5. Mrs L complains HMCTS has not offered her a suitable remedy after it lost the defence statement she sent in July 2024.
6. Mrs L says the loss of her paperwork meant a county court judgement (CCJ) was registered against her and delayed the court process. She was caused anxiety and stress and needed counselling.
7. Mrs L wants HMCTS to increase the financial remedy it offered her.
8. On 18 June 2024 a company (the claimant) made a claim through HMCTS’ Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) against Mrs L for £4,289.36 in respect of credit card debt. CNBC is an administrative centre operated by HMCTS that handles bulk civil money claims, including debt recovery, for England and Wales. HMCTS sent Mrs L a claim form on 23 June.
9. On 17 July, HMCTS wrote to Mrs L and said a default judgment, which is also known as a CCJ, had been made because she had not replied to the claim form with a defence statement. She was ordered to pay the claimant £4,596.36 made up of £4,289.36 for debt and interest up to the date of the judgement, and £307 for costs.
10. Mrs L called HMCTS on 23 July and said she had proof that she had sent, and that HMCTS had received, her defence statement on 4 July. She was asked to send a copy of her defence statement and proof of recorded delivery.
11. Mrs L did not send her defence statement; however, she made a complaint to HMCTS on 10 August about her missing documents.
12. HMCTS wrote to Mrs L on 17 September and said her claim response had been misplaced. It asked her to send a copy of the document by 27 September.
13. HMCTS replied to Mrs L’s complaint on 23 September and apologised it had not received her defence statement. It offered Mrs L a £75 goodwill payment to make up for misplacing her documents. Mrs L did not accept this payment.
14. On 28 September HMCTS recorded it had received a copy of Mrs L’s defence statement. The CCJ was set aside the same day and the defence filed.
15. Mrs L made another complaint to HMCTS on 13 January 2025. HMCTS replied on 28 January and offered to increase the goodwill payment of £200 in recognition of the misfiling of the defence, a CCJ being entered in error, and the inconvenience and distress this may have caused. Mrs L has not accepted this payment.
16. The claim was transferred to the county court. The case was heard on 22 April and found in favour of the claimant.
17. Mrs L brought her complaint to us on 16 June.
20. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has made mistakes. If we can see indications it made mistakes, we go on to consider if the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we consider HMCTS has already offered to do enough to put right the impact of its error.
21. Mrs L complains HMCTS has not offered her a suitable remedy after it lost her defence statement.
22. We can see from HMCTS’ records that on 18 June 2024 the claimant made a claim on HMCTS’ Money Claim Online (MCOL) service. MCOL is HMCTS’ online service claimants can use to claim money they are owed by a person or business. The claimant asked Mrs L to pay £4,574.36, made up of outstanding credit card debt of £4,289.36, court fees of £205, and solicitor’s costs of £80.
23. MOJ rules explain that after a claim is made, a claim form is sent to the person or business who owes the money. They must respond to the claim by the date given in the claim form, which is no more than 14 days after they receive the claim form. The claimant can: • pay the full amount • offer to pay a different amount, if they think they owe less than the claim amount • defend the claim, if they do not think they owe any money.
24. If the defendant responds and the claimant disagrees with their response, cases where the claim is under £10,000 will automatically be referred to mediation to help both sides work out an agreement. If agreement is not reached during mediation, both parties will have to attend a court hearing where a judge will decide the outcome.
25. If the claimant does not respond to the claim, the court can order the defendant to pay. This is known as a CCJ.
26. HMCTS sent a claim form to Mrs L on 23 June.
27. On 17 July HMCTS issued an N30 ‘judgement by default’ to Mrs L. It said she had not replied to the claim form and ordered her to pay the claimant £4,596.36, made up of £4,289.36 for the outstanding debt and interest up to the date of the judgement, and £307 for costs.
28. A judgment by default, otherwise known as a CCJ, is a legal order issued to a defendant who fails to respond to a claim form within the required timeframe. This means the claimant automatically wins the case without a trial. The CCJ is entered in a public register and passed to credit reference agencies. The N30 says if the defendant did reply to the claim form and believes judgement in default has been entered wrongly, they can apply to HMCTS giving reasons why the judgement should be set aside.
29. Mrs L called HMCTS on 23 July. She said she had sent a defence statement, stating which parts of the claim she denied and why, by recorded delivery, and HMCTS signed for it on 4 July. The member of staff she spoke to told her to send HMCTS a copy of her defence statement, and proof of delivery.
30. We have seen a copy of Mrs L’s recorded delivery note which shows HMCTS received the defence statement on 4 July. HMCTS has confirmed it has not been able to locate the statement.
31. Mrs L sent an email to HMCTS following the call. She said she had proof she had sent the defence. She did not attach a copy of the defence or the recorded delivery evidence. She said she now considered the case closed because HMCTS had not followed the correct procedure.
32. Mrs L made an online complaint on 10 August. She said: • the statement she had not responded to the claim for was inaccurate and it had been signed for on 4 July • she had many sleepless nights and was stressed.
