HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr I complains that HMCTS lost documents he sent with a probate application in June 2023.

5. He also complains about the time HMCTS took to respond to his complaint.

6. He says because HMCTS lost his documents he had to pay for copies and send them a new application which delayed the grant of probate. This and the delays in local resolution caused him inconvenience, stress and anxiety.

7. By bringing us his complaint Mr I would like a financial remedy for the loss and replacement of his documents and the delays caused by HMCTS in processing his application for probate and dealing with his complaint.

The background provides a brief overview of the case as both parties are aware of the events.

8. Mr I applied for probate of his mother and brother’s estates in June 2023. He submitted his mother’s death certificate with his applications in person at a registry. He says the person he saw told him the application and documents would be posted to another probate office for processing as it was a paper application. (In this statement registry refers to the office Mr I handed his application to while probate is the office that ordinarily processes the application).

9. In October 2023 Mr I emailed probate explaining that he had applied in June 2023. He also asked when he needed to pay court/application fees and whether this could be paid by his mother’s estate or if he had to pay himself.

10. Mr I contacted the probate helpline on 12 January 2024 for an update but it was unable to find his mother’s name on the system, it advised him to resubmit the forms. He emailed the registry on the same day asking that someone contact him.

11. Following several communications HMCTS wrote to Mr I on 29 February apologising for the inconvenience caused by the loss of the applications and certificate. It said that both offices had looked for the documents and had been unable to find them.

12. Mr I submitted a complaint on 12 March 2024, and the complaints process was completed on 24 January 2025.

15. 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 found HMCTS has offered to do enough to put right the impact of these events.

16. Mr I says HMCTS lost his documents, and he had to pay to get replacement certificates. He also complains about the time it took HMCTS to respond to his complaint.

17. The probate application form says paper applications should be submitted to the probate office. However, HMCTS says if a person submits documents at the registry, it will forward it by courier.

What happened 18. The registry was unable to provide a tracking number for Mr I’s documents. Probate says all paper cases are stamped as received and recorded on a fee sheet on day of receipt. It could not find record of it being received.

19. We are sorry to hear the documents Mr I sent HMCTS in application for probate were lost.

20. Mr I completed a new application and got a replacement certificate which he sent to HMCTS on 18 March. On the same day HMCTS acknowledged receipt and sent him reference numbers for the cases which it said it had passed to an examiner.

21. HMCTS says it was taking around 22 weeks to issue grants and it could take longer if it required additional information. HMCTS says following receipt of the new application it prioritised them and was able to issue the grants on 11 April.

22. Mr I is dissatisfied with the time HMCTS took to respond to his complaint.

23. HMCTS complaints procedure says it aims to respond to complaints and reviews in 10 working days and appeals in 15 working days. It appears to have taken two months to respond to his initial complaint and a month to respond to the review. HMCTS also appeared to delay responding to the appeal by six months.

Our decision 24. HMCTS appeared to take too long responding to Mr I’s email of October 2023. This would appear to have delayed HMCTS’s processing of Mr I’s application although, as HMCTS subsequently prioritised the processing of Mr I’s application, it would appear HMCTS minimised that delay because Mr I still received his grant of probate only a few weeks outside the 22 weeks HMCTS were telling customers they would take. We can see once it became aware the documents had been lost HMCTS took steps to try and find them. It also said it would pay for replacement certificates and expedite the case. This appears to be in line with our principles which say organisations should be open and accountable.

25. It appears that HMCTS took longer than we would expect to deal with Mr I’s complaint and he had to chase progress. We are sorry to hear this happened. We can see Mr I was inconvenienced and suffered distress as he awaited a response to his complaints during what was already a difficult time.

26. Our Principles of Good Administration say:

Putting things right When mistakes happen, public bodies should acknowledge them, apologise, explain what went wrong and put things right quickly and effectively.

27. We can see that, although Mr I had to contact HMCTS on multiple occasions before it rectified the issue, HMCTS acknowledged its errors, explained what had gone wrong and apologised. In its first two complaint responses, HMCTS acted in line with our principles and apologised for the time it took to respond to Mr I’s complaints. Its final response did not acknowledge the six month delay in responding to his appeal. We looked at our scale of injustice which places distress and inconvenience of up to six months or instances of poor complaint handling where there is a delay of up to around one year at level 2 (£120 - £550).

28. HMCTS have offered to pay Mr I a financial remedy of £250 in recognition of the inconvenience it caused. This appears to be an adequate and reasonable remedy to Mr I’s complaint and will be taking no further action. We hope that Mr I is reassured by our consideration and with the remedy HMCTS have agreed to.

1. We have carefully considered Mr I’s complaint about delays in HMCTS’ probate application process. We can see the application and documents Mr I submitted were lost. Mr I had to contact HMCTS several times to try and resolve matters and waited longer than he expected to receive a response to his complaint. We can see he suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience as a result. HMCTS have agreed to pay an appropriate remedy of £250 in recognition of the inconvenience it caused. We decided that in agreeing to pay Mr I an appropriate financial remedy along with its explanation of what went wrong and apology in the complaint responses to Mr I, HMCTS have done enough to put things right.

2. We can see when Mr I contacted HMCTS to chase progress on the application in October 2023 it appeared to take HMCTS almost four months to respond to his email. It appears Mr I’s complaint was poorly handled by HMCTS.

3. We recognise Mr I had to chase progress of his application and responses to complaints with HMCTS, which caused him stress and inconvenience during what was a difficult time. We hope Mr I is reassured by our consideration and the remedy HMCTS have offered.