HM Courts and Tribunals Service

6. Mr D complains about the service he received from HMCTS throughout 2024 and 2025. Specifically, Mr D complains HMCTS: • failed to promptly process his January 2025 request for court transcriptions and supplied contradictory and misleading responses on this matter during the complaints process • failed to correctly process his May 2024 C2 application which meant this document was not considered by a judge throughout the course of the proceedings • refused to call an ambulance when he experienced a serious medical emergency at the family court on 17 July 2025 • failed to properly process and action his 16 July 2025 reasonable adjustment request and claimed it was for the judge to consider • mishandled a SAR in July and August 2025 which resulted in HMCTS wrongly deleting the information he sought.

7. Mr D tells us HMCTS’s poor handling of the above matters caused considerable frustration, distress and ongoing psychological trauma.

8. Mr D wants HMCTS to acknowledge and apologise for its mistakes. He also wants HMCTS to improve its service and to pay him a financial remedy.

9. Mr D was engaged with the family court through 2024 and 2025. He complained to HMCTS in early 2025 about its handling of several matters relating to his case.

10. HMCTS’s complaints process concluded in October 2025.

Court transcriptions

13. Mr D tells us HMCTS delayed providing him with transcripts of court hearings. He said this is despite the judge ordering those transcripts be made available.

14. Mr D said HMCTS agreed it made a mistake in its handling of his transcription request at stage one of its complaints process. He adds HMCTS then appear to have retracted this at stage three of its complaints process and claimed there were no administrative errors.

15. He said HMCTS admitted maladministration and should therefore compensate him.

16. HMCTS provided an apology during the complaints process for the delay in supplying Mr D with the court transcripts (which we will discuss in more detail later in this section of our statement) but noted any delays were due to either waiting for the judge’s approval, which is required at various stages of the transcription request process, or for the transcription agency to complete its work.

17. Our Principles say public bodies should handle and process information properly and appropriately and deal with people promptly, within reasonable timescales.

18. Our complaint standards say public bodies should investigate complaints thoroughly and fairly, basing their decisions on the available facts and evidence.

19. We understand Mr D submitted two transcript requests to the court on 2 February 2025. HMCTS referred them to the judge on 7 February. This is because Mr D asked for the public purse to cover the cost of the transcripts, which requires judge’s approval.

20. The transcription agency supplied HMCTS with draft copies of the various transcripts on 30 May and 2 June. We understand HMCTS forwarded those draft transcripts to the judge in good time. As mentioned earlier in this section, the transcription process requires the judge to review and approve the transcripts at various stages. One of those stages is when the transcription agency supplies draft transcriptions to HMCTS.

21. HMCTS said the Judge provided no directions in response and, after chasing them for an update, the judge approved the transcripts on 13 August.

22. HMCTS also mentioned a 6 August approval date in its 8 August 2025 complaint response. We can see both the 6 and 13 August dates are correct. The 6 August is when the judge approved one of the draft transcripts. The 13 August is when HMCTS clarified to the transcription agency that the judge did not need to approve another of those transcripts.

23. We can see HMCTS appropriately liaised with both the judge and the transcription agency in August to move the process forward.

24. Based on the evidence we have seen, any delay during the transcription process appears to be down to the judge and transcription agency rather than HMCTS.

25. It is important to note HMCTS has no control over the judiciary as they are entirely independent. We understand HMCTS already correctly signposted Mr D should he wish to complain about the judge’s actions.

26. We therefore cannot see an indication of maladministration in the way HMCTS handled Mr D’s transcription request.

27. As set out earlier in this section of our statement, Mr D also claims HMCTS supplied contradictory and misleading responses on this matter during the complaints process.

28. Specifically, we understand Mr D said HMCTS acknowledged it made a mistake and apologised for its delays in handling his transcription request at stage one of its complaints process. He said it then appeared to have retracted this at stage three and denied it made any mistake.

29. Having reviewed HMCTS’s complaint responses, we cannot see it acknowledged any mistake in its processing of Mr D’s transcription request.

30. Mr D is correct to set out HMCTS apologised at stage one of its complaints process on 8 August 2025 for any delays in receiving his court transcript.

31. We do not see this response recognised HMCTS made a mistake and apologised for it. We can see it explained the delay was because it was awaiting the judge’s approval. Subsequent HMCTS responses are consistent in their explanation for delay, i.e. this was unfortunately down to the judge and the transcription agency.

