Delays
10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
11. Mr A complains his hearing, which was originally scheduled to start on 6 January 2025, was delayed until midday 7 January 2025. He complains this was due to issues with HMCTS’ CVP technology. Mr A says he was affected financially and caused distress and anxiety.
12. In HMCTS’ first response, dated 27 February 2025, HMCTS says that it took steps to try and resolve the situation by contacting the relevant staff members and departments to resolve any issues with the equipment. The court staff also tried several different courtrooms to see if this alleviated the issues and finally attempted to improve the microphone volume, positioning and sound quality.
13. In its final response, dated 1 April 2025, HMCTS says that as the technical issues in court on those days were caused by a national connectivity issue and so it is unable to refund Mr A’s council’s fees. This is because the issue was outside of the local courts control and outside of HMCTS’ control.
14. In our investigation, we look to ensure that organisations have followed their own internal policies correctly.
15. HMCTS’ internal complaint guidance is clear that it can only consider financial redress where it has made a mistake or caused financial loss or injustice. It also says that it is not the responsibility of HMCTS to make good any financial losses a complainant has been pursuing from a third party, whilst it can consider making ex-gratia payments, it must be proven there has been a financial loss directly connected to a mistake made by HMCTS.
16. HMCTS’ third-party assurance policy explains that whilst the supplier is required to notify HMCTS of any incidents, there is no requirement for the supplier to pay any compensation to individuals affected by an internet outage.
17. As the delay was due to the CVP technology, the responsibility for this outage would fall under the CVP technology provider. We have not seen any indications that the outage was a result of an administrative mistake made by HMCTS. This means there is no requirement for HMCTS to consider making an ex-gratia payment.
18. Despite this, it is evident Mr A’s case was impacted by the outage, and so we have considered the actions HMCTS took to mitigate the impact of these delays and to try and resolve the situation.
19. Our Principles of Good Administration says that public bodies should provide effective services, and they should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to something, they should keep to it or explain why they cannot. The Principles also say public bodies should behave helpfully, deal with people promptly, and within reasonable timescales.
20. Further to this, our Principles say public administration should be transparent and information should be handled as openly as the law allows. Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely. They also say public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.
21. From its responses of 27 February 2025 and 1 April 2025, we can see that HMCTS took reasonable and proportionate steps to mitigate any impact of the outage in line with our Principles of Good Administration. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the issue could not be resolved on the day. We recognise this must have been frustrating for Mr A, given the impact it had on his hearing and the additional fees he has incurred.
22. We can also see that HMCTS acted in a timely manner and provided information about the outage and its decision on Mr A’s complaint with transparency and openness. We consider this is in line with our Principles of Good Administration.
Conclusion
23. In conclusion, we have not identified any indications that HMCTS is responsible for the delays in Mr A’s hearing. We consider there are indications HMCTS’ staff took reasonable and proportionate action in line with our Principles of Good Administration to try and resolve the issues on the day and mitigate the impact of the outage.
24. For these reasons, we will not be taking any further action on this complaint. We recognise this may be disappointing for Mr A given the ongoing concerns he has and the impact this has had on him financially. Our decision does not diminish the strength of his feelings about what happened nor the impact this had on him, and we appreciate the time and effort Mr A has taken to bring his complaint to us.