HM Courts and Tribunals Service

4. Mr A complains about HMCTS and the delays it caused when handling his probate application, as it took 27 weeks to complete. He says this exceeded the 16-week target as it did not take timely action, and probate would have taken longer had he not made several phone calls to chase progress at different stages. He specifically complains: • It took 10 weeks to notify him that the testator’s Will was invalid.

• It subsequently took 15 weeks to notify him that he needed to provide the testator’s Decree Absolute, which he says was too long, • It placed his application for Letters of Administration (LoA) at the back of the queue after rejecting the original Grant of Probate (GoP) application, • It did not treat his LoA application as a priority to meet its 16-week standard, for example by using the urgent case review procedure, and failed to consider the fact he needed to sell the testator’s house to settle the Inheritance tax liability, and, • It wrongly believed he had provided insufficient evidence on 20 January 2024 to demonstrate the testator was divorced.

5. He also complains about HMCTS’ poor communication. It did not action his letters dated 18 and 20 January 2024, or his follow-up e-mails, which he says contained important information in support of his probate application.

6. He also complains about the way HMCTS handled his complaint: • It did not respond to all his issues, • It did not acknowledge it had failed to process his probate application correctly, • In its final response, HMCTS said it took 16 weeks to process his LoA application, when it took 17 weeks, • The final response says incorrectly that “everything that’s happened during the processing of your application and complaint has been done in line with our guidance” and, • It blamed the volume of its work for the delays, despite him being of the view this was not a factor.

7. As a result of HMCTS’ actions, Mr A says he experienced the following: • He had to pay more interest on the outstanding inheritance tax, and he calculates this was £463, • Its delayed information requests resulted in him having to travel and prepare documents, as he had to search the testator’s house for a 40-year-old document to satisfy the ‘Decree Absolute’ requirement, • He had to spend a great deal of time chasing progress and making a complaint, and, • He was concerned, disappointment and frustrated with the failings that occurred.

8. As an outcome of his complaint, he would like HMCTS to: • Explain why the problems with the probate application and complaint happened, including answering all queries advised during the complaint, • Explain precisely why the evidence presented of the testator’s divorce was not accepted, • Acknowledge its errors, • Introduce service improvements to probate processes and how complaints are handled, and, • Compensate him £1,000 for the interest he had to pay on the inheritance tax and his frustration with the probate and complaint problems.

Probate application 9. Mr A’s mother died in August 2023, and he made an online application for probate on 10 November 2023.

10. Probate is the legal process of managing a deceased person’s property, money, and possession. The probate applicant applies for a ‘GoP’ which gives them the aforementioned probate powers. However, if there is no Will, they will instead need to apply for ‘Letters of Administration’.

11. On 3 January 2024, HMCTS’ records note it received an inheritance tax form (IHT421 form) from HMRC (the tax office) in support of Mr A’s probate application. The recorder said the figures matched up,

12. A probate applicant must complete and send an IHT421 form to HMRC if there are taxable assets, and they cannot get a GoP otherwise. HMRC will then send the completed IHT421 form to HMCTS, which allows it to progress the application.

13. On 16 January, HMCTS rejected Mr A’s probate application, as it judged the Will was invalid. This was because there was only one witness signature, and it required two for it to consider the Will valid. It told him that, moving forward, he could apply for LoA, which would allow him to access the estate with a GoP.

14. Mr A submitted an LoA application to HMCTS on 18 January, and he requested it prioritise the application for the following reasons: • It had already considered the information in his previous probate application, • There was an outstanding tax balance of £120,428 that he needed to pay, and he needed to sell his mother’s house to clear this, and, • He was never aware two Will witness signatures were necessary.

15. The LoA application required evidence of a divorce. Mr A says he also sent divorce documents to HMCTS by post, but it says it never received this.

16. Mr A sent HMCTS multiple correspondence following the submission of the LoA application to request it prioritise his case. It told him his application was on its file to be reviewed and said that it only prioritised applications if a house sale was agreed prior to the testator’s (the person who made the Will) passing.