32. HMCTS appears to have recognised Mr D was likely frustrated by the delays and offered apology in response. It also reassured him it would put measures in place to ensure such a delay did not happen again.

33. While we are pleased HMCTS recognised Mr D’s likely frustration and offered apology, we are unsure how measures HMCTS put in place would help in a similar situation as any delays in the transcription process appear to have been outside of its control.

34. In any event, having considered all the available evidence we are satisfied HMCTS handled Mr D’s transcription request in line with our Principles. We are also satisfied its explanations during the complaints process are reasonable and in line with our complaint standards.

C2 application

35. Mr D tells us HMCTS failed to correctly process his C2 application when he submitted it on 19 May 2024. Mr D stresses his complaint is that HMCTS staff did not properly handle the C2 file and this caused problems with his court case.

36. A C2 application in UK family law is a form used to request urgent or specific orders from a judge in relation to the welfare of a child.

37. He said the judge directed him to file a C2 application by 5 June. He notes HMCTS referred it to the judge on 18 June, which was past the deadline set by the judge. He claims a judge never saw his C2 application because of HMCTS’s poor handling.

38. While we cannot speculate on any alleged impact the C2 application may have had upon Mr D’s court case, we can consider whether HMCTS handled his 19 May C2 application appropriately. If we find it did not, we can then consider whether it had an emotional impact upon Mr D in terms of frustration and distress.

39. HMCTS explained it received Mr D’s C2 application on 19 May and referred it to a judge for directions on 24 May. It said the Judge made directions on 18 June that his C2 application would be considered at the next hearing on 18 September.

40. HMCTS said the judge at the hearing on 18 September only dealt with Mr D’s more recent disclosure made on 24 August and did not deal with his 19 May C2 application. It said it cannot comment on or intervene in a judicial decision so cannot give further explanation around the judge’s actions.

41. Our Principles set out at paragraph 17 are also applicable here.

42. We contacted HMCTS to get a better understanding of what it did with Mr D’s C2 application following its receipt of this document on 19 May.

43. As set out in paragraph 39, HMCTS said it referred the document to the judge for directions on 24 May and the judge responded on 18 June.

44. HMCTS supplied us with an internal referral document which appears to evidence it forwarded Mr D’s C2 application to the judge on 24 May as it claims. This same document notes the judge’s subsequent comments that the C2 application would be, ‘considered at the next hearing when police disclosure is available.’

45. We are satisfied this document shows HMCTS acted appropriately and in line with our Principles when it handled Mr D’s C2 application.

46. During our primary investigation we obtained information from HMCTS which appeared to show an indication of maladministration outside of what Mr D described in his complaint papers.

47. We understand that during HMCTS’s complaints process in September 2025 it told Mr D it had re-referred his 19 May C2 application to a judge.

48. HMCTS clarified the judge subsequently reviewed this application and noted that because a judge had previously considered this C2 on 18 June 2024, it had already been processed, and should Mr D want this application re-considered, he would have to submit a new one.

49. HMCTS said it should have shared this information with Mr D when the judge responded but there is no evidence it did so.

50. We think this is an indication of maladministration. While we cannot see Mr D was aware of this matter, we understand it will likely cause some frustration and distress when he learns of it from this statement. As such, we asked HMCTS whether it would be willing to write to Mr D to apologise for its mistake and pay him some financial remedy.

51. It agreed to do so. We will discuss this in more detail later in our statement.

Refused to call an ambulance

52. Mr D tells us HMCTS refused to call an ambulance when he experienced a serious medical emergency at court on 17 July 2025.

53. HMCTS said Mr D had spoken with staff at the ‘court’s counter’ where he said he felt unwell but did not give further details. It said a staff member offered to have a first aider assess Mr D before considering whether to call an ambulance, but he declined assistance.

54. Our Principles say public bodies should treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case.

55. We recognise Mr D said there are inconsistencies in the explanations supplied by HMCTS throughout the complaints process. For example, Mr D said he asked court staff for an ambulance as he felt unwell, but HMCTS omitted this from its account.

56. He explains HMCTS attempted to frame the situation in terms of court staff suggesting an ambulance and wanting to assess him first. He said it was him who asked for an ambulance and court staff did not call one.

57. Mr D adds that he received an HMCTS staff member’s recollections of this incident as part of a SAR request. He quoted part of it: ‘He told me he was not well and should have an ambulance. I made the decision that I wanted a first aider to see him and make a call as if an ambulance should be called. I did not feel that one was actually needed, knowing the background of the case. I am not a first aider and not trained, so could only go with what I felt.’

