Processing and issuing of Part 7 forms
13. 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.
14. Mr A says HMCTS failed to issue his claim forms in accordance with CPR 7.2. He says he properly filed two claims and provided the required fees or fee remission, but HMCTS did not issue either claim. Mr A told us that one of the claims was later dismissed as “totally without merit” and says that this is because HMCTS had not properly issued it.
15. We have considered the evidence relating to Mr A’s attempts to issue two Part 7 claims in the High Court in March 2024. We have seen that Mr A submitted claim forms through the HMCTS E-Filing service on 20 March 2024 and again on 22 March 2024. The E-Filing records provided by Mr A in this complaint show that both submissions were rejected by HMCTS.
16. In the first instance, the rejection notice explains that the claim form did not state the correct court fee, that the defendant details required amendment for the purposes of the E-Filing portal, and that the Help With Fees reference provided was not sufficient evidence that a fee remission had been granted. Mr A was advised that he would need to obtain confirmation from the Fees Office and resubmit the claim with the required changes.
17. A subsequent filing was also rejected. The rejection notice stated that the Help With Fees reference number alone was not proof that a fee remission had been granted and explained that a Fee Remission Certificate would need to be submitted with the claim form.
18. Looking at the evidence provided, we can see that Mr A later obtained confirmation from the HMCTS Fees Office that his Help With Fees applications had been successful. The documents show that fee remission was granted in the amounts of £9,180.50 and £569.00 respectively. The confirmation letters also explain that when filing documents through the E-Filing system, the Fee Remission Certificate must be attached as proof of the remission.
19. Taken together, the documents show that the claims were initially rejected because HMCTS did not have sufficient evidence of the applicable court fee or a confirmed fee remission at the point the claims were submitted through the E-Filing system.
20. We have also considered whether the correct court fee was provided for the claim. The documents show that Mr A’s Help With Fees application covered remission of £9,180.50, with a further remission certificate issued for £569.00.
21. However, the rejection notices from HMCTS indicate that the fee information provided with the original filing did not match the amount required for the claim. This appears to be one of the reasons the submission was rejected through the E-Filing system.
22. We have also considered the correspondence between Mr A and HMCTS following these rejections. The evidence shows that HMCTS received Mr A’s claim by email on 23 March 2024 and returned it on 24 April 2024 on the basis that the fee was less than required to process the claim.
23. The documents show that Mr A subsequently provided his Help With Fees remission certificates to HMCTS on 17 April 2024. These certificates confirmed that fee remission had been granted in the amounts set out above.
24. HMCTS later confirmed to Mr A that, following receipt of the remission certificates, the claim was processed on 15 May 2024 and allocated claim number KB-2024-001441. In correspondence with HMCTS, Mr A later referred to a second claim and asked why it had not been issued. However, the documents provided show that a second claim was subsequently issued and allocated claim number KB-2024-001467.
25. The evidence shows that HMCTS initially rejected the filings because the information provided through the E-Filing system did not include sufficient evidence of the applicable court fee or confirmed fee remission. Once the remission certificates were provided, HMCTS processed the claim and issued a claim number.
26. Mr A refers to CPR 7.2 and says HMCTS failed to issue his claim forms in accordance with that rule. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are the procedural rules governing civil proceedings in the courts of England and Wales. They set out the framework for how civil cases should be conducted, including how proceedings are started, how claims are managed by the court, and the responsibilities of the parties involved.
27. CPR 7.2 explains when proceedings are considered to have started. It provides that proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant. However, the rule does not prescribe how HMCTS must administratively process claim forms or filings before issue. Matters such as verifying the court fee or confirming a valid Help With Fees remission form part of HMCTS’s administrative processes.
28. In any event, the evidence shows that both of Mr A’s claims were in fact issued by HMCTS, allocated claim numbers KB-2024-001441 and KB-2024-001467 and put before a judge in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court.
29. In each case, the judge considered the claim form and accompanying documents and made an order striking the claim out as “totally without merit”.
30. Decisions made by a judge in the exercise of judicial functions are outside the Ombudsman’s authority. We cannot investigate or question those decisions. Our role is limited to considering the administrative actions of HMCTS, including whether the claims were processed and issued.
31. Mr A says that because HMCTS initially refused to process the claims due to issues with the fee remission evidence, the claims were not validly issued under CPR 7.2. He therefore believes the court had no authority to consider them and that the subsequent strike-out orders are invalid.
32. This argument relates to the court proceedings themselves and falls under the jurisdiction of the court. This is not something we can take a view on. The Ombudsman cannot review or substitute the court’s decision.
33. We recognise that Mr A feels strongly that he has been prevented from pursuing his claims and that this has been distressing for him. Our role is limited to considering the administrative actions of HMCTS.