17. On 27 February, Mr A called HMCTS, and the call handler told him the case was ready to be examined. However, after receiving no update, Mr A contacted HMCTS again on 9 April to request an update, and the call handler referred the case to a case examiner for an urgent review.

18. On 1 May, HMCTS asked Mr A to provide the Decree Absolute, which is a final order that says someone is divorced. He told HMCTS he had posted a copy in January to its Harlow Office, and the call handler requested a Royal Mail Track and Trace reference. They also told him to contact the Decree Absolute Search Section to prove the legal divorce of the deceased and asked him to email documentary evidence of this. He sent the evidence on 2 May, and it confirmed receipt over the phone with him on 7 May.

19. However, during the call on 7 May, the call handler also told Mr A they could not locate his IHT421 form. Mr A called HMRC on the same day and it confirmed it had sent the IHT421 form to HMCTS on 8 November 2023. HMCTS’ records show it had received the IHT421 form, but the call handler in question appears to have missed this information.

20. When Mr A called HMCTS on 16 May, it had still not progressed his application since he told it that it had received the IHT421 form. The call handler he spoke to again said they could not see the form on its system but noticed in the records that it had previously been matched to his application. They sent a message to the case examiner to request they address the matter urgently.

21. On the same day, HMCTS issued the LoA.

Mr A’s complaint journey 22. Mr A submitted complaints to HMCTS on the following dates: • He first complained on 3 May 2024 (First stage complaint), and HMCTS responded on 9 May, • He then complained on 21 May, and HMCTS responded on 23 May, • He escalated his complaint on 13 June to the Review stage of the complaints process, and HMCTS responded on 29 June, • He followed up this complaint on 2 July, and it did not respond to this.

• He escalated his complaint on 20 August to the Appeal stage of the complaints process, and it responded to his complaint on 27 August and signposted him to our office.

• He complained again on 14 February 2025, and it did not reply.

23. In this complaint correspondence, Mr A raised the following points: • HMCTS was taking too long to process his application (in separate complaint correspondence, he complains about specific gaps in time where his application was not progressed), • It blamed work volume as a key factor for delays, • It did not escalate his application when he requested this, • It took too long to find the IHT421 form on its system, • The LoA form did not mention the Decree Absolute was required, and he only found out it was needed 14 weeks after he had submitted his initial ‘GoP’ application, • He also queried whether the Decree Absolute was essential evidence for his application, • There is no guidance that says the Will must be signed by two witnesses, • HMCTS prematurely and inappropriately referred his complaint to the next complaint stage (the Appeal stage) without his consent, and, • Its complaint responses were inadequate.

24. HMCTS apologised to him that, during such a sensitive time, he had cause to complain.

25. It said the relevant standard, ‘Applying for probate’ (HMCTS’ online guidance for probate), said the expected time frame, when Mr A submitted his GoP application on 10 November 2023, was 16 weeks. It recognised its processing time was taking longer than it wanted, due to the large volume of applications and correspondence, and it apologised for this and wanted to reduce these times for future applicants moving forward. At the time it was processing his application, it said it was issuing more than 6,000 grants each week. It is building on its staff capabilities to examine more complex cases, like his case, through training and recruitment. (It said it has hired over 100 more staff at the time of responding to his complaint and planned to hire more moving forward.)

26. HMCTS did not uphold this part of this complaint. It said his application took longer as he made two separate applications and his LoA application had to be stopped due to it requiring additional information (the Decree Absolute).

27. It said it had refused the GoP application, as the Will was missing a witness signature, and it had advised him how to proceed. When Mr A submitted an LoA application, this was placed in the queue.

28. HMCTS said it had to stop Mr A’s application, as it required additional information from him. It said it needed all the necessary information to demonstrate the deceased’s wishes were complied with and it observed the legal requirements of probate. When cases are awaiting information (when they are stopped), it said it places these cases back into a queue until they can be reviewed again. When the case is looked at again, it reviews any new information, and the case examiner will contact the applicant, refer it to a specialist for further review, or process the application.

29. HMCTS said it issues the LoA within the 16-week standard. While it did not start processing the application until week 15, it highlighted applications are processed quickly providing there are no issues.

