HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3Miss L complains on behalf of her father, Mr L. She complains HMCTS took too long to refer his request for an emergency injunction to a judge.

4She says HMCTS’s actions caused a delay of 12 working days. She says this caused her father distress and worsened his poor health.

5As an outcome to her complaint, Miss L would like a £500 financial remedy and a written apology. She would also like service improvements in the form of a visible, properly staffed urgent applications process at the court.

6On 25 September 2024, Miss L delivered an emergency N16A application to the county court. This form is used to ask for an injunction. This is when the court orders a person, company or organisation to do something or not to do something. An injunction is typically used to protect commercial interests, prevent financial harm, or enforce contractual rights.

7Miss L chased HMCTS for an update on 10 October, and it referred the application to a judge the following day. The judge considered the application and returned it to HMCTS on 30 October. They asked HMCTS to list the case for the next available hearing, which it did.

8The hearing was due to take place on 2 December. Miss L was concerned this was too far in the future so asked HMCTS to bring it forward. HMCTS rescheduled the hearing to 20 November. However, it never happened as the dispute was settled out of court the day before the hearing.

11Before we decide to conduct a detailed investigation, we consider whether there are indications that what happened had a significant, unremedied impact. In this case, we have decided HMCTS has already done enough to put things right.

12Our Principles of Good Administration set out that organisations should deal with people helpfully and within published timescales. They should act promptly and sensitively, bearing in mind their individual circumstances.

13In responding to Miss L’s complaint, HMCTS explained it should deal with injunction applications on the day it receives them.

14It said a member of staff wrongly categorised her father’s N16A form as non-urgent, which contributed to the delay. It added that finding the case file and relevant guidance also took some time, as the case had previously been discontinued.

15Miss L says her father is severely disabled following a stroke. She told us the Equality Act 2010 means HMCTS should have made reasonable adjustments for her father’s disability and feels it did not do so. The reasonable adjustment she wanted was a faster service from HMCTS.

16The issues at the heart of Miss L's complaint are not in doubt. HMCTS accepts it did not deal with her application as promptly as it should have done. We agree it did not deal with the N16A within the relevant timescale and this is an indication of a failing.

17We recognise the significant health problems Mr L has. We consider the delay indicates a failing in any event. Based on the information available, we have not seen evidence HMCTS treated Mr L less favourably than it would have treated someone without his disability.

18As we believe something has gone wrong, we have looked at the impact it had and what HMCTS has done to put things right.

19Our Principles for Remedy sets out how organisations should put things right. It says they should make improvements to avoid the same problem happening again. They should also apologise for the impact of their actions, and in some cases pay financial remedy.

20HMCTS’s Complaint Handling Guidance sets out payment ranges for nonfinancial loss. Payments of £50 to £100 put right issues such as misplacing documents or delays in correspondence. Payments of £500 or more put right issues such as enforcing a judgement against the wrong person or sharing information that puts someone at risk of violence.

21Miss L says the delay was very distressing for her father. She says her father’s psychological vulnerability made the impact of the delays worse. Miss L says the purpose of the emergency injunction application was to prevent imminent harm to her father. She says HMCTS’s delay progressing the emergency application has caused that harm to her father.

22We acknowledge how frustrating it was for Miss L and her father that she had to chase HMCTS to progress the application. We also understand how worrying it was to wait for HMCTS to act.

23We are also conscious Mr L came to no physical or financial harm beyond this emotional impact. For example, he did not lose any assets, there was no indication confidential information about him was shared and his safety was not at risk. Moreover, HMCTS progressed the application promptly after Miss L asked it to act.

24Having looked at the distress flowing from HMCTS’s mistake, we consider the amount of financial remedy it offered is in line with the levels we expect. Taking Mr L’s additional vulnerability into account, we are satisfied the £75 it offered her father is in line with the relevant guidance.

25We acknowledge Miss L feels this payment does not go far enough. However, we do not believe that what happened meets the threshold for a payment of £500 or more. This is because such a payment is designed to address more serious failings.

26We also looked at the apology HMCTS sent to Miss L. This identified what went wrong and explained how it happened. HMCTS also acknowledged the emotional impact on Miss L and the frustration this caused her.

27Moreover, HMCTS put service improvements in place to avoid the same problem happening again in the future. It explained it has provided further training to staff on how to process urgent applications. It has also introduced a quality control process to check compliance with the guidance.

28We recognise these improvements do not meet the expectations Miss L has. We consider the improvements HMCTS made are proportionate to what went wrong and address the cause of the failing.

29As HMCTS has paid financial remedy in line with relevant guidance, made appropriate apologies and put sufficient service improvements in place, we will take no further action on Miss L’s complaint. This does not take away from the understandable frustration and emotional impact this situation has had on her and her father.