HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr G complains HMCTS sent him an incorrect order, which was actually for another case unrelated to him, which made Mr G believe a bank was restarting proceedings against him after the matter had been settled. Mr G also complains HMCTS failed to properly remedy his complaint when it acknowledged the mistake.

5. Mr G tells us the incorrect court order caused significant distress and worry and led to him seeking legal help to appeal the order. Mr G also had to engage in correspondence with the bank which caused distress and unnecessarily took up his time. Mr G tells us HMCTS have not reimbursed his legal costs through the complaints process which has caused him a financial loss.

6. Mr G would like a full reimbursement of the legal costs he paid to appeal the incorrect order and apologise for the mistake and how it has handled his complaint.

7. In 2019, Mr G’s bank who oversaw his mortgage repayments began court proceedings over money Mr G owed the bank. In the same year the proceedings were closed after Mr G paid the money he owed.

8. In January 2023, Mr G received two letters relating to possession orders stating Mr G must give up possession of his property and pay the bank for rent arrears and legal costs.

9. In February 2023, Mr G complained to the bank about the orders. In April 2023 the bank responded stating it had not sent out any court orders for his account. In February 2024 the bank sent a response to Mr G not upholding his complaint against it and directing him to the Financial Ombudsman.

10. In September 2024 the Financial Ombudsman concluded the bank had not made any errors and instead HMCTS had sent the possession orders out incorrectly.

11. In November 2024 Mr G raised a complaint with HMCTS, and HMCTS provided a final response with an offer of £200 financial compensation in June 2025.

14. In this case, HMCTS have already acknowledged the mistakes and taken steps to put things right for Mr G. Mr G has told us he is unhappy with how HMCTS have handled and considered his complaint and feels HMCTS should reimburse his legal fees.

15. Over the course of the complaint process, HMCTS has offered Mr G £200 as a goodwill offer for the distress the mistake caused, apologised repeatedly for the mistakes, took immediate action to remove the order, and has reminded the administrative team of the importance of making sure details on orders are correct.

16. Our role here is to determine whether HMCTS made any mistakes in how it handled Mr G’s complaint and consider whether it has made a suitable remedy offer to put right the impact of the mistake.

17. HMCTS Complaint Handling Guidance explains the process HMCTS must follow if a complainant requests reimbursement for legal costs incurred as a result of mistakes. This states complainants must provide HMCTS with an itemised breakdown identifying all the specific legal costs which have been incurred before HMCTS can consider any financial offers to put this right.

18. HMCTS sent a final response in April 2025 explaining it was unable to consider any costs from the bank statements provided and would require an itemised breakdown of costs. This request was in line with guidance as the proof Mr G originally provided – bank statements showing cash withdrawals – did not provide enough evidence the funds had gone to legal costs or what these costs are.

19. Mr G provided a breakdown of costs to HMCTS following this and received a letter in June 2025 explaining it would not be increasing the remedy offer after reviewing the breakdown. It did not explain exactly why it made this decision.

20. We asked HMCTS to explain its decision, as this was lacking from the final response. It explained its guidance for legal fee reimbursement outlines specific criteria legal fee breakdowns must include for HMCTS to consider any reimbursement.

21. The kind of information HMCTS needs to see to fully consider any potential legal fee reimbursement includes: • the breakdown of hours/minutes the lawyer has claimed for each area of work (e.g. preparation, advice, letters) • the amounts claimed for counsel’s or witness fees, together with copied of fee notes or witness bills • if the user is a litigant in person but is asking for their solicitor’s costs, a copy of the solicitor’s paid bill.

22. The guidance also states HMCTS should only pay for the relevant period that is covered by the mistake it made, meaning HMCTS would not be responsible for all costs associated with a case.

23. HMCTS explained Mr G’s breakdown did not meet the above breakdown criteria and contained costs from outside the mistake period (January 2023) around making complaints. HMCTS explained without an appropriate breakdown or a copy of a bill proving Mr G paid these costs to a solicitor HMCTS would not be able to consider reimbursement any further.

24. We have seen a copy of the breakdown Mr G provided HMCTS and conclude HMCTS have followed its guidance appropriately as the breakdown does include the necessary information outlined in the guidance.

25. Mr G has told us he has been unable to provide any official bills or invoices as the legal agreement he had with his lawyer was verbal. While we understand this will be frustrating for Mr G, we cannot conclude HMCTS should reconsider its decision on reimbursement without the necessary proof. If Mr G would like HMCTS to reconsider reimbursing his legal fees he would need to provide a breakdown which meets the criteria outlined above.

26. To summarise, we cannot conclude HMCTS acted against guidance when deciding not to reimburse Mr G’s legal fees based on the evidence he provided. We will instead consider whether the £200 ex-gratia (goodwill) financial offer, service changes and apology are sufficient for the emotional impact this mistake had on Mr G.

27. The HMCTS Complaint Handling Guidance outlines £200 as in the range of appropriate financial payment for mistakes which cause distress and inconvenience where the court was able to resolve the matter quickly.

28. In this case, we acknowledge the shock and upset Mr G experienced after receiving the possession orders. Receiving these by mistake after correcting believing his legal troubled with the bank had ended years before will have been very difficult. We can see Mr G appealed the possession orders, and very shortly after this HMCTS referred the order to a Judge to remove.

29. Given the impact outlined above, we consider £200 is appropriate in line with the guidance to address the distress and upset the mistake caused Mr G. We therefore cannot conclude HMCTS should offer Mr G any more financial remedy unless he is able to produce more concrete invoices and official legal costs breakdowns.

30. We will therefore be taking no further action on this complaint.

31. We appreciate this decision may be disappointing for Mr G, and we hope our statement fully explains why we have made the decision we have and why we are unable to suggest any further financial remedy is warranted.

1. We have carefully considered Mr G’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

2. We consider HMCTS followed its own guidance appropriately when deciding it would not reimburse Mr G’s legal fees based on the evidence he provided. We consider HMCTS has done what it can to provide a remedy in line with its own complaints policy and cannot reimburse specific legal work without clear evidence.

3. We therefore will not be taking any further action on this complaint.