30. With regards to the Decree Absolute, it said it needed this and had suggested he contact the Decree Absolute Search Section. It believes it was right to request this evidence, as it was in line with its process considering the information available was insufficient. It would not have known it was needed upon receipt of the application, and it only became clear the evidence was needed after a case examiner first examined it.

31. With regards to the IHT421 form, it acknowledged it was responsible for an error and apologised for this. It recognised it should have identified the form on 3 January, as this was when it was first noted, and matched it to the case. It said it had fed back this issue back to its staff.

32. With regards to its overall communication, it upheld this part of his complaint and recognised it was responsible for poor communication. It identified its staff had provided him with inconsistent advice. While it felt its staff were appropriately trained, it also recognised that there would always be complex cases, like Mr A’s, which its staff may be unfamiliar with. It has a support mechanism to support its staff, but it would also feedback Mr A’s experience so it could improve its service.

33. However, it also highlighted that it was, at the time it was handling his application, dealing with a significant number (thousands) of enquiries each week. This meant it was not always possible for staff to respond to and action new information as soon as it was received.

34. With regards to its complaint handling, it acknowledged, at the Appeal complaint stage, it had not responded to every complaint point. However, it said it would not respond to each point and focus on the main issues, as it did not believe it was proportionate to respond to each point as it would be repeating itself as some of the points were about the same issue.

Administrative background 35. In order for a member of the public to be granted probate, or LoA, they need to apply for it via HMCTS’ probate service.

36. The probate application process is explained in HMCTS’ online guidance, titled ‘Apply for probate’. We have reviewed the guidance version that was visible when Mr A applied for probate in November 2023.

37. At the time Mr A applied for probate, the online guidance said it would usually grant probate of LoA within 16 weeks from when the applicant submitted their application. However, it said the process could take longer if the applicant needed to provide more information.

38. Before applying, the applicant must find out if they need to pay inheritance tax. The process for this is in HMRC guidance, titled ‘How to value an estate for Inheritance Tax and report its value’.

39. In order to do this, an applicant needs to estimate the value of the estate of the person who died and submit an inheritance tax form (IHT421 form) to HMRC if tax is owed. It will send the applicant a unique code that allows them to apply for probate. Once they have completed and submitted the IHT421 form, they will need to wait 20 working days before applying for probate.

40. HMCTS has told us in previous probate cases that it expects HMRC to name the IHT421 with the testator’s name, their date of death, and the inheritance tax case reference. There is no written standard that says this, but HMRC and HMCTS have agreed on this naming convention. This allows HMCTS to search for the form, match it to the case, and allow it to finish processing the application.

41. If there is a Will, only executors can apply. They will need to submit the original Will with their probate application.

42. UK government guidance, ‘Making a Will’, explains what makes a Will legally valid. It says any Will accepted by HMCTS must be legally valid. This means the testator (the person who made the Will) must: • be 18 or over • make it voluntarily • be of sound mind • make it in writing • sign it in the presence of two witnesses who are both over 18 • have it signed by the testator’s two witnesses, in their presence, and they must all sign the same document.

43. If there is no Will, or the Will is defective, the closest living relative can apply to become the administrator of the estate. If the applicant is applying for LoA, they need to demonstrate they are the most ‘entitled’ person, the closest living relative, in their application.

44. In the PA1A (LoA) application, questions 2.11 and 2.12 ask the applicant to provide details of the deceased’s marital status and information about the Decree Absolute. If they need help with this, they can contact the Probate Call Centre for assistance.

45. The applicant can track the progress of their application using MyHMCTS, the online probate service.

46. There is no publicly available standard that says how long HMCTS’ probate team should take to respond to enquiries. However, during a Justice Select Committee hearing with the Minster of State for Courts and Legal Services, the Minister said HMCTS was taking up to 16 weeks to answer queries, as its main focus was on clearing the backlog of cases that it had built up over time as a result of strains on its service.

47. There is also no publicly available standard that says how HMCTS decide which cases to prioritise. However, it told us at the time Mr A lodged his application, the criteria for escalating an application were: • where the application was over 16 weeks from the date of receipt and where there was a house sale already agreed prior to the death of the deceased • where there was a risk of harm, or, • where there is a risk of financial hardship.

