Processing of application - what should happen
Timescales
20. HMCTS guidance at the time of Mr R’s application said to allow up to 16 weeks for an application, and it emphasised that if the probate service has to request additional documents it may take longer.
What and where applications should be sent
21. HMCTS’ primary guidance on applying for probate provides information on the various probate forms and applications. There is no specific information in this section regarding grants to reseal probate. There are different forms for citizen applicants (personal applicants), and probate practitioners.
22. There is also a page on the government website (PA4SOT) which provides contact details for general enquiries, and where to send required documents and applications to:
Please send your form and required documents to: HMCTS Probate, PO Box 12625, Harlow, CM20 9QE
23. We were unable to see any guidance for reseal applications for personal applicants. However, HMCTS provide guidance on probate applications that need to be done as a paper application, for probate practitioners. It lists the following grants that should be applied for on paper, because they cannot be applied for on the digital system (MyHMCTS):
Grants of probate MyHMCTS cannot accept probate grant applications in all cases. In these cases, you must apply using the paper form: • for a second grant for the same estate • where the person entitled has been convicted of murder or manslaughter of the deceased or has otherwise forfeited the right to apply • in respect of a foreign will • accompanied by an application to prove a copy of the will • accompanied by an application for rectification or fiat copy of the will • for joinder of administrator, under rule 25 • two or more persons are entitled in the same degree, under rule 27 (3) to (8) • where the deceased died domiciled outside England and Wales, under rule 30, except a grant under rule 30 (3)(b) • to attorneys, under rule 31 • related to resealing under Colonial Probates Acts 1892 and 1927, under rule 39 • for administration under discretionary powers of court section 116, under rule 52 24. The second to last application listed above is relevant to Mr R’s application as he was applying to reseal a grant of probate.
25. The guidance goes on to say:
How to apply
If there is a will complete application form PA1P for probate professional practitioners.
If there is not a will complete application form PA1A for probate professional practitioners.
You can also apply to stop a probate grant being issued.
Pay for the application
You need to pay on application.
The application fee is £273 if the value of the estate is over £5,000.
There’s no fee if the estate is £5,000 or less.
For a second grant in an estate where a previous grant has been issued the fee is £20, even if the estate is £5,000 or less. For cases with a settled land limitation, if the value of the estate is £5,000 or less there’s no fee and if it’s over £5,000 it is £273.
Where to send your application Use a signed-for or tracked postal service that will deliver to PO boxes to send your documents.
We cannot return the will and any updates to it.
Applications in English Newcastle District Probate Registry2nd FloorKings CourtEarl Grey WayNorth ShieldsNE29 6AR Processing of application-what did happen
26. Mr R says he attended Brighton Probate office in person in December 2022. He says he was informed by the security guard there was no in person service at that time. He says he discussed his application briefly with the security guard and they provided him the details of the Harlow probate office and told him to send the information there.
27. Mr R sent his application to Harlow. He says he sent the following information
• A covering letter • A copy of the court sealed probate grant • A cheque for £150
28. Mr R’s application was received at Harlow. HMCTS have explained there was no PAP1 (probate application form) included with his application. This meant that no application could be created.
29. Harlow Office created an exception record which contained the scanned documents. The New Zealand grant was scanned as a cherished document. All cherished documents must be returned to the applicant within 24 hours of scanning. There was a cheque included but as no application was created it could not be allocated and was sent to the Newcastle office to be banked.
30. Mr R says he received an email confirming receipt of documents which he says stated ‘You don’t need to do anything further at this stage, we will contact you if we need further information.’
31. Mr R says when he initially called the probate helpline to check on progress of his application, HMCTS had a pre-recorded voicemail on the system requesting that a response would only be provided if the application was over 16 weeks old (which meant it would only respond to enquiries on applications that had taken longer than its published guidelines).
32. Mr R says he called the helpline again on 6 April 2023 as it had been 17 weeks from when he made the application. He said the adviser informed him that while there was a record of the documents being received, no further action had been taken to reseal. Mr R says he asked to speak to a manager as it appeared there had been no progress on his application, but says the adviser informed him he could not speak to anyone or escalate his concern further on that call.