33. An HMCTS claim response team leader wrote to Mrs L on 17 September. They said her claim response had been misplaced and apologised for the inconvenience. They asked her to send a copy of the document by 27 September.
34. HMCTS replied to Mrs L’s complaint on 23 September. It apologised that Mrs L’s defence statement was not properly received and offered her a £75 goodwill payment to make up for misplacing the defence documents. It said her email of 10 August did not include a copy of her defence or proof of delivery and, to enable a district judge to set the judgement aside and add the defence to the file, a copy of defence was required as soon as possible.
35. Mrs L did not accept the £75 goodwill payment.
36. HMCTS records show it received a copy of Mrs L’s defence statement, and evidence of the recorded delivery, on 27 September. The case was referred to a district judge on 28 September who made an order the same day to set the judgement of 17 July aside. Mrs L’s defence statement was also filed the same day. This means the statement was available at that time.
37. We can see this means that by 28 September, Mrs L was back in the position she would have been if the original defence statement received on 4 July had not been misplaced. She no longer had a CCJ against her, and the defence statement was filed. This means it was available to the court and the claimant to consider.
38. We looked at how the claim progressed after 28 September. We can see it followed the usual procedure for small claims and cannot see the loss of Mrs L’s statement caused any further impact.
39. The claimant did not accept Mrs L’s defence. In line with the guidance we referred to earlier, the case was referred for mediation on 6 November. On 22 November, however, HMCTS noted mediation had failed and the case was referred to a local County Court on 28 November for a court to make a final decision.
40. HMCTS received a complaint from Mrs L on 13 January 2025. She said there had been significant procedural errors, breaches of data protection law and gross mishandling of her case by HMCTS. These caused substantial distress, procedural unfairness and a violation of her rights. She said: • HMCTS had lost her documents on two occasions which directly impacted on her ability to defend herself fairly • HMCTS’ handling of her personal data constituted a serious breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) • she did not consent to the transfer of the case to the County Court, and the matter should have been resolved with her original defence in July • she wanted compensation of £8,000 for the distress and inconvenience cased by the loss and mishandling of her case records, failure to adhere to GDPR regulations and the escalation and prolongation of the case due to administrative errors.
41. We understand that Mrs L raised her concerns about a GDPR beach with the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO).
42. We asked Mrs L to tell us about the second occasion HMCTS lost her documents. She told us HMCTS issued a general directions order on 23 December which said her documents were lost. Mrs L says this referred to the second defence statement she sent in September.
43. We looked at the general directions order Mrs L refers to. We can see the document it said was missing was the claimant’s directions questionnaire. The directions questionnaire allows HMCTS to determine the small claims track is the appropriate process for the case. We are satisfied HMCTS did not lose the defence statement Mrs L sent in September.
44. We also considered Mrs L’s view that the matter should have been resolved in July 2024 and should not have been transferred to the County Court. We cannot agree with this. We explained earlier that a claim might go to court for a judge to decide the outcome. We acknowledge HMCTS misplaced Mrs L’s defence statement in July 2024. However, apart from the delay this caused, which we will look at shortly, we cannot see anything to indicate the case would have progressed any differently than it did if the defence statement had been filed when it was first received.
45. HMCTS replied to Mrs L’s complaint on 28 January and said: • despite Mrs L filing a defence it was not added to the court file as it should have been • this was HMCTS’ error and fell below its expected standard • it apologised for the impact this had on Mrs L’s case • the defence was lost within the court building and there was no evidence it was sent to or used by a third party • her case had been transferred to the County Court because it was not possible for the parties to agree a settlement during mediation • it offered to increase the goodwill payment to £200 in recognition that Mrs L’s documents had been misplaced and a CCJ had been entered against her in error.
46. Mrs L did not accept the £200 good will payment.
47. The case was heard on 22 April and a judge found in favour of the claimant. This means Mrs L must pay the claimant in full. HMCTS has told us she has agreed to repay the debt at £5 a month.
48. We asked Mrs L about the impact the loss of her documents had on her. She told us the main source of stress was trying to ensure her defence reached the judge so she could have a fair hearing. She found it extremely distressing and frustrating that documents she properly submitted were lost twice, leaving her feeling ignored and unable to engage fairly with the process. The anxiety she experienced was specifically caused by HMCTS’s repeated failure to retain and process her documents, and the uncertainty this created. Mrs L has shown us evidence of counselling sessions she attended from April 2025 onwards as a result of the anxiety she says she has been caused by this matter.
49. We can see that HMCTS misplaced only one set of documents. The copy Mrs L sent in September was filed and available for consideration from 28 September and throughout the rest of the claim process. We looked at HMCTS’ handling of the claim after matters were put right on 28 September, and up to 22 April. We think it was completed in line with HMCTS’ small claim procedure which we explained earlier. We cannot see that, after matters relating to the lost documents were put right on 28 September, the loss of the documents received on 4 July caused any negative impact on the way the claim progressed or meant that Mrs L was unable to engage fairly with the process.
