HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr T complains that HMCTS lost his court file for eviction proceedings, which went unnoticed for several months, causing delays in removing the tenants from his property.

4. Mr T says the delay affected his ability to regain control of his inhabitable property, due to the tenant’s overstaying. This had a cascading effect on his plans to re-let his property, causing a loss of rental income, which also affected him emotionally.

5. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr T is seeking £7,500 financial remedy.

6. Mr T had tenants living in his property, who were not paying rent. Mr T sent an application to the court for a Warrant of Possession. The claim was issued on 16 March, and a hearing date was set for 20 September 2022, which went ahead as planned. The possession order was drawn on 11 October and issued to all parties. Due to the tenants still residing at the property after the eviction date (which was a mixed-use equestrian property with horses on site) Mr T submitted an application on 4 November, for permission to transfer proceedings to the High Court. The application was referred to a judge for consideration on 6 December.

7. Numerous phone calls were made to HMCTS by Mr T and his solicitor, between December 2022 and April 2023 requesting updates. They were informed the file was with a judge, for directions. Following a further phone call from Mr T on 11 April a search was conducted; however, the file was not located. A duplicate file was created and referred to a judge, on the same day. The judge considered the application, but dismissed it, as the judge was not satisfied it was reasonable to grant the order sought. The order was drawn and issued on 10 May.

8. On 15 May a request for a Warrant of Possession of Land was filed. The claim was transferred to Luton CC on 18 May but returned to Watford CC, due to the address not being in Luton’s jurisdiction.

9. Mr T attended a surgery with his MP regarding his case. The MP contacted HMCTS on 26 June requesting a solution for Mr T. The application was then transferred to High Wycombe CC and received on 11 July.

10. The Minister responded to Mr T’s MP on 8 August and explained that the delay was due to a back log of work, due to the court’s relocation. The court acknowledged that staff failed to identify that the file was missing which caused a delay between 6 December 2022 and 11 April 2023, in Mr T’s application being progressed. In regard to phone calls received from the solicitor in July, HMCTS explained it was experiencing staff shortages and the court had accrued a three-month backlog of work. The Minister added that it was open to Mr T or his solicitor to complain, if they wished to.

11. Mr T’s solicitor submitted a complaint to HMCTS on 11 August on behalf of Mr T (and other claimants). This was in regard to ‘significant delays’ in progressing the case. Mr T’s solicitor requested a Bailiff appointment ‘as early as possible’ and compensation ‘to reflect the costs incurred by our client in us chasing the court.’ as outcomes sought.

12. On 21 August the Warrant of Possession was issued, and the eviction took place as planned, on 19 September.

13. HMCTS responded to Mr T’s solicitor in October and apologised for the delay between the warrant being filed (on 15 May) and the Reading CC receiving it on 11 July. It advised that it was working on reducing its arrears and waiting times for processing applications and responding to correspondence. HMCTS offered a payment of £350 for the delays caused in processing the request for a warrant, and for the numerous phone calls/emails sent requesting updates on Mr T’s case.

14. On 20 November, Mr T submitted a complaint to HMCTS regarding his file being lost, for four months, causing a delay in progressing his case and explained he had to involve his MP. Mr T requested compensation for the loss of revenue and for the undue stress and anxiety caused.

15. HMCTS sent its first response on 30 November and apologised for the delay in granting the Warrant of Possession. It explained that it had worked to reduce the arrears and wait times, for processing applications. HMCTS explained that it had already responded to Mr T’s solicitor, in regard to the request for compensation and to contact them for further details.

16. Mr T responded on 6 December and stated he was looking to claim for the loss of four months’ rent, due to his file being lost.

17. HMCTS responded and advised that when the request was submitted, there was a 10 week waiting time. It acknowledged that the wait time in Mr T’s case, was in excess of 10 weeks. It added that it was unable to consider the request for compensation, in addition to the compensation already paid to his solicitor.

18. On 22 January 2024, Mr T expressed his dissatisfaction and stated that his solicitor was claiming for the long delays and ‘knew nothing of the fact the paperwork went missing for four months’ and added he had to stop using the solicitor where possible, due to the costs. He added that the debt including legal fees were in circa of £7,5000 and believed that if the matter had been dealt with ‘swiftly and efficiently’ he ‘would not be in this situation’ and requested compensation due to being let down ‘badly’ by the system.

19. HMCTS sent its review response on 20 February and said it agreed with its previous response. It stated that it was unable to offer compensation towards ‘rent owing by the Defendant. It reiterated that its role was ‘to ensure any payments made from public funds in the form of financial redress are reasonable and proportionate.’ It added ‘While I accept that there were delays in processing your applications, I do not consider that HMCTS can be liable for unpaid rent’.

20. Mr T responded and again expressed his dissatisfaction. He advised it was not regarding the delays, and confirmed it was regarding the loss of his file, for the four-month period.

21. HMCTS sent its final response on 8 April. It apologised for misplacing the file and that it had taken longer to deal with his application than it would have liked. HMCTS offered £300 in recognition of the delays, as a result of its mistake, and for the inconvenience caused.

22. Mr T submitted his complaint to his MP on 22 April, which was forwarded to PHSO on 13 May.

26. Mr T told us that HMCTS lost his file which went unnoticed for four months, causing delays in removing the tenants from his property.

27. We are aware that the application to the High Court was processed on 6 December 2022 and HMCTS advised that the application had been referred to a judge, for consideration.

28. Although we are unclear of the exact date HMCTS misplaced the file, the evidence shows that this occurred at some point between 6 December 2022 (when the application was processed) and 11 April 2023 (after receiving a phone call from Mr T). HMCTS became aware that the file had been misplaced at this point, due to conducting a search for the file, which could not be located.

29. We now turn to the impact this had on the progression of Mr T’s case. The evidence shows that HMCTS’ error caused a delay of approximately four months (if the file was lost as early as 6 December 2022). Mr T states as a result, he lost revenue during this period. In his view, ‘this might not have been the case’ if he had been in possession of the property, sooner.

30. Under our Principles of Good Administration – Putting things right, in situations like this, we would expect the organisation concerned to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake. We would also expect the organisation to take steps to put matters right for the individual, and, where appropriate to provide a financial remedy for any injustice or inconvenience caused.

31. To assist us in considering an appropriate level of financial remedy, as well as policy and guidance, we use our Severity of Injustice scale (our scale). We also refer to previous cases where we have made similar recommendations.

32. Our scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent our judgement about the sort of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend. The scale will be used for complaints where the person affected has asked for financial remedy and we consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

33. The evidence shows that HMCTS acknowledged and apologised for its error (in its final response dated 8 April 2024). It offered Mr T £300 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused. This falls in line with level two of our scale which says, ‘instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration.’ The evidence shows that Mr T’s file was misplaced for a short period of time (namely four months). The financial remedy offered by HMCTS is in line with what we would have recommended, in these circumstances.

34. HMCTS also advised Mr T that its role is ‘to ensure payments made from public funds are reasonable and proportionate.’ It accepted that there were delays in processing the applications, but stated HMCTS were not liable for any unpaid rent owing by the Defendant.

35. In addition, Mr T’s solicitor filed a complaint with HMCTS (three months before Mr T) ‘due to significant delays’ and requested compensation ‘to reflect the costs incurred by our client in us chasing the courts.’ HMCTS offered Mr T’s solicitor £350 for the delays caused, in processing the request for the warrant. This included phone calls and correspondence sent by the solicitor in regard to Mr T’s case (albeit this was a separate complaint, it however related directly to Mr T’s case and the work it carried out on his behalf).

36. Under our Principles of Good Administration – acting fairly and proportionately – we expect organisations to bear in mind the proper protection of public funds. This means that, whilst we fully understand that Mr T was impacted financially; HMCTS needed to consider the use of public funds, before awarding any compensation. Although HMCTS initially stated it was not going to award Mr T any compensation (due to already awarding this to his solicitor) it changed its view and offered Mr T £300.

37. Overall, HMCTS awarded a total of £650 (between Mr T and his solicitor). We are therefore of the view that HMCTS have appropriately remedied Mr T.

38. Although we understand in Mr T’s view, that as a result of the misplaced file he lost revenue during this period; we cannot say with any degree of certainty, that the property would have been occupied (by new tenants) sooner, if the file had not been misplaced.

39. We fully understand that this has been a very stressful time for Mr T and do not wish to diminish the impact this has had on both him and his family.

40. Taking all of the above into account, we are satisfied that HMCTS has done enough to put matters right and would not expect it to do more.

41. For this reason, we have decided not to investigate this complaint further. We thank Mr T for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr T’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) We were sorry to learn of the events which led to Mr T’s complaint, which were undoubtedly stressful for him.

2. Although we have seen evidence that HMCTS misplaced Mr T’s file, we have decided that it has already done enough to put this right. We will explain the reasons in more detail, below.