HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr M complains HMCTS issued a grant for probate while a caveat was still in place in September 2019. A caveat is a legal document issued by the Probate Registry that prevents a Grant of probate being issued and has the effect of stopping probate. Mr M says it took until 17 October 2019 to recall the probate.

5. He says as a result £180,000 was withdrawn from his brother’s estate. He also says he has been caused a great deal of distress and upset, as well has incurring additional legal costs of £7,500.

6. As an outcome, Mr M is seeking £10,000.

7. In May 2019, Mr M applied to HMCTS to extend the caveat on his brother’s estate.

8. HMCTS filled out the details to create a new caveat but wrote the wrong date of death by mistake. This meant the caveat did not match when the third party (solicitor) applied for probate.

9. In September 2019, the probate was granted to the third party.

10. In October 2019 HMCTS found the dates did not match and referred the case to the Registrar. The grant for probate was revoked on 17 October 2019.

Issuing of probate while caveat was live

13. Mr M says he contested his brothers will. While doing this, and spending over £7,000, the caveat was removed which allowed a solicitor to remove £180,000 from the estate.

14. HMCTS has apologised for the error in issuing the grant while the caveat was live. It states the grant was recalled on 17 October 2019.

15. It says the error occurred when a new IT system was introduced, and the wrong date of death was inserted onto the new form. When the information was transferred onto the new system the new (incorrect) date was not picked up or checked.

16. It is clear there was an error made by HMCTS when it issued a grant for probate while a caveat was still live. However, we are satisfied there is no outstanding impact and do not believe we can link the injustice claimed by Mr M to the actions of HMCTS.

17. The purpose of a caveat is for if an individual disagrees with a grant for probate application. Ultimately, although we appreciate HMCTS wrongly issued the probate, Mr M would still have had to go through the courts to reach an agreement with third parties once the caveat was over. Furthermore, even if an agreement was reached between all parties involved this would still be a legal issue and would not be for HMCTS to decide, meaning Mr M would still have had to pursue legal action.

18. HMCTS are also correct when it explains that issues surrounding the withdrawal of funds from the estate are a legal issue and Mr M will need to seek independent legal advice.

19. Given HMCTS has offered an apology and a gesture of goodwill of £350, we are satisfied there is no outstanding impact and there is nothing further we can achieve. This is in line with our principles of good administration – putting things right.

1. We have carefully considered Mr M’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We are sorry to hear about the circumstances surrounding Mr M’s complaint and appreciate this would have had a significant impact on him, causing him a great deal of distress and frustration.

2. We do not dispute the issues raised have caused Mr M a great deal of distress, however we cannot link all the impact he has claimed to the actions of HMCTS. We have decided HMCTS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr M.

3. We have explained the reasons for our decision below.