33. Mr R complained that day, on 6 April directly to Nick Goodwin CEO of HMCTS.
34. HMCTS logged this complaint on its complaint system on 25 April. It responded to Mr R on 7 May 2023.
35. The response said:
• it was sorry to hear of Mr R’s loss and it understood the delay would only add to this and apologised for this • it said reseal applications need to go to Newcastle, not Harlow. It said on receipt of the correspondence it had arranged for the documents to be forwards to Newcastle to be processed.
• it said once the documents were received someone would contact Mr R with an update on next steps • it explained HMCTS had a complaints process and said it had requested the probate service log the complaint and provide a reply • It explained the probate service was dealing with a high number of applications, provided further details on timelines of applications and the steps it was taken to reduce wait times.
36. On 20 May 2023, a case (for Mr R’s reseal application) was created at Newcastle from the details provided in the complaint.
37. On 24 May 2023, Mr R wrote to HMCTS, in response to its 7 May 2023 email. He said:
• he had been provided with the Harlow address by the security guard at Brighton Probate Office, having been informed the office did not offer any services to the public, and the staff all worked remotely. He said he was unable to locate any information that said reseal applications had to be sent to Newcastle.
• he stated his disappointment that the complaints team had been unable to give a timescale in which they could deal with his complaint • he said he had received an email from Newcastle Probate Service three weeks ago, but they had not responded to his emails (which he attached), so it is unclear whether they even received his papers.
38. On 1 June HMCTS sent a further two emails to Mr R. The first said:
• it was sorry he was unhappy with the 26 April email, but they were trying to ascertain why he had sent the reseal to Harlow • it explained why reseal applications had to go to Newcastle and not Harlow • it said a digital case had recently been created at Newcastle, but no documents had been uploaded, so it needed to check if they needed to request them from Harlow and requested the tracking number.
39. HMCTS’ second email said:
• it had received a reply from Newcastle, and it appeared Harlow had forwarded the application. It provided the following information from Newcastle’s message:
‘Yes, it was forwarded to ourselves, and I have the file in front of me now, however there is quite a bit missing i.e., no payment, no grant to reseal and no DOB’
• HMCTS went on to say:
‘as it is a Newcastle case can you please liaise with them, as the complaints team are not involved in the processing of applications’
40. Mr R responded on 5 June. He said:
‘I am astounded by the appalling service provided by HMCTS in every respect of this case. Rather than assisting in resolving this matter as soon as possible (e.g., requesting that Newcastle contact me urgently with any questions), you have simply added to the stress of this situation. I cannot imagine what type of organisation expects a complainant to resolve the incompetence of its own organisation.
41. He asked it to note:
• the cheque was included in the application he sent to Harlow • HMCTS had acknowledged all papers had been received in January 2023 • He raised concerns that, apart from the six-month delay in processing his application, it now appeared HMCTS had lost key documents
42. On 5 June 2023 HMCTS found Mr R’s scanned documents, located in the exception records, and sent a request to Harlow to send the documents to Newcastle.
43. On 6 June 2023 HMCTS sent an email to Mr R requesting that he returned a completed PA1P, letter of authority signed by the New Zealand executor, copy of New Zealand grant and death certificate attached.
44. On 14 June 2023 HMCTS reviewed the application and sent a further email to Mr R requesting an original court sealed copy of the New Zealand grant, and confirmation of his mother’s true name, as the PA1P and death certificate differed.
45. Mr R responded the same day with an amended PA1P attached and stated the original grant had already been sent to Harlow in December 2021. He asked why this had not been requested in the email on 7 June 2023.
46. HMCTS explained the reason for this was, that at the time the request was sent on 6 June, Harlow had not sent the original documents it was holding to Newcastle (despite this having been requested to do this on 7 May 2023 by HMCTS’ Customer Investigations Team).
47. Therefore, Newcastle did not know at the time of sending the 7 June email, that because New Zealand Grant was an original document it had returned it to Mr R as a cherished document.
48. Mr R sent the New Zealand Grant with original court seals and HMCTS received this on 20 June 2023, along with an amended PA1P form and additional documentation that was requested at the time of examination.
