HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr C complains HMCTS will not cancel a County Court Judgement (CCJ) registered to his old address. Mr C says he made the outstanding payment two days after the CCJ was applied and provided bank statements to HMCTS as evidence of this. He says HMCTS initially told him it would use his evidence if it did not receive anything from the claimant, but later stated his evidence was not acceptable.

5. Mr C says he works in insurance. He says he will lose his job if the CCJ is not cancelled and would probably not be able to get another job in the same industry. Mr C says he has struggled to sleep since the events.

6. Mr C would like the CCJ to be cancelled as he says it was paid within the 30-day window. He would also like a financial remedy of £500.

7. A claim was served against Mr C on 5 March 2025. It appears this was served (posted) to Mr C’s previous address. Once the deadline for responding to the claim had passed, the claimant applied for judgement.

8. On 15 April, Mr C made a payment of £375 via bank transfer. He made a second payment on 25 April for £150.11.

9. On 22 April, the Court awarded the CCJ against Mr C for the amount of £525.11.

10. On 7 May, Mr C complained to HMCTS that a CCJ appeared on his credit file, but the paperwork had been sent to his previous address. He stated he had written to HMCTS with proof that the debt was paid prior to the CCJ being issued but had not received a response.

11. HMCTS responded to the complaint on 15 May. It provided additional responses on 4 and 12 June.

12. HMCTS received payment for a certificate of cancellation on 19 May. It processed Mr C’s application on 2 June.

13. On 23 July, the Court issued a certificate of satisfaction. The certificate lists the date of payment as 3 June 2025.

14. On 26 July, Mr C queried he had received a certificate of satisfaction and not cancellation. He told HMCTS the date of the final payment was incorrect.

15. On 26 August, Mr C emailed the debt collection company and the claimant to request a statement of truth to confirm the date of the payment. The debt collection company confirmed £375 was paid on 15 April and £150.11 was paid on 25 April.

16. On 1 September, a Deputy District Judge ordered the registration of the debt for £525.11 registered on 22 April 2025 be cancelled with immediate effect. The Order refers to Mr C’s supporting evidence as being satisfactory to show the judgement had been paid.

19. To decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation into a complaint, we look at what outcome the complainant wants to resolve their complaint. Our SMG says we can resolve a complaint without conducting a detailed investigation if we can deliver the outcomes a complainant asks us to achieve at an earlier point in our case handling process.

20. Section 3.60 of our SMG says it is for us, not the complainant, to decide whether the actions taken by an organisation resolve the complaint.

21. Mr C asked HMCTS to cancel the CCJ registered to his old address. He told HMCTS he made the outstanding payment two days after the CCJ was applied and provided bank statements as evidence of this.

22. Mr C told us his main concern is that HMCTS has not appeared to follow the online guidance, which says evidence needs to be sent to the Court showing the person made the payment (i.e., a bank statement). We reviewed this guidance to confirm this is the case.

23. The online guidance says if the full amount is paid within one month, you can get the judgement removed from the register. This is known as a certificate of cancellation. It involves writing to the Court via an N443 form to say you have paid and sending proof of payment from the person or business you owed money to.

24. If the full amount is paid after one month, you can get the record of the judgement marked as satisfied in the register (a certificate of satisfaction). However, it will stay on the register for six years albeit showing as paid.

25. On 2 June, HMCTS processed Mr C’s application for a certificate of cancellation. It issued a certificate of satisfaction on 23 July, which listed the date of payment as 3 June. We consider this to be an indication of a failing. According to the online guidance, the Court should have issued a certificate of cancellation on 23 July. It did not do so until 1 September.

26. The online guidance says if the person cannot get proof of payment from the person or business they owed money to, they can still apply for a certificate of cancellation using the N443 form. It says you need to send evidence to Court showing the payment was made. It gives the example of a bank statement.

27. The guidance says the Court will then write to the person or business. If they do not respond within 30 days, the Court will use your evidence to make a decision.

28. On review of the complaint file, we can see HMCTS explained this to Mr C. It stated that, if sufficient proof of the date of payment is not provided when applying for a certificate of cancellation or satisfaction, it must write to the claimant for confirmation. It told Mr C if it did not receive a response, it would mark the judgement as paid on the date he provided. We consider the explanation is in line with the online guidance.