Application delays

50. Mr A complains HMCTS delayed processing his application. He says it took 27 weeks to complete the probate process, which exceeded the 16-week standard that was publicly available at that time. He highlights various things that happened during the course of his application that he believes were contributors to the delay, such as requesting the Decree Absolute.

51. While Mr A’s probate journey took 27 weeks, he made two applications for probate during this period. He made a GoP application on 10 November 2023, which was refused due to a defective Will, and submitted a LoA application on 16 January 2024 to apply to be an administrator.

52. HMCTS processed the GoP application in nine weeks, within the 16-week standard (‘Apply for probate’ guidance). This appears to be in line with HMCTS’ service standard and in line with our principles of good administration.

53. Under our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, we expect public bodies to behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits. As we can see in this case, HMCTS did process Mr A’s application in line with its published time limit. As such, there are no indications of maladministration with regards to the length of time it took to process the GoP application.

54. We will next look at the LoA application.

55. HMCTS processed the LoA application in 17 weeks, which was outside of HMCTS’ 16-week standard. Mr A submitted his application on 18 January, which means HMCTS should have processed the application by 10 May to meet its 16-week standard. However, it did not process the application until 16 May.

56. Mr A believes the cause of this delay was HMCTS’ delay requesting information (such as the Decree Absolute and IHT421 form) and its decision to place his case at the back of the queue instead of expediting it.

57. While HMCTS did not find failings with respect to its general processing of Mr A’s application, it did acknowledge it had failed to identify the IHT421 form on 3 January, when it was first noted. It apologised for this, feeding back the issue to its staff.

58. The evidence we have considered suggests the extra week was caused by HMCTS’ failure to recognise it had received the IHT421 form. We can see from records that it received this form on 3 January, and the details were checked and matched, but the call handler or case examiner who spoke to Mr A on 7 and 16 May appeared to fail to identify the form on its system.

59. We know HMCTS could not progress with the application until it matched the IHT421 form to Mr A’s application, as explained in the administrative background.

60. Under our Principles of Good Administration, ‘Being open and accountable’, we expect public bodies should handle and process information properly and appropriately in line with the law. They should create and maintain reliable and usable records as evidence of their activities. They should manage records in line with recognised standards to ensure that they can be retrieved and that they are kept for as long as there is a statutory duty or business need.

61. While HMCTS recorded it had received, and matched, the IHT421 form, the case handlers appeared to fail to recognise receipt, which delayed the processing of Mr A’s probate application. Therefore, HMCTS did not manage its records in line with expectations, as staff appear to have not checked properly whether HMCTS had received the form. This is an indication of maladministration

62. As HMCTS was able to process Mr A’s application on 16 May, the same day it had identified the IHT421 form, that suggests it would have been able to process the application promptly on 7 May had the call handler or case examiner identified the IHT421 form.

63. We will consider the indications of impact and outcomes later in this report.

HMCTS’ information request

64. Mr A complains about HMCTS’ request for information. He believes it should have accepted the information he provided on 20 January to prove his mother’s divorce, and it wasted time requesting the Decree Absolute. He said this request caused him the stress of travelling back to his mother’s home to find the Decree Absolute and prepare this documentation and added to the delay.

65. On 20 January, Mr A enclosed a copy of his father’s Will and grant of probate for their estate. He also directed HMCTS to contact the registration office to attain divorce records. However, on 1 May, HMCTS told him to provide a Decree Absolute to prove the divorce and told him to contact the Decree Absolute Search Section. He then went to his mother’s home on 2 May to find this document and emailed and posted the document over to HMCTS.

66. According to HMCTS guidance, ‘Get a copy of a final order or decree absolute’, members of the public can get a copy of a Decree Absolute from the court if they make an application and they usually get a copy within a week of making a payment for the service. However, we can appreciate Mr A may have decided to collect the document himself to save waiting 7 days.