49. On 12 July, the application was reviewed and re-sealed and posted to Mr R.
Processing of application-our decision
50. Our investigation has identified a number of instances of poor service that occurred with Mr R’s application, that at this stage we consider were avoidable.
51. We have referenced the complaint correspondence within our consideration of Mr R’s application as this was how he escalated concerns about his application but will address the handling of his complaint separately later in the report.
Initial signposting regarding where to send application
52. We can see when Mr R attended Brighton Probate Office to hand over his application there was no face-to-face service being provided at that time.
53. We can see there is an online form (PA4SOT) which provides guidance on where to send probate applications for personal applicants. It only provides details of Harlow Probate Office and there is no reference to sending reseal applications to Newcastle instead. We have seen no reason for Mr R to doubt this was the case at this point, or the information a member of HMCTS had provided him was not correct.
54. While there is information regarding reseal applications being sent to Newcastle in the practitioner guidance, we understand why Mr R did not consider looking at this guidance for more information. This is because he is not a practitioner, and we can see there were separate forms for personal applicants and practitioner applicants.
55. We acknowledge the member of staff at HMCTS was trying to be helpful towards Mr R in trying to assist him, and on the basis of the information available at that time, we understand why he informed Mr R he needed to send his application to Harlow.
56. In isolation we would say this was a shortfall in service however we would not go so far as to say it was a failing.
57. This is because we consider that telling Mr R to send his application to Harlow would have been the correct response for the significant majority of probate paper applications. This is because on the basis of the Practitioner guidance and the list of applications that need to be completed as a paper application, we consider it is only a very small proportion of applications that should be sent to Newcastle. On the whole, applications should be sent to Harlow
58. In addition to this, HMCTS has explained there are processes in place at Harlow for when an applicant incorrectly sends their paper application to Harlow. Harlow should reject the application from scanning and physically send it to Newcastle. So even in cases where Harlow does receive paper applications it cannot progress, HMCTS have a process in place to address this.
59. That said, at this point we consider this was the start of a number of errors and instances of poor service, which meant HMCTS did not progress Mr R’s application as it should have done, which led to avoidable stress, confusion, and frustration.
Scanning of Mr R’s documents at Harlow
60. As we have stated above, because Mr R’s application was an application to reseal, it should not have been scanned at Harlow and should have simply been sent to Newcastle. This did not happen. It was scanned and an exception record was created.
61. This meant although the documents were on record, and the scanning of the documents had created an automated message to be sent to Mr R to tell him HMCTS had all of the information it required. However, no alerts were raised to Mr R or within the probate service about his application. At this point it appears his application effectively stalled and did not progress.
62. In later correspondence we can see that HMCTS requested Mr R complete a PA1P. This is the key form used for probate applications where there is a will. Mr R had not submitted one with his initial application.
63. We considered whether this missing PA1P contributed to HMCTS not simply sending the documents to Newcastle. We considered whether, in the absence of a PA1P was it reasonable to say that HMCTS could not have known this was a reseal application, or one that needed to be rejected and sent to Newcastle.
64. However, Mr R has explained that he had included a covering letter with his application which explained his application. He also had included the sealed grant of probate from New Zealand. We consider between the covering letter and the grant, there was enough information to prompt HMCTS to consider that it should have either rejected the application and sent it to Newcastle or flagged the missing PA1P.
65. We consider this was an avoidable error with Mr R’s application.
66. We will address the missing PA1P form and the impact this could have had on the timeline of Mr R’s application, later in the report.
Service provided when Mr R’s application had passed 16-week timeline
67. Mr R called HMCTS on 6 April, when his application had gone past the 16 weeks HMCTS said it took for straightforward applications at the time.
68. He said he was informed his documents had been scanned but no action had been taken. He said he raised concerns about this at the time and requested that he spoke to a manager but was informed he could not escalate his concerns in this way.
69. HMCTS have explained this information was correct, so it was not a case HMCTS gave incorrect information on this call.
70. HMCTS’ complaint handling guidance gives examples of maladministration. This includes a ‘failure to investigate.’
71. We accept the information given on this call was correct in terms of Mr R’s application.
72. However, at this stage Mr R’s application was outside the 16-week period that HMCTS say applications should be processed in, with apparently no progress whatsoever. We consider HMCTS should have investigated this matter further at this point. In failing to investigate this further HMCTS missed the opportunity to identify the issue with Mr R’s application sooner, and Mr R ultimately had to complain in order for the issues to be identified.
