

1. We have carefully considered Mr G’s complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We would like to thank him for bringing this matter to our attention and recognise that this has been a frustrating and stressful time for him.

2. Having considered Mr G’s complaint about not being able to submit his defence through the online portal we have seen no indication HMCTS got something wrong. We have also seen nothing to suggest HMCTS acted incorrectly when administering a default judgment against him.

3. Because of this, we have decided to take no further action on his complaint and explain our reasons for this in this statement.