58. Mr D claims the account shows the staff member who dealt with him was not a first aider but decided not to call an ambulance because they did not see he needed one. He said this was evidence staff did not act appropriately and that HMCTS’s position during the complaints process was flawed.

59. Having considered all the available evidence, we are not persuaded there is an indication of maladministration in how court staff responded to Mr D on 17 July.

60. It must be understood that we are reviewing matters in hindsight and have no way of substantiating what was said, or how it was said at the time. We are therefore limited to reviewing each party’s account which allows us to reach a decision on balance of probabilities.

61. Based on what we have seen, we think it is quite probable that Mr D approached the court’s counter and said he was unwell and asked for an ambulance.

62. We think court staff likely put some questions to him, one of which was that they would like one of their first aiders to review him first before they decided whether to call an ambulance. In response, we think it is quite probable Mr D declined such assistance.

63. We do not agree with Mr D’s claim that HMCTS has in some way attempted to change the narrative surrounding these events.

64. The quotation Mr D cites in his complaint and which we referred to in paragraph 57 of this statement is not complete. The rest of the quotation (following on from what we already quoted) reads:

‘Hence me wanting a first aider to look at him and then call one [an ambulance]. He did not want to be seen by a first aider.’

65. We therefore see the quotation from the SAR information we received from Mr D is consistent with HMCTS’s position throughout the complaints process.

66. We do not think it was unreasonable for court staff to question Mr D and suggest one of its first aiders assess him before deciding whether to call an ambulance. We are satisfied HMCTS’s actions are in line with our Principles.

Reasonable adjustment request

67. Mr D said he sent a request for reasonable adjustments to HMCTS on 16 July 2025. He requested additional time for submissions, trauma informed handling and listing the hearings with a neutral tribunal or at an alternative venue.

68. Mr D is concerned HMCTS told him a judge would need to consider this request. Mr D said this is wrong and HMCTS has a duty to consider his reasonable adjustment request in the first instance.

69. HMCTS said its administrative staff could not give a decision on the reasonable adjustments Mr D requested. It said such requests were for the judge to decide upon.

70. HMCTS said it shared Mr D’s reasonable adjustment request with the judge on the day it received it and promptly shared the judge’s decision with Mr D.

71. Our Principles set out in paragraph 54 are also applicable here.

72. Mr D cited the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) in his submission which he said supports his view that HMCTS should have considered his reasonable adjustment request, rather than placing it before the judge.

73. It is not our role to determine whether HMCTS acted in line with its legal obligations under the EA2010. We can consider whether it handled the request reasonably in line with applicable guidance and standards.

74. It is important to point out here that Mr D is not claiming his reasonable adjustment request was not considered, rather, he is claiming HMCTS should have considered it in the first instance and should not have forwarded it to the judge.

75. Our statement has focussed on HMCTS’s rationale for forwarding it to the judge and whether we think this is reasonable and in line with our Principles.

76. HMCTS said its administrative staff could not have reached a decision in response to the specific matters set out in Mr D’s reasonable adjustment request. It said this is why the judge needed to review it.

77. The adjustments Mr D requested are matters which could impact upon how his case was managed by the court.

78. For example, the request for more time to submit information to the court and listing before a neutral tribunal or alternative court are clearly matters which could fundamentally change where and how the proceedings took place.

79. We therefore think it is reasonable and in line with our Principles for HMCTS to have forwarded this information to the judge in the first instance.

Mishandled SAR

80. Mr D tells us HMCTS wrongly handled his SAR which resulted in the deletion of information he was seeking.

81. Mr D explains he lodged the SAR with HMCTS on 28 July 2025, and this was lodged 11 days after an incident at the court on 17 July. He said this was well within the 28-day retention period HMCTS set out during the complaints process.

82. HMCTS acknowledged during the complaints process that it should have preserved the CCTV footage Mr D sought following receipt of his SAR. It agrees the deletion of this information was an error. HMCTS provided an apology and offered £100 financial remedy to help put right the resulting frustration and distress.

83. It is important to note Mr D also complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on 2 September 2025.

84. The ICO is the UK's independent authority responsible for upholding information rights, data privacy, and promoting transparency in public bodies.

85. It responded on 8 December 2025 and agreed HMCTS’s handling constituted an ‘infringement of the Ministry of Justice’s [MOJs] obligations under Article 12 of the General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR].’

