HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mrs X complains that the automated email she received from HMCTS after submitting her divorce application was misleading. She says the email instructed her to wait for a further email confirming whether her application had been accepted, and she followed this instruction. She says the email did not mention that she could contact HMCTS if she changed her mind, before receiving the decision. Mrs X states that, had this information been included, she would have called sooner to cancel her application and request a refund.

4. Mrs X further complains about the length of time taken for HMCTS to respond during its review stage. She states that, as a result, recordings of her calls confirming that conflicting information was provided and that she would receive a refund, were no longer available for review. Lastly, Mrs X complains that she did not receive the promised callbacks.

5. Mrs X says she has found the entire process upsetting. She says that escalating matters and waiting for callbacks, as well as spending hours on the phone trying to speak to someone, caused her upset and anxiety.

6. By bringing her complaint to us Mrs X is seeking a full refund and financial compensation.

7. On 10 August 2023, Mrs X submitted her divorce application online. Following the submission Mrs X received an automated email from HMCTS the same day, confirming receipt of the application.

8. Mrs X stated the email advised, ‘I should wait to hear what happens next and whether it has been accepted. In this time, my husband and I decided not to proceed with the divorce, but the first email of the 10/8 which clearly said I should wait to hear what happens next whether accepted. There was no mention that if I change my mind, or want to cancel that I should call any number. It clearly stated that I should wait to hear if it is accepted. So, I waited until the second email arrived’.

9. On 31 August, Mrs X received a second email confirming that the divorce had been approved. Following this, Mrs X contacted HMCTS by telephone, and stated that she was informed by a call handler that, had she called the day before, she could have been eligible for a refund.

10. Mrs X explained that she had followed the instructions in the first email by waiting for the outcome, and that had she known she could have cancelled earlier, she would not have waited until receiving the second email.

11. The call handler had attempted to seek advice from a team leader regarding the issue, but was advised they were unable to reach them. Mrs X was told she would receive a callback, once a team leader had been consulted. She reports that the call handler did call back and confirmed that the team leader ‘did not consider that she had followed the advice in the first email’.

12. Mrs X requested a further call back from the team leader which was arranged for after 5pm. She cancelled her afternoon commitments, but received no call or email. When she later attempted to contact the helpline, it had closed.

13. Mrs X telephoned again the following day to report that she had not received the arranged callback. She stated that she was promised another callback, which again did not occur, and that she made further attempts to contact the helpline, but experienced lengthy waiting times.

14. On 4 September, she received a call back from a team leader who informed her that because the divorce application had already been issued, a refund of the application fee could not be provided. HMCTS did advise that as a D11 form was now required, the application fee would be waived, to allow referral to a judge.

15. Mrs X subsequently submitted a formal complaint and received a response from HMCTS a few days later.

16. HMCTS confirmed in its first response that a refund could not be offered because the case had already been issued. It added that it would feedback concerns regarding call backs to the appropriate team, although records showed that a team leader had contacted her on 4 September.

17. Mrs X submitted a review request the same day. After receiving no response, she followed up on 5 November. HMCTS advised that the review response was still outstanding from the manager and confirmed it will be chased.

18. A review response was issued on 10 April 2024. HMCTS explained ‘If you no longer wished to proceed with the application after this was submitted then you would have needed to contact the service to request this not be processed. I appreciate that the automated service said to not contact the service and to wait for next steps, this is to avoid a build-up of calls of customers asking for an update on their applications and to allow court staff the time to process the applications in a timely manner. Unfortunately, I am unable to offer you a refund of this fee as the application was processed without any official request to stop this at that time’.

19. In relation to not receiving call backs, HMCTS explained that it was unable to listen to the calls because they are only retained for 90 days. It confirmed that staff had been reminded to offer callbacks only when necessary, and offered £100 as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of the delays in responding to the complaint.

20. Dissatisfied, Mrs X submitted an appeal request. HMCTS issued its final response on 29 May, reiterating its previous position, and confirming that the goodwill offer would not be increased.

24. Mrs X and her husband decided not to proceed with the divorce, shortly after submitting the application on 10 August. However, she did not contact HMCTS to notify it of her decision until 31 August, after receiving the second email confirming that the divorce had been issued.

25. It is important to note that, if an applicant wishes to withdraw an application, this can only be withdrawn by contacting HMCTS, before it is issued.

26. When an online divorce application is submitted, HMCTS sends an automated acknowledgement email confirming receipt. This email contains the relevant HMCTS contact details, including a telephone number and email address, which applicants may use to make enquiries.

27. Mrs X confirmed that she waited, due to the first automated email from HMCTS ‘clearly’ instructing her to wait for a further email confirming if it had been accepted. She stated that the email made no mention of what to do if she changed her mind, or that she could call HMCTS to cancel, before a decision was made.

28. We acknowledge that Mrs X believed waiting for the second email was the appropriate course of action and that she felt she had followed the ‘instruction’ within the first email.

29. The automated email which Mrs X received from HMCTS says: You have submitted your divorce application.

What happens next

Your application will be checked by court staff. You will receive an email by 7 September 2023 confirming whether it’s been accepted. You will receive more information on what happens next after your application has been checked.

Divorce and Dissolution HM Courts & Tribunals Service divorcecase@justice.gov.uk 0300 303 0642 (Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm)

30. Whilst we understand Mrs X’s reason for waiting and her interpretation of the acknowledgement email, we do not interpret the acknowledgment email as misleading.

