3. Mr A asked HMCTS for a copy of a document to get permission from a limited company for a representative to act for it, which is detailed under the CPR (Civil Procedure Rules). HMCTS refused to give this document to Mr A.
4. Mr A believes he has been consistently wrongly treated by HMCTS because of his race and disability.
5. Mr A would like HMCTS to simply answer his question - does it have a copy of the authorisation from the company or not as required under the CPR?
6. Mr A wrote to HMCTS on 21 July 2021, requesting whether the court gave permission under CPR (part 39.6(b)) for the defendant to be represented by an employee, and if so he requested a copy of the permission (CPR part 39A 5.5).
7. As Mr A did not get a response from HMCTS, he wrote to it again on 29 June 2022. We have seen a HMCTS complaint response dated 4 November that states it replied to Mr A on 5 October. HMCTS sent its apologies for the ‘unacceptable delay’.
8. HMCTS explained that permission for an employee to represent the defendant was a judge's decision and was explained in the ‘preamble of the order’ dated 6 July 2021. HMCTS said the undertaking by the defendant, did seem to be mentioned in the order of 6 July. HMCTS explained it looked through the court file but there was no trace of an undertaking from the hearing on 6 July on file. The response went on to say if Mr A felt this decision was incorrect the appropriate way to challenge this would be to appeal the decision. HMCTS advised Mr A to get legal advice to appeal the decision because it could not resolve his query through the complaints process.
9. Mr A sent a further email on 4 November 2022 stating he was not happy with the last HMCTS response. He asked HMCTS to quote the reference it made about 'the preamble of the order' because Mr A did not agree the judge had given permission. He asked HMCTS to confirm the CPR was not followed as he said it did not have a copy of the board resolution as required on file.
10. On 5 May 2023, Mr A sent a follow up email to his last complaint because he said he had not had a response from HMCTS. He said that if he had not had a response within 14 days he would raise his complaint with us.
11. On 11 June, Mr A sent HMCTS another email quoting its complaints escalation process. He said HMCTS were intentionally ignoring his complaints.
12. On 14 July, HMCTS sent a response to Mr A’s complaint from an operations manager as a stage two response. It replied to these issues.
Mr A’s complaint was not investigated correctly at stage one
13. HMCTS reviewed the stage one response sent on 18 May, with the member of staff who had done the investigation. They had not been able to access certain emails due to the data retention policy which meant they had been deleted. HMCTS did not consider the stage one response to cover up emails of 10 and 18 June 2021, but it was due to the fact the emails were not available to look at. It also said it was sorry that it failed to respond to Mr A’s request for a reasonable adjustment and repeated its apology.
A reasonable adjustment was denied at two hearings on grounds of race and Mr A has suffered discrimination
14. HMCTS recognised the request for a reasonable adjustment was missed and it made a clerical error which it apologised for. HMCTS said at a strike out hearing which was scheduled for 26 July 2021, it found a case officer and manager emailed arrangements for the adjustments. But, as the hearing was postponed the request was not sent for when the hearing eventually went ahead. It also responded to Mr A’s concern that his allegations of discrimination had not been responded to in the stage one response. HMCTS said it felt Mr A was making general comments about the courts being systemically racist so did not see this as a complaint it needed to respond to.
The respondent was not authorised to act and Mr A suffered prejudice because of this
15. HMCTS explained this was not a matter it could consider as it was not an administrative judgment but a judicial one. It also noted Mr A’s permission to appeal to the tribunal did not raise this issue.
16. On 24 July 2023, HMCTS sent its final response to Mr A. It said it could not confirm whether a written statement was sent to the courts in line with the CPR. HMCTS said its staff were unable to comment on the documents and it explained this to Mr A on 19 June. HMCTS stressed it was not within its remit to check if the correct documents are submitted and it could only pass them to a judge to consider.
17. Finally, HMCTS said it was sorry Mr A had to contact the court many times in 2022 and 2023 and explained this was because it was dealing with a backlog. It said the delays were unacceptable and it was sorry it was not able to provide a good service. It offered Mr A a goodwill payment of £100.
19. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any signs that something has gone wrong.
20. It may be helpful to explain that HMCTS has two types of functions. The first are the actions it carries out by order of a judge (known as judicial functions). The second are actions it carries out in its operational daily duties (known as administrative functions), By law, we can look only at the way HMCTS carries out administrative functions.
21. We should also explain that we have no power or authority to interpret legislation (such as the Civil Procedure Rules) or decide how an organisation like HMCTS should have interpreted that legislation. Only a court can do this.
22. We have seen that HMCTS were correct when it explained to Mr A the decision to allow the respondent to represent the company was made by a judge. This is because HMCTS can only make sure that documents are passed to a judge to consider in a hearing.
23. We would not be critical of HMCTS for saying it could not provide Mr A with a copy of the document or confirm whether it received a written statement in line with the CPR. This is because this is not an administrative function but a judicial one. This is in line with our ‘Principles of Good Administration’, that say:
‘Public administration should be transparent and information should be handled as openly as the law allows. Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.’
24. If Mr A believes the judge acted unlawfully by allowing a representative to act without having formal permission, he may wish to get independent legal advice on how he can challenge the judge’s decision. We cannot help him with this.
25. We recognise the distressing circumstances of Mr A’s complaint and the effect this has had on him. We understand this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr A was hoping for and we thank him for bringing his complaint to us to consider.
1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have seen no sign that anything went seriously wrong.
2. We realise Mr A feels he should be able to request a document that shows how a respondent was able to act in his court hearing. We have not seen that HMCTS got anything wrong when it advised it could not comment on this because it was a judicial decision (decision made by a judge) and not an administrative one. We understand the situation was distressing for Mr A.