UK Government Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

HM Courts and Tribunals Service

P-004661 · Statement · Decision date: 22 January 2026 · View HM Courts & Tribunals Service scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Mr M complained HMCTS failed to include judge's directions in a court order for 11 months, ignored his chases, and delayed responding to his complaint, impacting his case.
Outcome (AI summary)
The complaint was closed. HMCTS had already sufficiently remedied the 11-month delay and distress, and followed its complaint handling procedure well.

Full decision details

The Complaint

5. Mr M is complaining about how HMCTS handled his case. Mr M specifically complains HMCTS failed to include the Judge’s directions in a court order following a preliminary hearing and did not rectify this mistake for 11 months. HMCTS also failed to respond to multiple attempts to chase this and delayed responding to his complaint, and delayed apologising for and acknowledging the errors.

6. Mr M tell us the errors significantly impacted his case as many of the deadlines in the directions had passed, and he did not have enough time to prepare. Mr M tells us this meant a £600 judgement was made against him in error. Mr M also tells us this has caused worry and distress to himself and his family, as well as having a financial impact.

7. Mr M would like an apology, service changes, and financial remedy.

Background

8. Mr M has been in an ongoing legal dispute with his neighbour over guttering and housing damage for a number of years.

9. Mr M attended a preliminary hearing in April 2023 where he was told he would receive the Judge’s directions.

10. Mr M did not receive the directions and followed this up with HMCTS multiple times between May 2023 and February 2024.

11. In March 2024, HMCTS acknowledged the mistake and apologised for not sending Mr M the Judge’s directions. Mr M received the directions at the end of March 2024, 11 months after he was originally supposed to receive them.

12. The next hearing was due in April 2024, and many of the deadlines for submissions and information had already passed by the time Mr M received the directions.

13. Mr M tells us the Judge in April 2024 accused Mr M of breaching the Court order and did not fully consider the impact of HMCTS’s delay. Mr M told us this resulted in him losing the case and owing his neighbour £600.

14. Mr M has since successfully appealed this decision and the court ordered the £600 to be returned.

Findings

Delay and complaint handling

17. 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.

18. HMCTS has apologised for the amount of time it took staff to respond to Mr M’s enquiries about the missing directions. At first HMCTS said this did not appear to have an impact on the case itself. After input from Mr M’s MP HMCTS sent a further response and the final response acknowledged HMCTS did not meet its own standards of service in Mr M’s case.

19. In HMCTS’s final response, it acknowledged the impact its mistake had on Mr M’s case and offered £292 to address the delay and cover the costs of Mr M’s appeal. Mr M accepted this offer. It also outlined learning taken and actions to implement to make sure this mistake would not happen again in the future.

20. Mr M has told us the appeal was successful and his neighbour has since been ordered to return the £600.

21. We understand the delay and lack of contact from HMCTS about the missing directions until March 2024 will have caused Mr M distress and frustration. We also understand the judgement against Mr M resulting from the delay, and the subsequent appeal process will have added to the distress Mr M was already experiencing.

22. HMCTS Complaint Handling Guidance explains it should consider how to return customers to the position they would have been in, had the mistake not occurred. It also states HMCTS should consider other impact on the complainant, including frustration and distress, and offer an ex-gratia payment for this if deemed appropriate.

23. In line with this, when HMCTS realised the mistake had affected Mr M’s case it offered Mr M payment for the cost of an appeal application (£142). We consider this action has provided Mr M with the opportunity to have his case considered as it should have been had the directions delay not affected his case.

24. HMCTS have also offered £50 for the inconvenience of the 11 month delay, and £100 additional to cover the overall impact this mistake has had on Mr M. These offers are a goodwill gesture from HMCTS to further address the impact on the complainant. Based on the HMCTS guidance and examples available, £150 combined for the delay and the distress is an appropriate amount to offer.

25. We have considered the remedy offered by HMCTS against our own financial remedy guidance. Level two of our guidance includes distress or worry which does not significantly affect a person’s day to day life, alongside up to a year of poor complaint handling. Having considered the overall remedy offered by HMCTS, we are satisfied what it offered Mr M is in line with our own guidance for the level of impact.

26. We appreciate Mr M has ongoing concerns about HMCTS’s communication and case handling, which is causing him distress, however we can only consider whether the impact directly related to this specific complaint has been addressed.

27. HMCTS Complaint Handling Guidance also states HMCTS should seek to continuously improve its services and see what learning it can take from complaints.

28. HMCTS has also taken learning from Mr M’s complaint as it has actioned a reminder to staff of the importance of making sure all documents are included before sending them out to parties involved in the cases.

29. When we spoke to Mr M, he was unable to tell us what he felt HMCTS could do further to rectify this specific complaint. We understand Mr M was mostly concerned about some ongoing issues with his case, and we hope our actions asking HMCTS to provide an update to Mr M have helped him somewhat in progressing his case.

30. To summarise, we have not seen indications of any outstanding injustice which arose specifically from the 11 month delay and lack of contact which has not already been remedied by HMCTS with the apology, service changes, and financial remedy offer.

31. We will therefore be taking no further action on this complaint.

32. We understand this has been a very difficult period for Mr M, and we want to thank him for raising this complaint with us. If Mr M would like us to address the ongoing concerns he has about HMCTS, we would ask him to pursue the complaint with HMCTS fully before we are able to look at this.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr M’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS).

2. We consider HMCTS has already done enough to put right the impact of the 11 month delay in Mr M receiving directions for his court case.

3. We understand Mr M has been through many years of issues related to this Court case, and the poor communication and delays will have added to the distress he was already experiencing. We are satisfied HMCTS have followed its own complaint handling procedure well and offered additional remedy for the distress Mr M experienced.

4. We will therefore be taking no further actions as we have not found evidence of any unaddressed impact on this specific complaint.

Other Decisions About HM Courts and Tribunals Service

P-005107 · 25 Mar 2026
Mr X complains that HMCTS did not respond to an email he sent until eight months later, in which he …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-005072 · 23 Mar 2026
Mr B complains HMCTS delayed in sending out two court orders relating to an application for an Interim Possession Order …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-005060 · 19 Mar 2026
Mr F complains HMCTS incorrectly entered a judgement against him, failed to provide all evidence to the Judges, failed to …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004910 · 25 Feb 2026
Mr A brings his complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), Mr A says that delays in his court …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004882 · 23 Feb 2026
Mr A complains about HMCTS' delay processing his probate application, its delayed communication, and that it did not respond to …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →