Issue 1 – failed to act on request to change the hearing date
16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We have done this and cannot see indications HMCTS did anything significantly wrong in response to Mr V’s request for a different hearing date.
Mr V’s complaint 17. Mr V considered HMCTS made a mistake by failing to act on his 22 November 2022 email asking for a different hearing date. Mr V’s email to HMCTS said it should have consulted with him about the hearing date, and he wanted to complain. He says the outcome of the 12 December 2022 hearing would have been different if HMCTS had changed the date as he requested. He said he would have been able to attend and present his case.
Requesting a different hearing date 18. HMCTS explained to us the process for seeking a different hearing date (known as an ‘adjournment’). It said Mr V had to complete form N244 ‘Application Notice’. Administrative staff will refer an Application Notice to a Judge. The Judge will then decide whether it is reasonable to adjourn the case to a different date.
19. HMCTS said it did not receive from Mr V a completed form N244.
20. It is not in dispute that Mr V did not submit a completed form N244. This means there are no indications the Court’s administrative staff failed to refer a properly made adjournment application to a Judge.
HMCTS’s response 21. We have considered whether there are indications HMCTS’s response to Mr V’s 22 November 2022 email met the required standard.
22. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration says organisations, including the Court’s administrative staff, should ‘behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales’. The Principles also say public bodies should communicate effectively so people can understand their circumstances. We have not seen evidence that HMCTS must provide advice on the correct legal process to each service user.
23. HMCTS’s 28 November 2022 reply to Mr V said:
‘the Defendant has submitted an application to set aside the judgement, an Order and Hearing Notice are attached. If information is incorrect, I would be grateful if you could advise of the errors so that these can be corrected… The Court is reliant on details provided by the Claimant in their claim and served accordingly. Should you wish to make a complaint, please do. No system is perfect and the Court welcomes user’s comments to see how service can be improved.’
24. While it might have been helpful for HMCTS to tell Mr V about the process for changing a hearing date- competing an N244 as set out above – we consider the evidence indicates HMCTS did enough to inform Mr V about the status of his hearing. We can see HMCTS’s response was prompt and explained the status of the case. It resent the hearing notice, leaving Mr V in no doubt that the hearing was still due to take place on 12 December 2022. For these reasons, we think this indicates HMCTS’s response met our Principles.
25. We know from Mr V’s correspondence with us that he has strongly held views that HMCTS and the Judges involved in his case wronged him. We hope the information above gives clarity on the process for seeking a different hearing date and why HMCTS’s response was reasonable.
Issue 2 – delay sending the 12 December 2022 Order
26. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have seen HMCTS has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
Mr V’s complaint of delay 27. Mr V complained that HMCTS had delayed sending him a copy of the 12 December 2022 Order. He said HMCTS’s mistake delayed his ability to progress his legal case. It also meant Mr V had to complain to HMCTS to obtain the Order.
What HMCTS should have done 28. We have not seen a service standard explaining how quickly HMCTS should prepare and send out an Order setting out the outcome of a hearing. However, HMCTS has accepted it made a mistake and should have typed up the Judge’s decision and sent this Order to Mr V soon after the 12 December 2022 hearing.
29. HMCTS’s 6 June 2023 complaints response explained the mistake happened because administrative staff misplaced the court file after the 12 December 2022 hearing.
Relevant standard for putting things right 30. The Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy says that where maladministration has led to injustice, the organisation responsible should provide an appropriate and proportionate remedy.
31. In this case that means the HMCTS should return Mr V to the position he was in before the maladministration occurred. If that is not possible, they should pay a financial remedy to reflect the injustice suffered.
HMCTS’s action to correct its mistake 32. HMCTS’s action to send Mr V the Court Order on 24 May 2023 largely returned him to the position he should have been in after the 12 December 2022 hearing. That is, he was aware of the Judge’s decision to strike out his claim and the reasons why. He had the information he needed to decide whether to take any further legal action. The delay did not prevent Mr V seeking to challenge the 12 December 2022 decision.
33. However, HMCTS’s delay also meant Mr V had to complain about this matter. HMCTS received correspondence from Mr V in January, March and May 2023. We have not seen this correspondence. HMCTS’s case notes say it took the following action:
• 28 January 2023, HMCTS received a letter from Mr V about arranging a hearing date and refunding bailiff fees. HMCTS responded the same day.
• 6 March 2023, HMCTS received a letter from Mr V repeating his request for a refund of the bailiff fee. HMCTS responded by email on 15 March 2023.
• 9 May 2023, Mr V telephoned HMCTS asking about the outcome of the 12 December 2022 hearing. HMCTS requested the recording of the hearing that same day. It typed up the Order and sent it to Mr V on 24 May 2023.
34. That information shows us that Mr V’s January and March 2023 correspondences were not about obtaining the outcome of the 12 December 2022 hearing. We can see HMCTS dealt with his 9 May 2023 request for the Order promptly.
35. We think this evidence shows that this incident caused Mr V to suffer the injustice of minor inconvenience, including frustration where there was no other significant adverse impact. As such, his injustice falls within Level 1 of the Ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedies. These injustices do not require a financial remedy.
36. On 6 June 2023, HMCTS apologised to Mr V for ‘the poor service you have received in relation to this case, and the delays in the processing of your correspondence’. It offered him a £50 consolatory payment to reflect the ‘extreme delays in this case, and for the numerous unanswered calls’.
37. We think that HMCTS’s financial redress payment of £50 is in accordance with our guidance on financial remedy and is enough to put right its mistakes. This means there is no reason for us to investigate this issue any further.
38. Mr V did suffer a minor injustice from HMCTS’s delays. We hope the explanation given above enables Mr V to see that he has received an appropriate remedy for his experience.