31. We think it is reasonable for HMCTS to work on the assumption that, when making her application, Mrs X wanted the divorce to go ahead. As such, HMCTS had no reason to suspect she had changed her mind about this unless she told HMCTS this.

32. We would add that the email only asked Mrs X to wait confirmation that her application had been ‘accepted’. If, as it transpired, Mrs X no longer wanted the application to be ‘accepted’, she should reasonably have told HMCTS this.

33. Although the email did not set out every possible course of action, it included full contact information, meaning Mrs X could have contacted HMCTS for guidance, or to request a withdrawal at any point after deciding not to proceed. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration – being customer focussed – under which we expect organisations to provide services that are easily accessible to their customers.

34. We also recognise Mrs X’s frustration at being promised a callback, which did not occur. She explained that she had arranged her afternoon to be available for the call after 5pm, however no call was received. When she attempted to telephone before 8pm, the lines were already closed. She then contacted HMCTS the following day and experienced a lengthy wait for her call to be answered, which understandably added to an already stressful situation.

35. Mrs X stated that call recordings confirmed she was told to expect a call from a team leader ‘the same day re: the full refund’. She adds the recordings were no longer available, due to the length of time taken by HMCTS to respond during its review stage.

36. It is important to note that, even if the call had been received on 31 August as agreed, this would not have guaranteed a refund, only that the possibility would be discussed.

37. Mrs X reported that she telephoned HMCTS on the morning of 31 August, shortly after receiving the second email, and was advised ‘had I phoned the day before, she could have refunded the divorce amount and cancelled the divorce’.

38. She added that the call agent ‘would enquire with her team leader to see if this could be considered, and cancelled and refunded’.

39. We acknowledge that Mrs X contacted HMCTS promptly after receiving the second email and that she would have acted sooner, had she known this was possible.

40. It is unfortunate that by waiting for the second email, the divorce had already been approved, accepted by a judge, formally issued and confirmation sent.

41. Whilst Mrs X was advised she could have received a refund if she called earlier, her request was made after the divorce had been legally issued, at which point the position had changed.

42. Even if the call recordings had been available, this would not have altered the outcome. The fact remains that Mrs X contacted HMCTS after the divorce was issued. For a refund to be considered, Mrs X needed to contact HMCTS prior to the issuance.

43. HMCTS confirmed in its final response ‘I won’t be offering any refund of this fee because you didn’t inform the court that your application was no longer needed until 31 August 2023, which was the day after your application had been issued. I know that you’re unhappy about this, especially as the letter you received when you entered your application indicated that you didn’t need to contact us any further for an update on your case. I hope you’ll understand that the court wouldn’t have known that you didn’t wish to issue your application, unless you informed us of this’.

44. It was therefore reasonable to refuse a refund, as the divorce application had already been processed.

45. Once a divorce is issued, withdrawal requires a D11 application, which costs £53 and must be approved by a judge.

46. HMCTS call records show that on 31 August Mrs X advised HMCTS that she no longer wished to proceed with the divorce, and was told a D11 may be required, and was advised a call back would be received after discussion with a team leader, regarding the outcome.

47. Later that day, Mrs X was informed that, because the divorce had been issued, a D11 application and fee were necessary. We note that Mrs X was unhappy with this and explained the contents of the first email that she received. She requested to speak to a team leader and was advised she would receive a call back at approximately 5pm.

48. On 1 September, we note that Mrs X telephoned again to chase the promised call back. A message was passed on to an agent, to speak to a team leader, regarding a call back.

49. HMCTS confirmed a call back was made on 4 September from a manager, confirming that a D11 and fee were required. Although HMCTS did not refund the divorce application fee during the call it was confirmed it would waive the £53 fee as a goodwill gesture, acknowledging the missed call backs.

50. We note that the divorce was formally withdrawn on 3 October 2023, following judicial approval.

51. In addition to waiving the D11 application fee, HMCTS also offered £100 in recognition of the delay in responding to Mrs X’s complaint, and for not calling her back.

52. HMCTS’ Complaints Handing Guide (2020) states that first contact and review requests should be responded to within 10 working days. HMCTS acknowledged that it took over three months to respond, and accepted it should have acted sooner.

53. Under our Principles of Good Administration - putting things right, we would expect an organisation to acknowledge any delays and apologise, and, where appropriate, provide a financial remedy for any distress or inconvenience caused.

54. The evidence shows that HMCTS acted in line with our principles here, by offering a goodwill gesture of £100 alongside an apology. In addition to this, it also waived the £53 D11 fee.

55. Whilst we sympathise with Mrs X’s position in this complaint, it was reasonable in these circumstances that HMCTS did not refund Mrs X the divorce application fee, as the application had already been processed.

56. we are also satisfied that HMCTS have done enough to put matters right in relation to the delayed response to her complaint. The steps taken were proportionate in these circumstances, and for this reason, we have decided not to investigate this complaint further.

57. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mrs X was looking for from her complaint. We hope we have explained why we have come to our decision. We thank Mrs X for bringing her concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs X’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) We were sorry to learn of the events which led to Mrs X’s complaint, which were undoubtedly stressful for her.

2. Having looked carefully at the evidence, we have not identified any failings in relation to the automated email from HMCTS. In relation to the time taken for HMCTS to respond to her complaint, and not receiving the promised callbacks, we have decided that HMCTS has already done enough to put this right. For these reasons, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.