What happened when Mr R complained
73. Mr R complained, and on the 7 May 2023 HMCTS responded. It said on receipt of his correspondence it had arranged for the documents to be forwarded to Newcastle to be processed.
74. Mr R wrote again the HMCTS on 24 May 2023. He said that although he had received an initial email from Newcastle 3 weeks before, it had not responded to further emails he had sent, so he was unclear whether it had even received his papers.
75. On 1 June 2023, a member of HMCTS complaints team, wrote to Mr R on behalf of the probate team.
76. It said while the file had been received in Newcastle, there was missing information in terms of payment, no grant to reseal and no DOB, documents which Mr R had already provided.
77. On 7 May as we have noted in paragraph 65, HMCTS had specifically told Mr R it had requested for the documents to be sent to Newcastle.
78. We consider it was particularly frustrating for Mr R, as he had been assured this had been actioned and he knew he had already sent this information.
79. This is not in line with our principles of good administration which say that organisations should ‘do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it, or explain why they cannot.
80. While some actions had been taken by HMCTS and an application had been created, it appears that not all the required information had been sent to Newcastle Probate Office
81. We consider this, particularly in the context of the previous errors to be poor service.
82. In addition, we do not consider that HMCTS’s request that Mr R follow this up himself with Newcastle, was appropriate here either and added to Mr R’s frustration, but we have addressed further in our analysis of HMCTS’ complaint handling.
83. From 5 June, we have not identified any errors, instances of poor service or unreasonable delays to the processing of Mr R’s application. There was some confusion over requesting paperwork that had already been sent, but this has been addressed in the points above and all other paperwork requested was done so at the point the examiner had looked at the application.
84. In summary, there are four issues we have identified that occurred with the processing of Mr R’s application. In isolation we would not say each individual error or shortcoming amounts to a failing. However, the accumulation of these errors, and the circumstances in which they occurred did cause avoidable stress and frustration. We consider when viewed as a whole, these errors did amount to a failing.
Timeline of application-our decision
85. HMCTS’ published guidance around timelines at the time of Mr R’s application said to allow 16 weeks for processing applications. Mr R’s took 33 weeks, which is considerably out of this timeline and Mr R has explained how the fact his application took so longer than expected added to the frustrations. He has referred to a delay of six months in dealing with his application.
86. HMCTS have explained the sixteen weeks is a general timeline and applied to straightforward applications. It has explained that applications can be ‘stopped’ when additional information is required.
87. When an application is stopped, in effect it is taken out of the general queue and put in a separate queue to wait for the information to be received and then for the required quality assurance checks and the evidence to be re-examined. These stopped applications are then dealt within date order in this queue and the time taken to do this depends on the number of stopped cased on hand. This can cause delays. We cannot say that it is unreasonable for HMCTS to deal with applications that contain errors or missing information in this way.
88. Mr R’s application was missing the PA1P form, the initial PA1P form had to be amended, and the cheque was for the wrong amount.
89. There was limited information and guidance available for personal applications at the time in relation to reseal applications, so we understand why Mr R did not realise he needed to include a PAP1(and a covering letter was not sufficient), or the cheque being for the incorrect amount.
90. In addition, when Mr R attended the Brighton Probate office in person to submit his application, in the absence of a face-to-face service the opportunity was missed to signpost him to probate registry team online or the other advice services which may have prevented him submitting his application without all of the correct information and requirements.
91. That said, in this situation the missing form, subsequent information that needed amending, and incorrect check would still have resulted in his application becoming a stopped application, regardless of any errors HMCTS made. Even if HMCTS had not made errors when it processed Mr R’s application, it could not have been issued on the first attempt as further information was required. We consider would have been likely to take longer than the published 16 weeks timescales, for reasons that were not in HMCTS’ control.
92. In addition, the process to reseal an application is not a straightforward probate application. HMCTS has explained that it is a complex application which requires staff to manually input the application, and we can see that on examination further documentation was requested by the examiner, which would only be determined as being required on examination (rather than being missing from the application).
