HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mrs H complains HMCTS: • lost paperwork she sent via tracked delivery on 10 June 2024 • did not respond to her email queries dated 23 July 2024 and 5 February 2025 about the evidence, and • did not impose sanctions on another party when they did not meet a deadline to provide evidence in a court case.

4. She says these events have caused her distress and frustration. She says she needed to chase HMCTS and resend further information and that a judge needed to postpone her court hearing scheduled to take place on 3 October 2024.

5. Mrs H says as an outcome to her complaint she would like HMCTS to acknowledge and apologise. She would also like a financial remedy.

6. Mrs H has been trying to recover unpaid child maintenance from her ex-partner. She took her case to a tribunal as part of this process. HMCTS’s role was to organise the tribunal hearing so a judge could hear the case.

9. 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. This is to understand if things went wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.

10. If there are signs something went wrong then we look at the impact of this. We also look at what the organisation has done to put things right.

Lost paperwork

11. Mrs H says HMCTS lost her evidence. She says this meant she had to resubmit information she had already sent, and HMCTS only filed it the day before her court case. Mrs H tells us this meant her court case was delayed.

12. Our Principles of Good Administration say organisations should manage and maintain records well.

13. HMCTS’s Complaint Handling Guidance sets out how it should put its mistakes right. When it comes to the amount of financial remedy HMCTS should pay, the guidance says it will pay £50 to £100 when a bundle of documents goes missing but was found before the hearing.

14. HMCTS’s complaint response said Mrs H’s evidence arrived with it on 12 June. A staff member signed for the evidence but it then went missing. Mrs H called HMCTS on 27 September and asked if it had her evidence. Following this phone call, HMCTS found the evidence, anonymised it, and put it before the judge for the hearing a few days later.

15. We are glad to hear HMCTS eventually found Mrs H’s evidence. However, the fact it lost the evidence in the first instance is not in line with our Principles. As something went wrong, we have considered the impact this had.

16. We have considered the judge’s directions postponing Mrs H’s court case. The judge said, ‘This appeal had to be postponed due to technical difficulties on 03/10/2024. Further evidence was also received from [Mrs H] on 30/09/2024 and 02/10/2024.’

17. Therefore, even if the evidence was filed with the court when Mrs H submitted it then the appeal would still have been postponed due to the technical difficulties. This means we cannot link the most serious impact Mrs H has claimed (the delayed hearing) to the failings identified.

18. Nonetheless, we recognise the frustration this caused Mrs H and the fact she needed to resend the documents and chase HMCTS. In response to these issues, HMCTS apologised for losing her evidence. It also offered her financial remedy of £100. It explained part of this amount was for the fact it only acted on her evidence once she got in touch.

19. We recognise Mrs H feels insulted by the £100 HMCTS offered as she is trying to recover significantly more in child maintenance.

20. We recognise that not having the child maintenance money significantly affects her life and brings a lot of stress. We cannot hold HMCTS accountable for this money and must limit our consideration to the impact flowing from its actions.

21. Consequently, we consider HMCTS has put right its mistakes in line with its Complaint Handling Guidance and our Principles for Remedy.

Response to email queries dated 23 July 2024 and 5 February 2025

22. Mrs H complained HMCTS did not respond to the emails she sent asking whether it had received the evidence she sent and another asking for an update on her case.

23. HMCTS has no published service standards setting out how long it will take to respond to enquiries. Our Principles say organisations should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly and within reasonable timescales.

24. In response to Mrs H’s complaint, HMCTS checked the correspondence it had with her. It explained she sent an email to HMCTS on 23 July 2024 asking whether it had received her evidence. HMCTS explained it replied on 30 July.

25. HMCTS added it could not find any email correspondence from Mrs H dated 5 February 2025. However, it did find an email from 24 February requesting an update on her appeal. HMCTS explained it replied on 17 March.

26. In its complaint response, HMCTS acknowledged it took longer to reply to her email in February than it would have liked. It explained staff were very busy at the time but were working hard to respond to everyone promptly.

27. Nonetheless, HMCTS acknowledged it took too long and apologised for it. It accepted its delay caused Mrs H some uncertainty whilst she waited for an update. It explained part of the £100 financial remedy it offered her was in recognition of this.

28. Having looked at the delays, we consider HMCTS took too long to respond to Mrs H’s email in February. In response to her complaint, it acknowledged what it did wrong and the impact this had on Mrs H.

29. We therefore consider it has apologised and paid financial remedy in line with its own guidance on putting things right. With this in mind, there is nothing further we should recommend on this issue.

Sanctions

30. Our Principles say organisations should act according to their statutory powers and any other rules governing the service they provide. As set out in the HMCTS Framework Document, its role is to provide administrative support to the judiciary. Its powers do not extend to taking the role of a court judge.

31. The Tribunal Procedure Rules set out what powers the tribunal judge has when managing a case. It says the judge is responsible for deciding what evidence is required, and the deadline by which the party should provide it.

32. The Tribunal Procedure Rules also say it is up to the judge to decide what the restrictions, help and consequences should be when it comes to submitting this evidence. The judge also has the power to instruct HMCTS what it should do when organising the case.

33. HMCTS told Mrs H that court staff cannot comment on whether a party has not provided their evidence by a certain deadline. It is also unable to review a party's conduct in terms of providing evidence. It explained it is for a judge to consider whether to impose sanctions due to someone not supplying evidence within a specific period.

34. We questioned HMCTS on this further. It explained court staff do not have the power to check whether the parties to a claim have filed their evidence or complied with the terms of a previous order. It said this is because court staff must remain impartial.

35. It cannot remind the parties they need to do this or act when documents are not filed by the deadline. It would be Mrs H’s responsibility to share her concerns about the other party’s actions with a judge.

36. Any consequence of not providing the evidence is up to a judge to decide. Although HMCTS could chase Mrs H’s ex-partner if a judge ordered it to, we have seen no indication a judge has made such an order. HMCTS was therefore acting within its remit by not chasing Mrs H’s ex-partner for his evidence or sanctioning him for not providing it.

37. We understand Mrs H has experience exceptionally frustrating circumstances trying to recover child maintenance costs. We recognise this has been a time consuming and lengthy process for her. We can see why her experience with HMCTS has added to this. We hope it is clear why we are unable to look into her concerns further.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs H’s complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We have decided HMCTS did nothing wrong when it did not act on another party’s delay providing evidence. Where it did make mistakes with losing Mrs H’s paperwork and not responding to emails, it has taken appropriate action to put the impacts right.

2. We recognise Mrs H is deeply frustrated by what happened. We understand why these issues mean so much to her given the impacts she has associated with these events.