67. With regards to the need for the Decree Absolute, HMCTS’ probate guidance says that in the event there is not a Will (or a valid Will in this case), the most ‘entitled’ person can apply to become administrator of the estate. This is the closest living relative, which is normally the testator’s partner, followed by any children. As such, Mr A needed to demonstrate to HMCTS that his mother was separated from her ex-husband when she died, and Mr A was the ‘closest living relative’ who was ‘most entitled’.

68. Under our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, we expect public bodies to ensure customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities. As Mr A needed to demonstrate he was the closest living relative, we cannot say it was unreasonable to request a Decree Absolute if it felt he had not satisfied the case examiner that he was the most entitled to the estate.

69. Therefore, there are no indications of maladministration with respect to HMCTS’ request for a Decree Absolute and it appeared to act in line with its online guidance and our principles.

HMCTS’ communication

70. Mr A complains HMCTS communicated poorly with him. He said it took too long to tell him what information was required and did not action his correspondence following submission of his LoA application on 16 January.

71. HMCTS partly upheld this complaint. It acknowledged its communication was poor overall and fed this back to its staff so they could improve the service. It has specifically acknowledged its staff miscommunicated advice. However, it defended the delays responding to Mr A’s correspondence, as it said his case was complex and staff were not always able to respond quickly to his queries.

72. There is no specific standard that says how soon HMCTS should correspond with probate applicants. However, our expectation is set out in our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, which says we expect public bodies to behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits.

73. In the absence of a service standard, we have to consider whether the timescale was reasonable in the circumstances. HMCTS was taking 16 weeks to respond to correspondence during this period, and if Mr A was looking for a quicker response, we need to consider whether this was a reasonable expectation.

74. Following the submission of his LoA application on 16 January, Mr A contacted HMCTS on 18 and 20 January to request it put his case on the fast track, as he had a house on the market and he was due to pay inheritance tax from 1 March 2025. While HMCTS did not initially email a response, he spoke to a call handler on 26 January, and they confirmed it had received his LoA application. It emailed him on 13 February to explain its policy for expediting cases and said it could not expedite his case unless the sale of his house was agreed prior to the deceased’s passing. He told it on the same day that the house sale was agreed prior to the death of his mother, which he says was evidenced in the Will. HMCTS did not say anything further about its policy for expediting applications.

75. There is no indication the communication itself was urgent and needed to be shared with Mr A urgently. Had HMCTS responded to his correspondence sooner, it would not have made any difference to his application, as HMCTS would not have been obligated to expedite his application anyway. As such, this indicates its response time was reasonable. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to say HMCTS took too long to communicate with him, based on the standards and what happened.

76. However, there are indications of a failing. HMCTS’ communication on 13 February would have reasonably led Mr A to believe his application fit the criteria to be fast tracked at this point. Yet, according to HMCTS’ email to our office on 7 January 2026, it had not explained the full policy, which was the following: • where the application was over 16 weeks from the date of receipt and where there was a house sale already agreed prior to the death of the deceased, • where there was a risk of harm, or, • where there is a risk of financial hardship.

77. The house sale alone was not a sufficient condition for his application to be expedited, as Mr A’s LoA application had not taken longer than 16 weeks by this point. However, HMCTS did not explain this, which appears therefore to be a miscommunication by omission and a failure to manage his expectations. This does not appear to be in line with our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, which says public bodies should communicate effectively, using clear language that people can understand and that is appropriate to them and their circumstances.

78. As such, there are indications of maladministration with the quality of HMCTS’ communication, as it did not communicate its fast-track policy in line with our principles of good administration, and we will later look to address whether the impact of this apparent failing appears to have been remedied.

HMCTS’ complaint handling

79. Mr A complains HMCTS did not address his whole complaint properly.

80. In responding to Mr A’s complaint, HMCTS recognised he had raised a lot of issues and said it would only respond to the main issues (the issues where there was an impact and where he is seeking a remedy). The main issues appear to be the delays, poor communication, and complaint handling. It did not feel it would add anything to its response if it responded to every individual point, as some of the points were the same and its response would have been repetitive.

81. PHSO’s principles for complaint handling are relevant here, specifically our principles for ‘Getting it right’ and ‘Being open and accountable’. Under these principles, we expect public bodies should focus on the outcomes for the complainant and should put in place policies and procedures to ensure complainants are treated fairly, to aid decision making and to ensure fair outcomes.