93. This also will have meant Mr R’s application was always going to take longer that the 16-week guideline.
94. HMCTS has also explained that the Probate service was receiving a higher volume of applications, and this was also causing delays in the processing of application. We would not consider delays that were the result of increased demand on a service or resources maladministration.
95. We have looked at the management information available for time at which Mr R’s application was granted in relation to how long it was generally taking to process probate applications, to see if the errors identified resulted in Mr R’s application taking much longer than similar ones.
96. In July 2023, at the time Mr R’s application was granted we can see that the average time taken for paper applications to be granted was 22.6 weeks. However, when this is broken down into stopped and not stopped applications there is a considerable difference.
97. A non-stopped paper application took on average 16.8 weeks to be granted. A stopped paper application took on average 30.2 weeks.
98. As we have referenced above, we consider Mr R’s application would have been stopped anyway due to the missing PA1P form and the cheque amount. We also consider that due to the complexity of the application it would have taken longer than a standard paper application as well.
99. Mr R’s application took 33 weeks to be granted, 3 weeks more than the average stopped paper application.
100. We accept that HMCTS’ errors did contribute to unnecessary delays with Mr R’s application, but at this point we cannot say it was those errors in isolation that led to his application taking so much longer than the 16 weeks published guidelines.
101. We consider there were other factors that made a considerable contribution to the length of time it took for Mr R’s application to be granted:
• volume of applications at that time • complexity and additional requirements for a reseal application to ensure HMCTS meet the strict legal requirements for probate • missing PA1P form, cheque, and information on PA1P form • additional information deemed to be required on examination
102. On the basis of the management information at that time regarding average turnaround times for a stopped application, based on the information we have seen, we would not be able to say that Mr R’s application took so much longer than similar applications, that it amounts to a failing.
Complaint handling-what should have happened
103. HMCTS has its own complaints procedure, which allows users of its service to raise a complaint or give general feedback.
104. The public guidance in relation to this says users can complain in the following ways:
• 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
105. HMCTS has three stages of complaint. First contact, review, and appeal. It also has its own internal guidance which describes the timescales in which HMCTS aim to respond at each stage of complaint:
• First Contact: 10 working days • Review: 10 working days • Appeal: 15 working days
Complaint handling-what did happen
106. We have referenced the details of the complaint correspondence above, so we will not be duplicating any points already considered in the sections above. At this point we are only considering the complaints handling itself.
107. Mr R complained on April 6 (first complaint), 2023 and received a response on 7 May 2023 from CIT team, who provided a response and also advised they had asked the Probate Service to log the complaint and provide a reply.
108. Mr R complained again on 24 May to CIT, but this email does not appear to have been directly responded to.
109. On 1 June he received a response which says it was sent on behalf of the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre which manages the online service. It explained why reseal applications had to go to Newcastle and advised it had liaised with Newcastle.
110. A further email sent shortly afterwards advised Mr R Newcastle had the file but was missing the paperwork. It asked Mr R to liaise with Newcastle, as the complaints team are not involved with the processing of applications.
111. On 5 June Mr R wrote to HMCTS expressing his frustration about the service had received and that HMCTS appeared to expect him to resolve HMCTS’ own incompetence (review request).
112. On 14 June Mr R wrote again to the CIT team to request a response to his email on 24 May 2023.
113. On 5 June HMCTS sent a response to Mr R’s review request (review response). It apologised for the delay in responding and the delay in his application. It signposted him to the CIT team if he was still not happy (to appeal review response).
114. Mr R wrote to HMCTS on 17 July 2023. He raised eleven specific points that he says have not been addressed by HMCTS’s responses. At the end of his email, he notes that HMCTS’s review response has signposted him to the CIT team.
115. He goes on to say he had already written to the CIT team and had had a response some months ago. He said further emails he had sent to CIT had not been responded to. He said it would:
‘appear that HMCTS complaints process is exhausted’
116. HMCTS did not respond to this initially.
117. Mr R brought his complaint to PHSO on 5 September 2023. PHSO contacted HMCTS for an update on Mr R’s complaint.
118. HMCTS provided a final response to Mr R on 8 September 2023.
119. Its response said, it was satisfied that the response it provided on 1 June appropriately explained why Mr R’s application could not be dealt with in Harlow. However, it acknowledged it could have handled Mr R’s application sooner. It offered a £100 ex gratia goodwill payment in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused.
