4. Mrs O complains about the way HMCTS handled her case. She complains about the following issues:
· she says the court failed to notice that the Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting certificate (MIAM) was out of date · the court failed to provide her with a copy of the other party’s First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) telephone interview · the C2 form was incorrectly returned to her.
5. Mrs O had a case in the Family Court regarding a contact order for her daughter. She says there were several occasions where HMCTS did not handle her case adequately.
MIAM certificate
What Mrs O told us
9. Mrs O said that she received an application from her daughter’s father seeking to vary an arrangement order. This application contained a MIAM certificate, dated 25 January 2019. She says this was out of date and that the outdated certificate was overlooked by the court, even though she had queried this before the hearing and during the subsequent hearings.
What HMCTS said
10. Mrs O complained to HMCTS on 20 January 2021. It provided an initial response on 26 January 2021 and said that when applications are submitted to the court, the person submitting the application is required to provide accurate and correct information. It said that the court was not responsible for checking or verifying the accuracy of the information provided.
11. HMCTS told Mrs O if she had concerns regarding the application that was submitted, she should indicate her concerns to the person who submitted the application.
12. HMCTS provided a review stage reply on 17 February 2021, reiterating that the court is not responsible for checking or verifying the accuracy of information provided within an application. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all the information filled in on the form is accurate, before they submit it.
13. As Mrs O was still unhappy with the response, HMCTS provided an appeal stage reply on 15 March 2021. It said it was satisfied that its previous responses had fully addressed the issue and there was nothing further it could add, as the administrative staff are not responsible for checking accuracy of information.
14. It also said that it had no influence over whether a case is suitable for mediation. It said it is the responsibility of the judiciary to decide on mediation, and how to handle evidence.
15. As part of our initial enquires we contacted HMCTS for some additional information relating to this aspect of Mrs O’s complaint.
16. It told us that the issue was that the child’s father had incorrectly ticked the box on a form claiming he had attended a MIAM, in relation to the existing proceedings.
17. HMCTS told us that administrative staff are not legally qualified and so do not check the accuracy of the information provided on the forms. Staff can only check that the form has been fully completed. It said staff may, on occasion, return forms if a section has not been completed.
Our View
18. HMCTS are correct in telling Mrs O that its administrative staff are not legally trained and do not check the accuracy of information on the forms as this is not an administrative function of the court. The responsibility of HMCTS Court administrative staff is as follows: ‘Administrative staff... help with the day-to-day running of the courts and their supporting offices, deal with enquiries from the public, book dates and times for court hearings, allocate cases to courtrooms, prepare lists of the day's court sessions and keep ushers informed of these, and follow up the court's judgments after a hearing.’
19. We have also reviewed HMCTS’ guidance CB1 – Making an application – Children and the family courts which says: ‘P – What the court will do next: How the court will deal with your case: When the court office gets your forms, it will check you have filled in the forms correctly and included any relevant papers.’
20. We understand that it will have been frustrating for Mrs O, as the applicant’s error will have caused some delays. As the guidance shows, it is not HMCTS’s responsibility to check the accuracy of the contents of the application, only that it has been fully filled in. We cannot say that HMCTS should have identified that the applicant had completed the form incorrectly.
21. As the onus was on the applicant to ensure the correct information and documents were provided with the application, we have seen no indications that HMCTS has done anything wrong.
FHDRA telephone interview
What Mrs O told us
22. Mrs O said that as the FHDRA applicant did not attend the Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory Service) telephone appointment, he was granted a telephone call prior to the hearing starting. Mrs O says she never received a copy of this telephone meeting and was not aware of the details discussed during the call.
23. Mrs O said she contacted Cafcass, but it told her it was unable to give her any information and asked her to make her enquires to the court.
What HMCTS said
24. On 22 January 2021, the legal team at HMCTS provided a response to some of the points Mrs O had raised in her complaint, as part of the first stage reply of its complaint process.
25. It said that conversations between Cafcass and parties are confidential. It told Mrs O that if she was unhappy with how Cafcass have dealt with matters, she would need to direct her complaint to Cafcass and not the courts.
26. It said that if she disagreed with the decision made at the hearing then she may wish to consider an appeal.
27. HMCTS also addressed the point in its review reply, dated 17 February 2021. It reiterated that the response provided by the legal team in relation to this point was correct, and that conversations between Cafcass and other parties are confidential.
Our View
28. While we are not aware of any official guidance from HMCTS, regarding the release of third-party information in these circumstances, we have considered our Principles of Good Administration which state: ‘3 Being open and accountable Public bodies should handle and process information properly and appropriately in line with the law. So while their policies and procedures should be transparent, public bodies should, as the law requires, also respect the privacy of personal and confidential information.’