34. The evidence shows that both claims were issued and allocated claim numbers KB-2024-001441 and KB-2024-001467 before being considered by a judge in the High Court. In light of this, we are satisfied that HMCTS did issue the claims. HMCTS has no control over hearings beyond this stage, and we have seen no indications it has not acted in line with its administrative responsibilities in this complaint.
Inconsistent/incorrect information about fee remission
35. Mr A says that HMCTS gave him incorrect or inconsistent information about fee remission and wrongly told him that his Help With Fees reference was insufficient. We have reviewed the evidence relating to Mr A’s Help With Fees applications.
36. The documents show that Mr A was later granted fee remission for the relevant amounts. However, the E-Filing rejection notices explain that the Help With Fees reference number alone was not sufficient evidence that remission had been granted. HMCTS advised Mr A that a Fee Remission Certificate would need to be provided with the claim form.
37. HMCTS did not dispute that Mr A was eligible for fee remission. The issue appears to be that the remission had not been evidenced in the way required by the E-Filing system at the time the claims were submitted.
38. We have also considered the information provided in the E-Filing rejection notices and the Help With Fees confirmation letters. These explain that when filing a claim through the HMCTS E-Filing system, evidence of fee remission must be provided at the point of submission. The rejection notices state that a Help With Fees reference number alone is not sufficient evidence that remission has been granted and that the Fee Remission Certificate must be attached.
39. We accept that Mr A was later granted fee remission for the relevant amounts. However, for the purposes of filing a claim through the E-Filing system, HMCTS explained the remission must be evidenced in the manner required at the point of submission.
40. Where the required court fee has not been paid, or valid evidence of fee remission has not been provided, the Civil Procedure Rules allow the court to refuse to process the document until the fee issue is resolved.
41. Having reviewed the correspondence and the E-Filing rejection notices, we have not seen evidence that HMCTS gave conflicting information. The notices consistently explain that a Help With Fees reference number alone was not sufficient evidence that remission had been granted and that the Fee Remission Certificate would need to be attached to the filing.
42. We also note that it is the responsibility of the party bringing a claim to ensure that the correct court fee is paid, or that valid evidence of fee remission is provided at the time the claim is filed. HMCTS’s role is administrative. Its staff process filings and check that the required fee or evidence of remission has been provided before issuing a claim. Based on the evidence we have seen, HMCTS explained what was required and processed the claim once the remission certificates were provided.
Complaint handling and delays
43. Mr A also complains that HMCTS did not follow its complaint handling timescales.
44. Looking at the evidence, Mr A submitted a complaint to HMCTS on 16 May 2024. HMCTS issued its first response on 17 June 2024. Mr A requested a review the same day, and HMCTS issued its review response on 17 July 2024 and a further, final response on 30 July 2024.
45. HMCTS’s complaint policy sets target times for responding to complaints. However, these timeframes are service standards rather than strict requirements. While organisations should aim to meet these targets, failing to do so does not automatically suggest a failing.
46. We have also considered the impact of such a delay on Mr A. The complaint responses reiterated the explanations already provided to Mr A about why his filings had initially been rejected and how the claims were later processed once the fee remission evidence had been provided. The responses did not introduce new information that would have altered Mr A’s claims.
47. In this case, HMCTS did take longer than its stated targets to respond to Mr A’s complaint and review request. We recognise that delays in complaint responses can be frustrating. However, HMCTS did ultimately provide responses addressing the issues Mr A had raised.
48. Mr A also says that HMCTS’s complaint responses did not address the concerns he raised. We have reviewed those responses. They address the administrative aspects of Mr A’s complaint, including the handling of his filings and the issue relating to fee remission.
49. However, many of the concerns raised by Mr A relate to matters such as the decisions made by judges, the conduct of court proceedings, and arguments about human rights law. These matters relate to judicial functions. HMCTS’s role is limited to the administrative management of court processes, and it does not have authority to review or comment on judicial decisions.
50. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for HMCTS to limit its responses to the administrative matters within its remit.
51. We recognise that Mr A feels strongly about the circumstances of his case and the impact the proceedings have had on him. However, our role is limited to considering the administrative actions of HMCTS.
52. Having carefully reviewed the available evidence, we have not seen any indication that HMCTS got anything wrong in the administrative handling of Mr A’s claims. The evidence shows the claims were issued once the required fee remission evidence had been provided and were then considered by the court. We have also not seen evidence that HMCTS provided conflicting information about fee remission.
53. We acknowledge that HMCTS did not meet its target timescales when responding to Mr A’s complaint. While delays can understandably be frustrating, the complaint responses were provided and HMCTS engaged with Mr A consistently throughout the process.
54. In light of this, we have not found indications of maladministration in the matters we are able to consider and it is not appropriate for us to consider this complaint further.