120. It explained the advice given to Mr R was relevant for most applications and directed Mr R to the guidance for practitioners making paper applications.
121. It apologised for Mr R having to re-submit documents he had already submitted.
122. It explained it advised users not to contact the probate registry until after 16 weeks to reduce the amount of update requests so that efforts can be focused on processing applications. It advised agents are not required to provide full names due to security. It said it could not see there had been any maladministration in this case.
Complaint Handling-our decision
Timeline of responses
123. HMCTS’ initial and review response were both outside its targeted timelines for response.
124. Its initial response on 7 May 2023, was 21 working days after his initial complaint, versus HMCTS’ own ten days target, detailed in paragraph 87 above.
125. However, it is of note that Mr R wrote to the Chief Executive. HMCTS provides clear information on its website about how to complain including its online form. In this case the email would have to have been transferred by the Chief Executive to a department that could look further at this complaint, so this may have contributed to a delay.
126. HMCTS’ review request was 27 working days after Mr R’s review request, versus HMCTS’s 10-day target.
127. Mr R has explained that HMCTS only sent him a final response to his complaint when he came to PHSO with his complaint. We can see that HMCTS did provide its final response a few days after Mr R complained to PHSO and we requested an update on his complaint.
128. When Mr R had received HMCTS’ review response he did write back to HMCTS and stated he was unhappy with the response had been investigated it and raised eleven specific points he said had not been addressed.
129. However, we understand why the end of Mr R’s email may have caused some confusion about his complaint and whether he wanted a final response from HMCTS. This is because he said:
‘You will note the email below (the review response) advises that I should contact MOJ Customer Investigations (CIT). However, I did so some months ago and had a response. You will note that a further two emails I sent failed to illicit a response.
It would therefore appear that HMCTS’ complaints process is exhausted.
Having discussed the matter with my MP I will now be lodging a formal complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.’
130. Mr R’s closing comments on his letter did make it quite clear that he was bringing his complaint to PHSO, so it is not clear whether there would have been any merit at that point for HMCTS to respond.
131. That said, it clear why there was some misunderstanding on Mr R’s part. His initial complaint been responded to by the CIT team, and we can see a further email he sent to the CIT team on 14 June 2023 did go unanswered.
132. We understand why Mr R thought he had completed HMCTS complaints process and why this could have been. We can also see his MP had advised him to bring his complaint to PHSO.
133. At this point we consider HMCTS did miss the opportunity to respond to Mr R to clarify he had not yet finished its complaints process and clear up any confusion around why he had already had a response from the CIT team, and this did not affect him requesting an appeal of this request.
Initial response from Probate service complaints team
134. The first response Mr R received from HMCTS on 7 May 2023 informed him HMCTS had requested his paperwork be sent from Harlow to Newcastle and Newcastle would contact him regarding next steps. They also said they had logged the complaint with the probate service who would reply to him.
135. A member of the Probate Service Centre team responded to Mr R on 1 June 2023. They said there were no documents uploaded as of yet. They said they had liaised with Newcastle to ask if they have the documents there or if we need to request them from Harlow.
136. We consider that on 7 May HMCTS had made a service commitment to request Mr R’s paperwork be sent from Harlow to Newcastle as noted in paragraph 126 above. When the probate team provided a response to his complaint, over three weeks after this service commitment was made, it would appear that it did not know where the paperwork was, despite him being given a prior assurance that it would be transferred to Newcastle
137. In the second email HMCTS sent on the 1 June is informed Mr R that although Harlow has the file, there was missing paperwork. This was not correct, as we have seen above, it would appear that it was a case the paperwork had not been forwarded.
138. In the same email HMCTS informed Mr R the complaints team are not involved in the processing of applications, and for him to liaise with Newcastle Probate Office.
139. At this point we can see Mr R had already complained on 24 May to CIT that Newcastle were not responding to his emails.
140. Our principles of Good complaint Handling say that organisations should:
Avoid taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach to complaint handling and ensure the response to an individual complaint is proportionate to the circumstances.