50. We said earlier we consider that by 28 September HMCTS had put Mrs L back in the position she would otherwise have been in but for the loss of her defence statement. This is 12 weeks and three days after HMCTS received the statement. We can see, however, that Mrs L was told during the call with HMCTS on 23 July to send in a copy of her defence statement and proof of the recorded delivery. She did not do so until after she received the letters of 17 and 23 September.
51. We asked Mrs L why she did not send the statement following the call on 23 July. She told us she did not resend it immediately because it had already been received by HMCTS, of which she had proof. She reasonably believed the document was already with HMCTS and the issue was an internal administrative matter. She was only told her documents had been lost in the letter of 17 September.
52. We can understand Mrs L’s frustration when on 23 July HMCTS asked her to resend a document she had already sent, and had proof HMCTS had received it. We think, however, it would have been reasonable for her to resend it when she was first asked to do so. We also do not think it is reasonable for her to consider the matter closed as she said in her email of the same date, given she was asked to send in the documents and proof of delivery.
53. When the statement was received on 27 September, the CCJ was set aside, and the defence filed the next day. We think it is likely that if Mrs L had sent the statement shortly after the call, and attached it in her email of the same day, the judgement could have been set aside and the defence filed as early as 24 July.
54. We think therefore the loss of Mrs L’s documents means HMCTS is responsible for the case taking three weeks longer to complete than it otherwise would have. We looked at the impact of this in more detail. The MOJ statistics show the average time taken for small claims to go to trial in 2024 was 50.7 weeks. In Mrs L’s case the claim was made on 18 June 2024 and the hearing took place 44 weeks and one day later, 22 April 2025. We think this means that the three-week period which we consider HMCTS is responsible for did not lead to any overall delay in the claim process being completed.
55. Our Principles say where a public body has failed to act in line with applicable guidelines and standards, it should take steps to put things right. That means, if possible, returning complainants to the position they were in before this took place. We can see HMCTS had put Mrs L back in the position she would have been but for the loss of her documents, by 28 September. This is in line with our Principles.
56. We have gone on to consider whether HMCTS’ goodwill offer of £200 is suitable remedy in the circumstances.
57. We understand from what Mrs L told us she thinks the claim process was significantly impacted by HMCTS mistakes. We have not found this to be the case, as we have explained. We acknowledge that Mrs L found the claim process inconvenient, stressful and frustrating. We think for many people this is an unavoidable consequence of the small claims process. We can see, however, that Mrs L was caused additional stress and anxiety during an already stressful process because of her concerns about the lost documents and the CCJ.
58. To help us consider whether HMCTS offered Mrs L a suitable remedy we looked at its complaint handling guidance. It says if a customer has suffered injustice arising from HMCTS’s poor service it should consider the impact on them and bear this in mind when considering whether to make a financial redress payment. Payments for non-financial loss range from no payment to £500+. This includes £100 to £250 where a: • customer’s documents are received then lost within HMCTS’ building with no evidence personal information was received or used by a third party • CCJ is wrongly registered.
59. We also looked at our guidance on financial remedy. This says distress, worry, annoyance and similar injustice of the sort which a healthy adult would be expected to deal with on a regular basis, without external support, and which does not impact on the affected person’s day to day functioning, or their ability to live a normal life, for a period from 1-2 weeks to about six months and for which we would reasonably expect any impact to diminish completely in the fullness of time meets level 2 of our scale. Payments made at level 2 are between £120 and £550.
60. We think Mrs L’s case fits a payment at the lower end of our level 2 scale. This is because whilst we can see she suffered distress, worry, and annoyance for a limited period, the lost documents did not cause any overall delay to the claim process, Mrs L was put back into the position she would have been but for the error, and it did not impact on her ability to engage fairly with the process.
61. We therefore consider HMCTS’ offer of £200 is in line with our guidance For this reason, we will not look at Mrs L’s complaint further. Should Mrs L now wish to accept this payment she should contact HMCTS.
62. We can see that finding out that her defence statement had been lost and a judge decided to issue a CCJ must have caused Mrs L concern during what was already a difficult time for her. We are sorry to hear this happened. We in no way wish to diminish the impact of this event on her and hope we have been able to explain why we consider HMCTS has done enough to remedy the stress and inconvenience she endured because of its mistake.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs L’s complaint about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). We recognise the events she complains about were very frustrating for Mrs L during an already stressful time for her.
2. The evidence shows HMCTS has acknowledged it lost Mrs L’s documents and apologised. It also offered to make a goodwill payment of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress this may have caused.
3. We acknowledge Mrs L is not happy with the redress HMCTS has offered her. Having thought carefully about the impact caused to Mrs L by HMCTS’ error, we think £200 is appropriate in the circumstances of her case. We have therefore decided to take no further action.
4. We explain the reasons for our decision below.