86. The ICO said the MOJ (who sponsors HMCTS) had already taken satisfactory steps to avoid recurrence of this issue. The ICO therefore decided to take no further action.

87. It is not for our Office to give a view on whether HMCTS acted in line with its legal obligations under GDPR. The ICO has already done so and any further exploration of HMCTS’s legal obligations in this respect would be for the courts to explore.

88. Our Office will consider whether HMCTS handled Mr D’s request for information in line with applicable guidance and standards.

89. Our Principles set out at paragraph 17 are also applicable here.

90. Our guidance on financial remedy says in determining an appropriate amount to recommend, we take into consideration financial amounts recommended or already paid by other organisations.

91. As we have already set out above, HMCTS agreed it made a mistake when handling Mr D’s SAR and the ICO confirmed this. As such, there is no need for us to reiterate what those organisations already set out in terms of what went wrong and how this happened. We also understand Mr D, HMCTS and the ICO do not dispute what went wrong here.

92. Our Office will consider what remedy HMCTS offered when attempting to put right what went wrong. As described at paragraph 82, it offered an apology and some financial remedy during the complaints process.

93. Having considered HMCTS’s apology, we think it is appropriate and in line with what we would expect to see. We think, however, that HMCTS should provide further financial remedy to help put right the impact of what went wrong.

94. The next section of this statement will consider what impact HMCTS’s mistakes had upon Mr D and what remedy we think will help put this right.

Impact and further remedy

95. Paragraphs 35 to 51 of this statement set out our thinking in terms of HMCTS’s handling of Mr D’s C2 application.

96. We think there is an indication of maladministration in HMCTS’s handling of Mr D’s C2 application during the complaints process in 2025.

97. We cannot see Mr D was aware of this apparent error which appears to have occurred after the events he described in his complaint. We think this will nonetheless cause some frustration and distress.

98. As described at paragraph 38, we cannot speculate on any alleged impact the C2 application may have had upon Mr D’s court case. We can consider the likely emotional impact, however.

99. We think this mistake is likely to cause Mr D some frustration and distress. We see his frustration and distress is at level two of our severity of injustice scale. This is because we do not see the emotional impact is likely to be so great or everlasting and we expect any frustration and distress to fully resolve in the fullness of time.

100. Our severity of injustice scale has six levels. As the levels increase, so does the severity of the injustice and the associated remedy we think will put it right.

101. This scale helps us when awarding financial remedy. We also review other cases with similar injustices where we have awarded financial remedy to help us determine an appropriate sum.

102. Paragraphs 80 to 94 of this statement set out our thinking in terms of HMCTS’s handling of Mr D’s 28 July 2025 SAR. We think there is an indication of maladministration in its handling of this SAR.

103. We think HMCTS’s handling of this SAR likely led to some frustration and distress.

104. As set out at paragraph 87, It is not for our Office to give a view on whether HMCTS acted in line with its legal obligations under GDPR. We can consider any emotional impact, however.

105. As with the matters concerning the C2 application, we think Mr D’s frustration and distress is at level two in our severity of injustice scale. This is because we also do not see the emotional impact stemming from this mistake is likely to be so great or everlasting. We also expect any frustration and distress to fully resolve in the fullness of time.

106. We think HMCTS provided an appropriate apology during the complaints process and has offered some financial remedy. We think it should award further financial remedy.

107. Having considered, overall, HMCTS’s mistakes and their likely impact upon Mr D, set out above, we agreed with HMCTS that it would pay Mr D £250 to help put right the impact of what went wrong (this includes the £100 it previously offered). HMCTS also agreed to provide Mr D with a separate apology for its later handling of his C2 application.

108. We think this remedy is proportionate to put right what went wrong and is in line with our remedy guidance.

109. If Mr D would like to claim this financial remedy and apology, he should let us know and we will ask HMCTS to get in touch with him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about HMCTS. We were very sorry to read of the events that caused Mr D to complain and recognise these have been very difficult circumstances for him.

2. We can see indications of maladministration in HMCTS’s handling of Mr D’s C2 application and in its handling of his Subject Access Request (SAR). HMCTS agreed to provide further remedy, and we think this is proportionate to put right the impact of what went wrong. Our statement provides more detail around our thinking.

3. We cannot see HMCTS did anything wrong in the other matters Mr D complains about. We can see it acted in line with applicable guidance and standards.

4. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mr D’s complaint.

5. We understand Mr D has been through a great deal over the past few years and hope our statement clearly sets out how we reached our decision.