At this point: • Mr R’s application was already over HMCTS 16-week guideline, • he had already complained about his application • HMCTS first response, a number of weeks prior had said it was arranging for his paperwork to be sent to Newcastle, this response was saying it was not there • Mr R had already raised concerns that Newcastle were not responding
141. We consider that HMCTS informing Mr R that the complaints team were not involved in the processing of application, in these particular circumstances was not in line with our principle above, and that it would have been proportionate and appropriate for HMCTS to take a different approach here. At the very least it could have requested Newcastle contact Mr R directly to assess his application.
Review response
142. Our investigation has also found instances where, at this point we consider Mr R was given conflicting information in HMCTS responses.
143. HMCTS review response says applications should be sent to Harlow. This contradicts the previous responses Mr R had been given and HMCTS’ final response which state that reseal applications should be sent to Newcastle.
144. It explains that due to the complexity of reseal applications Mr R’s application was sent to Newcastle and due to volumes, this was taking longer than usual. While this does not conflict directly with previous responses, it does not acknowledge that the principle reason for delay was that Harlow failed to send Mr R’s application to Newcastle in the first instance. It implies the delay was due to volumes which, at this stage our investigation indicates this was not the case, as it appears to have been due to a number of errors with his applications and missed opportunities to progress it.
145. At this point we consider:
• there were a number of instances where HMCTS handling of Mr R’s complaint was not in line with its own timelines for response • he was given conflicting information in the responses • the probate complaints team response to ongoing concerns was not in line with our principles.
146. We do not find every instance alone was maladministrative. However, as we have noted in our consideration of processing of Mr R’s application, a number of shortfalls, and the circumstances in which they occur, can amount to a failing.
147. We consider the instances of poor service regarding the handling or Mr R’s complaint happened in sufficient frequency to indicate that it amounted to a failing.
Impact
148. Mr R has explained this was already a stressful situation regarding the bereavement of his mother was made worse by his experience with HMCTS and his application.
149. Mr R is seeking an acknowledgement of the failings by HMCTS for:
• the initial delay with his application, • the repeated errors made by HMCTS • not being able to challenge the lack of progress of his application without complaining • the repeated errors made by HMCTS with his application and conflicting information he was given • consistently untimely and poor complaint handling
150. One of Mr R’s outcomes is that HMCTS pay him compensation for the lost interest on his mother’s monies, due to the time taken to grant probate. At this point we would not consider making a recommendation in this matter. This is because we consider that the length of time taken to process Mr R’s application was not purely and solely as a result of the errors HMCTS made. There were other factors involved, and it is entirely likely that Mr R’s application could have taken considerably longer than 16 weeks even if HMCTS had not made errors with his application.
151. However, we can see how frustrating this situation was for Mr R, particularly from the point from which his application had gone past the 16 weeks, when he could have reasonably expected to have received the reseal grant.
152. We consider that conflicting information he was given, and the issues he experienced when he had complained (including that was given assurances that his application was being progressed when it does not appear to have been acted on) added avoidable and necessary frustration.
153. HMCTS have apologised for the delay in granting Mr R’s application and its handling of his complaint in its complaints responses. It has offered him an ex-gratia amount of £100 in recognition of how long it took to handle his application.
154. It has also acknowledged during our investigation the guidance for personal applicants making reseal applications could be improved, and it has already asked its service team to review this guidance
155. HMCTS also explained in its responses the actions that it was taking to increase disposal levels for applications. This includes:
• Focusing resources on older and more complex applications as a priority • Upskilling existing staff so that more of them can deal with complex applications • Employing over one hundred new staff to support with processing applications
156. It acknowledged that there was more work to be done and assured Mr R it was committed to making the necessary improvements.
157. HMCTS’ complaint handling guidance explains that, when assessing complaints and the extent of administrative failure and repeated or multiple errors:
158. ‘while one mistake may not have a significant impact, the combination and accumulating effect of a number of mistakes may’
159. On the basis of the above we do not consider that HMCTS has taken enough action in response to Mr R’s complaint to put right the avoidable upset and frustration caused by a number of errors in its processing of his application, and its handling of his complaint. Therefore, we partly uphold his complaint.