82. They should also give clear, evidence-based decisions. If something has gone wrong, they should explain what has gone wrong and what they will do to put matters right as quickly as possible.

83. Applied to this case, HMCTS did not need to respond to each of Mr A’s specific complaint components, and this is not something we would expect it to do if not proportionate with respect to addressing his concerns. It is our view it appears to have responded to the main points of his complaint after reviewing the complaint records.

84. While Mr A’s follow up complaints focused on specific items which he felt contributed to the delay, it had already taken a holistic view on the delays and explained what had happened. He is seeking an explanation for why his application took so long, and, in our view, HMCTS appeared to address this. As explained in section 25 of this report, it said it was taking longer due to the large volume of applications and correspondence. As such, we do not consider its complaint handling approach to be an indication of maladministration, as it appeared to be focusing on the main issue of delay and the outcomes he is seeking.

Inaccuracies in HMCTS’ complaint handling

85. Mr A also complains about inaccuracies in HMCTS’ complaint responses. He says it did not acknowledge it had failed to process his probate application correctly, said it took 16 weeks to process his LoA application, when it took 17 weeks, said incorrectly that “everything that’s happened during the processing of your application and complaint has been done in line with our guidance”, and blamed the volume of its work for the delays, despite him being of the view this was not a factor.

86. HMCTS did acknowledge failings with the way it handled Mr A’s probate application, which counters his point that it did not do this. As highlighted in the background, sections 31 and 32, it acknowledged it was responsible for failings with respect to it recognising receipt of the IHT form and its poor communication.

87. Some of the issues Mr A has raised about HMCTS’ complaint handling are simply a difference of opinion. He complains it blamed the delay on the volume of probate cases, and he does not think this is a delaying factor. We can see from HMCTS’ online statistics that following 2022, there was a significant increase in the number of probate cases it received. It received 291,941 applications in 2022, and a further 302,881 in 2023, which were the highest numbers on record for the service. The surge of cases produced by the covid pandemic put great strain on the service. In such context, its complaint response does not appear to be unreasonable.

88. However, Mr A is right to highlight that HMCTS’ final response, dated 27 August 2024, does incorrectly say, “I can confirm that everything that’s happened during the processing of your application and complaint has been done in line with our guidance”. This was a confusing comment for HMCTS to add, and it is unclear why it put this considering in the same response it had acknowledged it was responsible for misinformation.

89. As highlighted above, we expect public bodies to be clear when responding to complaints. HMCTS, for the most part, has been clear in its complaint response. While its comment in the final response appears to be contradictory, this does not take away from the fact that it had acknowledged mistakes and outlined the steps it had taken to remedy this. It appears the comment in question was error by author, but not so bad as to be considered an indication of maladministration, as it had previously made clear its position on the maladministration that had occurred. So, overall, despite this minor error, we do not consider HMCTS’ inaccuracies in its complaint handling to have fallen so short of our principles that it amounts to maladministration.

The indications of injustice

90. To recap, we have identified indications of maladministration. HMCTS appeared to fail to find the IHT421 form on its system and the quality of its communication regarding its fast-track policy appeared not to be correct. It has acknowledged it failed to initially spot the IHT421 form, and its overall communication was poor. It has fed back both issues to its staff, without specifying what any service improvements would look like. It has not awarded Mr A any compensation.

91. The main impact of the failing to spot the IHT421 was that it appeared to cause a short delay in processing Mr A’s application.

92. Mr A says the impact of the extra week is that it resulted in additional interest, totalling £463 for the inheritance tax debt, and caused him frustration.

93. Let us first consider the interest. Mr A told HMCTS on 17 January 2024 that he would have to pay 7.75% interest on his inheritance from 1 March 2024, which he says was £775 per month. We queried this with him, as he told us that he had accrued £463.

94. Mr A provided some explanation, although he has not shared his calculations.

95. He told us that the figure is based on the IHT he owed during the 11 weeks before he cleared it between May and August, after he was granted probate.