29. In this case, HMCTS had to wait until 2 July for the claimant to respond following Mr C’s application of 2 June. However, HMCTS did not receive a response. Based on the online guidance, and HMCTS’ explanation to Mr C, it should have made a decision on the payment date using Mr C’s evidence. We cannot see this was done.

30. In his correspondence with HMCTS, Mr C provided screenshots of a bank transfer made at 8.01am on 15 April for £375 and at 4.05pm on 25 April for £150.11. We consider this means the debt amount was fully paid three days after the CCJ was awarded. We note this evidence was considered satisfactory by a Judge on 1 September, as per the certificate of cancellation.

31. On 26 August, Mr C provided an email from a debt collection company providing confirmation of the dates the payments were made. From our review, we can see the debt collection company advised £375 was paid on 15 April and £150.11 was paid on 25 April.

32. In response, HMCTS explained it could not update the judgement based on this email. It explained this was because the names of the payees in the email were not parties to the case. It advised it still required confirmation from the claimant, including the amount paid, the date paid, and the county court claim number.

33. In its complaint responses and correspondence with Mr C, HMCTS declined to uphold the complaint. We therefore do not consider it has taken any actions to put things right at that stage, based on the indications of failings we have identified.

34. Our Principles say ‘where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise. If that is not possible, the remedy should compensate them appropriately’.

35. Mr C has told us he is seeking a financial remedy of £500. We note he is also seeking for the CCJ to be cancelled, which it was as per the Court Order dated 1 September 2025.

36. To determine the appropriate level of financial remedy, we considered Mr C’s claimed impact and HMCTS’ complaints handling guidance. Mr C told us he works in insurance. Therefore, there was a risk he could lose his job if the CCJ is not cancelled. He told us he has suffered sleepless nights and work stress, and this also led to a breakdown in his relationship.

37. Under the section on making an ex-gratia (goodwill) offer, the guidance gives an example of an error in which a customer had a CCJ incorrectly placed on their file. The customer was contacted by credit repair companies, but the Court resolved the matter on the same day. This falls under £100 to £250.

38. The guidance also gives an example of an error in which a customer had a mortgage refused solely because of an incorrect CCJ. This was not resolved quickly and the customer was inconvenienced. This falls under an ex-gratia offer of between £250 and £500.

39. In this case, we consider the period in which Mr C was impacted by the failings was between 23 July and 1 September (just under six weeks). Whilst we acknowledge Mr C suffered stress and sleepless nights, and we do not underestimate how upsetting it would have been for him to have a CCJ remain on his record when he believed it should have been cancelled. We cannot consider his hypothetical impact (the risk of losing his job) as an injustice that had happened. We also consider it would be difficult to link a breakdown in his relationship to the failure of HMCTS to take his date of payment into account.

40. We contacted HMCTS to discuss whether it would be willing to consider a resolution in line with its complaints handling guidance. HMCTS confirmed it would be happy to offer a financial remedy of £250. We consider this level of financial remedy is appropriate. It reflects the period of avoidable distress and uncertainty Mr C experienced, falls within HMCTS’ own guidance range, and sits at the top of the range for cases with a comparable impact.

41. We understand Mr C says it has affected him for around four months, and we appreciate why he feels the impact was significant and prolonged. It is important to note the CCJ would have been on his file from 22 April 2025, irrespective of the identified failings. The maladministration we have identified is that HMCTS incorrectly marked the CCJ as satisfied, not cancelled, on 23 July. Therefore, any linkable impact to this maladministration only took place from this date until the date of the cancellation.

42. We hope our further explanation has reassured Mr C that we have fully considered his concerns and the personal impact he has described. We consider the resolution offered is appropriate and in line with guidance. It remedies the injustice we can link to the identified failing and resolves the complaint without the need for a detailed investigation. We therefore do not intend to take any further action on this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mr C’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We are sorry to hear of the distress Mr C has suffered as a result of the CCJ. We understand he has suffered sleepless nights. It must have been a very stressful time for him, particularly given his concerns about the possible effect on his work and personal life.

2. During our assessment of Mr C’s complaint at primary investigation, we saw indications of failings. We also saw indications of an impact on Mr C. We discussed this with HMCTS, and it has agreed to offer Mr C a financial remedy of £250.

3. We feel this action from HMCTS will resolve this matter. We have asked HMCTS to contact Mr C to arrange payment of the financial remedy. We therefore have decided to take no further action on this complaint.