Processing of directions questionnaire
15. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. Company A’s complaint is outside our time limit so we have discussed this with Mr L to understand the reasons why it could not come to us sooner. We have also considered the actions of HMCTS and the time it took to respond to each stage of the complaints process.
16. Company A became aware of the events at the heart of this complaint on 5 November 2018 when the default judgement was made. The matter was referred to an MP in February 2022. This means that to be in time, Company A needed to complain to an MP by November 2019. This means the complaint is outside of our time limit by more than two years.
17. Company A became aware of the matters about the transfer to court in November 2018 when HMCTS gave its first response, so it would also have needed to refer this part of the complaint to an MP by November 2019. It is also outside of our time limit.
18. Mr L complained to HMCTS on 20 November 2018. HMCTS responded to this complaint on 30 November. This was eight working days after the complaint was submitted.
19. Mr L requested a review of the decision on 24 December 2020, two years and three weeks after he received the first response. HMCTS responded to this on 12 January 2021. This was nine working days after the review request was sent.
20. Mr L appealed the review of the decision on 13 December 2021. This was approximately 48 weeks after he received the review response. HMCTS responded to this on 10 January 2022. This was 20 working days after the appeal request was sent.
21. It is our view that HMCTS responded in a timely manner to Mr L’s first complaint and the review and appeal requests. Therefore, it is our view HMCTS was not responsible for any delays in the complaints process.
22. Mr L told us on that the complaint was raised in writing to an MP on 31 January 2020. The MP signed the complaint form on 11 February 2022. Mr L stated he was not aware of the need to complain to his MP until he received the ‘Final correspondence from the HM Courts and Tribunal Service received 10 January 2021’. The appeal response from HMCTS shows it was sent on 10 January 2022 and not 10 January 2021.
23. We asked the MP when the complaint was raised and they provided us with an email from when Mr L raised the complaint on 1 February 2022. The MP stated this was the first time Mr L had contacted them about this complaint.
24. Mr L raised the complaint with an MP on 1 February 2022. This was approximately 38 months after Company A was aware of the matter.
25. We asked Mr L if there was a reason for the delays in submitting the review and appeal requests to HMCTS and for the delay in contacting the MP.
26. Mr L told us he was not aware of the final stage of the complaints process and the requirement to submit a complaint to an MP, until he got the final response from HMCTS on 10 January 2022. He also told us he believes HMCTS should have informed him of this at an earlier stage in the complaints process and not waited until the final response.
27. The GOV.UK website gives the following information about the HMCTS complaints procedure:
‘Make a complaint If you’re unhappy with our service You might want to make a complaint. Our complaint process looks at how your case was handled by our staff. We’re not able to change the decision in your case or investigate how a judge or magistrate acted towards you.
To complain about our service: complete our online complaints form speak to a member of staff in our buildings and we’ll record your feedback contact our courts or tribunals by email, phone or in writing
We aim to respond within 10 working days.
If you remain unsatisfied at the end of the complaints process, you can also ask your Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’.
28. The HMCTS complaints process details that its final response should include details of how a complaint can be raised through an MP to our organisation. HMCTS explained this in its final response.
29. It is our view, taking into account all of the information, that HMCTS followed its complaints procedure and correctly referred Mr L to his MP if he was not satisfied with its final response. Information was also available to Mr L as part of the HMCTS complaints process that this was the final stage in the appeal/complaints process. Therefore, we do not consider a lack of knowledge or awareness of the complaints process as a reason to put our time limit to one side. It is also true to say that Mr L could have become aware of this requirement sooner, had he escalated his complaint through the complaints procedure without delay.
30. Mr L also explained there was a delay in the complaints process as they instructed a solicitor’s firm to pursue the complaint and claim against HMCTS. Mr L states the solicitor at the firm who was dealing with the claim on behalf of Company A ‘fell into some personal circumstances and despite chasing’ Company A ‘then had to take matters in our own hands’.
31. Mr L sent the review request to HMCTS in December 2020 and also provided further information to HMCTS later that month. HMCTS provided its response to the review request to Mr L. This was during the time Mr L told us his solicitor was pursuing the claim against HMCTS on his behalf and before the ‘personal incident’ in September 2021, he feels was responsible for his solicitor stopping the work. None of the original complaint correspondence, the review request or the appeal request were sent from or copied to the solicitors.
32. Taking into account all of the information, it is our view that Mr L had enough information available about the HMCTS complaints process and the timescales involved. At each stage of the complaints process HMCTS responded to Mr L and told him the next step of the process in a timely manner.
33. We recognise Mr L has stated the solicitors were pursuing a claim against HMCTS on behalf of Company A and it was not until they stopped working on this that he feels he was able to pursue the complaint. We have also considered that during the time Mr L said the solicitors were carrying out this work he submitted a review request to HMCTS about the complaint and did not involve the solicitor. It is important to note that the complaints process is an alternative to legal action and legal expertise is not required to make a complaint. We can understand why Mr L might have been seeking to take legal action against HMCTS, but this would have been treated as a matter separate to the complaints process.
34. We recognise Mr L told us he thought his solicitors were pursuing the matter. As we are not responsible for regulating solicitors we cannot investigate or comment on the advice and actions they took on behalf of Company A.
35. It is our view Mr L could have completed the complaints process at HMCTS while the solicitors were also looking at a separate claim against HMCTS on behalf of Company A. From what we have seen, it was Mr L and not HMCTS that was responsible for the delays in completing the HMCTS complaints process and the 38-month delay in complaining to the MP. Therefore, we have decided not to put our time limit to one side in this case.
36. We appreciate that Company A has experienced financial losses and we are sorry that we cannot help further.