29. We understand that it will have been frustrating for Mrs O to not have access to the information she felt she was entitled to. We cannot see any indications that HMCTS has done anything wrong by not sharing the telephone conversation details with Mrs O, as this was confidential information prepared by Cafcass. Cafcass’ own procedures govern what information it should disclose to the courts and to other parties. HMCTS staff would not have been involved in the telephone interview, nor are they required to share this as part of its processes.
30. We agree with HMCTS that Mrs O would need to direct this aspect of her complaint to Cafcass.
C2 form
What Mrs O told us
31. Mrs O said that prior to the final hearing she sought to change her daughter’s name. Following legal advice, she completed a C2 form which would allow her to add the request on to the pending hearing.
32. Mrs O said that the court returned the C2 application to her with a letter saying the form was incorrect. She then contacted the court by email on 9 July 2021 but did not receive a reply.
33. Mrs O then sought further legal advice which reassured her it was the correct form but advised that she try sending a C100 form as an alternative.
34. Mrs O said that the C100 form, along with the £215 fee, was also returned to her with a letter stating that it was the incorrect form. Mrs O had tried to contact the court by phone several times but received no reply.
35. During the final hearing in December 2021, Mrs O’s barrister discussed the name change request and the issues Mrs O had with the applications being returned. The legal adviser at the time was unable to provide an answer as to why this had happened.
36. Mrs O said the court advised her to re-send the C2 form, however, the final order supported her request for the name change so she did not need to reapply.
What HMCTS said
37. In its first stage reply HMCTS noted that Mrs O had mentioned that the change of name had now been resolved.
38. It said that the court experienced significantly reduced staff due to COVID-19 self-isolation, being vulnerable, or illness. This then meant that on some occasions staff had not been able to complete responses to enquiries as quickly as usual.
39. In its review stage reply it apologised that Mrs O had been given conflicting advice about her C2 application when she submitted it to the court.
40. It said that the guidance regarding C2 and C100 applications has been updated and the confusion may have occurred due to the change being brought in when she applied, and staff may have given conflicting advice unknowingly.
41. HMCTS said it has since made sure that all staff are up to date with the latest guidance to ensure it does not happen again.
42. In its appeal stage reply dated 15 March 2021, HMCTS apologised again and said that the applications being sent back to her were because of human error.
43. It offered an ex-gratia payment of £250 for failing to process her C2 application, and any stress and inconvenience Mrs O experienced as a result.
Our view
44. Mrs O told us that she had tried to chase HMCTS when the applications she sent were returned to her, but she did not get any response.
45. As Mrs O had obtained legal advice confirming her applications were correct, she could not understand why they were being returned.
46. We can see that HMCTS acknowledged the errors it made regarding the forms, and its lack of communication when Mrs O made enquiries.
47. We have considered the impact Mrs O says she suffered as a result. She said she had called several times to try and find out why the form had been sent back and this was stressful for her. Mrs O also occurred additional financial costs associated with the process.
48. We have also considered HMCTS’ own Complaint Handling Guidance, in particular the section on considering financial redress and ranges of appropriate payment.
49. We can see that HMCTS had reached a reasonable offer, in line with the examples provided within that guidance, which we feel adequately reflects any stress and inconvenience Mrs O has experienced in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
50. We find that the £250 is reasonable and is also in line with our own guidance on financial remedy. This states that a level two injustice is when something has gone wrong that has had relatively low impact on the person affected, but has resulted in a degree of stress and inconvenience. As the impact of HMCTS’ error was resolved through the court order, we consider that any frustration and distress Mrs O suffered as a result of trying to rectify the problem would have been time limited.
51. HMCTS have also ensured that going forward all its staff are kept up to date with the relevant guidance. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration which say that organisations should learn from complaints through continuous improvement.
52. We understand that the error HMCTS made will have been frustrating and stressful at the time. Considering the evidence, we believe this aspect of the complaint to be resolved satisfactorily because HMCTS has done enough to put this right. We have also seen from the information provided by HMCTS that Ms O accepted the £250 which has already been paid to her.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We appreciate that Mrs O has suffered from additional stress throughout the duration of her case, and we are sorry to hear about her experience.
2. In considering the evidence submitted to us, we can see that HMCTS made an error in returning the C2 form to her. In our view, it has provided sufficient remedy to put right the impact of its error.
3. We have decided that there are no indications that HMCTS made any other errors when dealing with her case.