20. Mr X stated that he was not aware his claim had been struck out until he contacted HMCTS in November 2024, at which point he was informed that the claim had been struck out in August 2023. Mr X reported that he had not received any correspondence from HMCTS, or any request to pay the trial fee.
21. Mr X’s case was allocated to the small claims track, with the hearing listed for 22 August 2023. The trial notice advised that a trial fee of £59 was required to be paid by 25 July, otherwise, the claim would be struck out.
22. It is important to note that the trial fee is the final fee a claimant must pay before a case can proceed to a hearing. Payment of this fee confirms the claimant’s intention to continue with the case. If the fee is not paid, the court assumes that the claimant no longer wishes to proceed, and under the Civil Procedure Rule 3.7A1(7) the claim is struck out, as a sanction for non-payment of the trial fee.
23. HMCTS’ review response dated 8 March 2025, confirmed that the trial notice was sent on 14 November 2022 to the address listed on Mr X’s Money Claim Online (MCOL) form. The trial notice contained the below information;
‘Unless the claimant does by 4pm on the 25 July 2023 pay to the court the trial fee of £59.00 or file a properly completed application (i.e. one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 25 July 2023 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred’.
24. HMCTS confirmed an order was also sent on 18 August to the same address, informing Mr X that the case had been struck out. The evidence indicates that, as a result of the fee not being paid by Mr X, the claim was struck out in line with the CPR, as administered by HMCTS.
25. Mr X reported ‘receiving no news at all from the court for over two years’ and in his view ‘the court did not send any correspondence’. We note Mr X’s assertion that he did not receive the relevant orders, and that his attempts to contact the court were unsuccessful, which we recognise would have been frustrating for him. We appreciate that Mr X reasonably assumed that the delay was due to Covid-related backlogs.
26. When Mr X finally spoke with the Civil Money Claims Team by telephone in November 2024, he was informed that his claim had been struck out in August 2023. We understand that receiving this information after such a long period, would have been both unexpected and distressing for him.
27. Whilst we acknowledge that Mr X may not have received these notices, this does not in itself demonstrate that HMCTS failed to send them, nor does the absence of proof of postage constitute evidence that they were not sent.
28. HMCTS confirmed that both notices were issued by standard Royal Mail ‘regular post’ which it confirmed is its usual method of sending correspondence, due to cost considerations. HMCTS also advised Mr X to contact Royal Mail to check whether there were any postal issues in his area, at that time. This is what we would have expected HMCTS to advise, in these circumstances.
29. It is important to note that, it is not the responsibility of HMCTS to chase for payment of fees. It is solely the claimant’s responsibility to ensure that any court fees, including trial fees, are paid (unless the claimant has applied and been granted help with fees) to enable the hearing to take place. As such, HMCTS, cannot be held responsible for the striking out of the claim or for Mr X not receiving the relevant orders.
30. We acknowledge that once Mr X became aware that the claim had been struck out, he was required to pay £50 to continue with the original proceedings.
31. We acknowledge that Mr X is of the view that HMCTS was at fault, and had therefore requested a refund, as a result.
32. Although it is unfortunate that Mr X did not receive the trial notice or the order by post, we cannot attribute this to an administrative error caused by HMCTS. It explained that it could not refund the £50 paid for the claim fee, because work had already been carried out on his case.
33. Under our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable, we expect organisations to be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions. They should state their criteria for their decision making and give reasons for their decisions. The evidence shows that HMCTS has explained the reason why it could not refund Mr X, which is in line with our expectations.
34. We sympathise with Mr X, and fully recognise that this has been a very difficult time for him, and we do not wish to diminish the impact that this situation has had on him.
35. In summary, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. This is because HMCTS acted in accordance with the CPR, when striking out the case and informing Mr X. It also explained the reason why a refund could not be offered. We would not have expected HMCTS to have done anything more.
36. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention, and wish him well for the future.