96. He also told us his inheritance liability was later reduced following 7 October 2024, as he sold his deceased mother’s house for less than HMRC’s valuation, which meant his inheritance tax liability was amended due to reduction in the value of the estate. This is supported by letters he received from HMRC regarding calculation of the inheritance tax, which he has shared with us.

97. While we accept that Mr A may have accrued some interest whilst he awaited a decision, this does not appear to be a consequence of HMCTS’ processing of the probate application. Ultimately, Mr A could only clear the full inheritance tax debt after he sold the house, which was part of the estate. There are a range of variables that come into play in relation to when a house will be sold. We cannot say the house would have been sold without delay after HMCTS granted probate. It is difficult to attribute delays clearing the inheritance tax debt solely to a week’s delay with the probate application. We cannot precisely say when he would have sold the house had HMCTS’ processing of the probate application been a week earlier. In order for our office to recommend HMCTS remedy an injustice, we would need to identify a clear, strong link, and there is not a strong link between the one-week delay and the accrual of inheritance tax interest debt.

98. Another variable is Mr A could have made different choices. HMRC’s guidance, ‘Apply to postpone payment of Inheritance Tax’ (published on 1 April 2024), says that if a taxpayer is unable to raise funds to pay inheritance tax, they can request a postponement of payment. If they cannot access the assets of the deceased’s estate before a grant of probate has been granted, they can ask HMRC to postpone payment of all, or some, of the tax and interest due until after they have got the grant. Once the grant has been issued, they will be expected to pay the outstanding tax as soon as possible (this is called a ‘grant on credit’). We have seen no evidence that Mr A explored this.

99. Mr A has told us he has made a separate complaint about HMRC for providing him incorrect advice with respect to clearing the inheritance tax, which he says stopped him from taking this option. Whether or not this is the case, it appears the reason Mr A did not pursue this option is not a result of HMCTS’ actions.

100. Overall, there is not enough evidence to link the inheritance tax interest debt to HMCTS’ actions, and to enable us to say there are indications of this being an impact of HMCTS’s indications of maladministration.

101. That leaves the frustration HMCTS caused Mr A by seemingly delaying his case for a week and appearing to fail to manage his expectations with respect to its fast-track policy.

102. We hope our statement provides Mr A with answers and explanations regarding what happened. Therefore, we would not consider it necessary to request HMCTS provide further explanation.

103. Mr A has set out specific service improvements he would like to see. HMCTS said it fed back to its staff the issue relating to the IHT421 form and poor communication, and we consider this to be sufficient with respect to service improvements. We do not consider further service improvements are required in light of this.

104. Mr A requested £1000 compensation, including the £463 interest, which he believes he should not have paid for the inheritance tax interest.

105. We can see Mr A was distressed at the time he had to wait for HMCTS to grant him probate and Letters of Administration. However, this level of distress appears to relate to his belief the delay was much longer than we considered above. It is difficult, based on the evidence, to link this level of distress specifically to the extra week delay.

106. Mr A’s indications of impact appear to reflect level 1, on our scale of injustice. This type of injustice is a low impact injustice, such as frustration, typically arising from a one-off incident, the effect was for a short duration (up to 2 weeks), and there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact. In cases like these, we consider an apology to be appropriate, and HMCTS has apologised for the delay.

107. Therefore, while it appears there are indications of maladministration, we take the view there are no indications of an unremedied injustice. HMCTS appears to have taken enough action to remedy this complaint.

1. We are sorry to learn about Mr A’s loss and the length of time his probate application took. Probate is the legal process of managing a deceased person’s property, money, and possession. We can appreciate the probate process did take a long time, considering he had to make two separate applications, and this would have added to what was already a difficult time for him following the death of his mother.

2. Having looked at Mr A’s case, we have decided to not investigate it further. This is because, while we identified his probate application took slightly longer than it should have and HMCTS communicated poorly, we consider the injustice is remedied by our report and HMCTS’ actions. With respect to his complaint about HMCTS’ gathering of information and complaint handing, we did not identify it did anything wrong here.

3. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr A and we will explain our decision in more detail. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance about how carefully we are considering his complaint.