Notice of the hearing
17. 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 do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and based on the available evidence, we have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
18. Mr L told us he did not receive the NOH, which meant he did not attend the hearing and the case was struck out in his absence. We recognise this has had a significant and distressing impact on him, particularly as he had been waiting a long time for the matter to be resolved.
19. He says that, in his view, regular first-class post is not a robust or reliable enough method of delivering something as important as an NOH. He told us that untracked mail is the sender’s responsibility if lost, so he feels HMCTS should be accountable for this. He said relying on first-class post meant HMCTS could not prove the notice was delivered, which he saw as a failure in its communication methods.
20. The key question in this element of the complaint is whether it was reasonable for HMCTS to use first class post to issue the notice, or whether it should be expected to use a different, tracked method to ensure notices are delivered.
21. When we asked HMCTS what procedures it has in place for sending notices, it told us that all correspondence is issued by first class post and provided a copy of the notice dated 8 July 2024 addressed to Mr L, with the correct address.
22. Ultimately, it us up to HMCTS to decide how it communicates with court users, provided the method is not inherently unreliable, and its processes fall within the Civil Procedure Rules.
23. Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the permitted methods of serving documents in civil proceedings. This includes first class post. This means that HMCTS’s reliance on first class post to issue notices is in line with the rules governing its work.
24. While under our Principles of Good Administration – Being open and accountable, we expect organisations to keep accurate and durable records of their activities, it is for the organisation to decide how to meet that expectation.
25. In this case, HMCTS has produced a dated copy of the hearing notice from its records. We acknowledge this is not absolute proof of postage, but on the balance of probabilities, we have seen no indication that HMCTS has not followed its usual process, or that the process is not in line with the rules governing its work.
26. We also recognise that, whatever the reason, the process did not work as intended for Mr L. However, a single instance of non-receipt does not, on its own, indicate a failing on the part of HMCTS.
27. It is important to note that we cannot say for certain what happened to this particular notice. As an independent and impartial organisation, we consider all parties’ evidence equally. We accept that Mr L did not receive the notice, but we have also seen no indication that HMCTS failed to send it by a method permitted under the Civil Procedure Rules.
28. There is always the possibility that a document may be lost or misplaced at any stage between production and receipt. It would not be reasonable for us to speculate on where this occurred, and ultimately we will never know.
29. While we strongly sympathise with Mr L’s position in this part of the complaint, for the reasons outlined above we cannot investigate this element further.
Forwarding of documents and accuracy of information
30. Mr L told us there was a delay in HMCTS forwarding him a copy of correspondence from the other party following his application to have the claim reinstated. He said this correspondence contained factual inaccuracies, and that receiving it around two weeks after it had been sent to the judge prevented him from responding or correcting the information in time.
31. We understand why Mr L feels the delay in receiving the correspondence may have affected the decision in his case. It is understandable that, coming on top of the earlier issue he raised about not receiving the Notice of Hearing, this added to an already stressful and uncertain situation. We appreciate these issues can have a cumulative effect and contribute to a sense of being unable to participate fully in the process.
32. However, it is not possible for us to speculate on how, or whether, this delay might have influenced the judicial outcome. While this is an alleged administrative issue, the impact Mr L is concerned about relates directly to the judge’s decision.
33. We can only consider the administrative actions of HMCTS, not the evidence the court considered or how a judge may have approached the information before them. For this reason, we cannot say the outcome would have been different, or more favourable for him, had Mr L received the correspondence sooner.
34. HMCTS also acknowledged that Mr L was given incorrect information by a member of staff when he visited the court. It corrected this and apologised. We understand why this added to his frustration, particularly given the other issues he had experienced.
35. While unhelpful, this was a communication error that HMCTS has apologised for. We have not seen indication that it had any bearing on the progression of the case or contributed to the wider injustice Mr L describes.
36. Further, Mr L is seeking financial redress that falls at Level 6 on our Scale of Injustice. Level 6 represents the most serious impacts we see. These include profound, devastating or irreversible effects; circumstances where an individual is permanently affected or where recovery is likely to take several years; cases involving avoidable death; or situations where a person has endured a substantially reduced quality of life for a considerable period, such as significantly reduced life expectancy or permanent disability or disfigurement.
37. While we do not underestimate the distress caused by the wider situation Mr L has been dealing with, the injustice he describes stems primarily from the underlying dispute with the Financial Ombudsman Service and the events that led to the court case.
38. We recognise that delays and communication issues at the court may have compounded a situation that was already complex and stressful for Mr L. We understand why Mr L feels these delays meant he lost opportunities within the court process, and why he holds the view that the outcome would have been different had events unfolded another way. However, as an impartial organisation, we cannot speculate about how a judicial decision could or should have differed. It is impossible to know, and our role is limited to considering the administrative actions of HMCTS.
39. We also cannot attribute the broader impact Mr L describes to HMCTS’s administrative actions alone. As set out above, we cannot say the outcome of the judicial decision would have been different had events unfolded another way, and we cannot speculate on judicial reasoning. There is no quantifiable financial loss we can directly link to HMCTS, as the financial consequences Mr L describes arise from the underlying dispute and the judicial decision itself.
40. In conclusion, in relation to the Notice of Hearing, we have not seen any indications that HMCTS acted outside the Civil Procedure Rules that govern its work. For the other issues Mr L raised, we cannot directly link the impact he describes to HMCTS’s administrative actions.
41. HMCTS has offered explanations and apologised for the communication issues identified. While we understand why Mr L is unhappy with this, in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling we would not expect it to take further action.