County Court Delays

Significant increases in delays in County Court cases, impacting access to justice and requiring increased resources.

765 items 7 sources 1 inquiry
Strongest matches Browse by source
Watch Generate AI Report Export
Source spread

Where this theme appears

County Court Delays has been flagged across 7 independent accountability sources:

2 inquiry recs 1 PFD report 110 committee recs 8 VC recs 32 IMB recs 36 PHSO decisions 576 LGO/SPSO decisions

When the same issue appears across inquiries, coroner reports, and regulators independently, it indicates a recurring issue across the public record.

Browse by source

Source-grouped records are useful for tracing where a concern came from. Large sections show the 50 strongest matches for that source; counts still show the full theme total.

#9 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The pandemic has had a significant impact on the court system, exacerbating an already growing backlog in cases, particularly in the criminal courts. Stakeholders are concerned that it could take years to clear the backlog that has now accumulated. The …
Gov response: 3: PAC conclusion: We have limited confidence in the Ministry’s plans for reducing the backlog in the court system, particularly in criminal courts. 3: PAC recommendation: The Ministry should write to the Committee within one …
Not Addressed
#3 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: We have limited confidence in the Ministry’s plans for reducing the backlog in the court system, particularly in criminal courts. The backlog in criminal courts was growing before the pandemic, and many organisations have warned that it could take years …
Gov response: agree with the conclusion that there was huge local variation. NHS Digital and DHSC have already written to the Committee with an initial analysis of the local variation in growth of the Shielded Patient List …
Under Consideration
#20 — Ministry of Justice unable to forecast future Crown Court backlog, expects increase.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: At our evidence session in January 2025, MoJ could not tell us what it forecast the backlog would be in 12 months’ time. It told us that it would not be right to predict what the backlog will be in …
Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: April 2025 3.2 Future caseload estimates are a projection based on what is currently known and understood about the system. They are used to aid …
Accepted
#19 — Crown Court backlog growing because cases conclude slower than anticipated.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The NAO report found that MoJ regularly models projections of the size of the Crown Court’s outstanding caseload, and has previously used projections from this modelling to inform decision–making on policy development, resource planning and capacity requirements.47 This modelling includes …
Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: April 2025 3.2 Future caseload estimates are a projection based on what is currently known and understood about the system. They are used to aid …
Accepted
#18 — Ministry of Justice struggled to manage planned increase in Crown Court caseload.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ attributed the increasing backlog to a “significant increase” in the rate of new cases as a result of the recruitment of over 20,000 additional police officers since 2019, and to a change in the nature of the caseload to …
Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: April 2025 3.2 Future caseload estimates are a projection based on what is currently known and understood about the system. They are used to aid …
Accepted
#17 — Backlog directly correlates with remand population, increasing prison pressures and leading to 'time served' releases.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ told us that there is a direct correlation between the number of cases in the backlog and the size of the remand population awaiting trial, and that this is adding to prison capacity pressures and making it harder to …
Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: October 2025 4.2 Judges are responsible for listing, and remand cases are being prioritised by judges in line with legislative requirements. The government is …
Not Addressed
#14 — MoJ acknowledges lengthy waits for RASSO victims and implements specific support measures.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ acknowledged that the long waits for RASSO victims is “not a particularly desirable situation” and outlined some measures in place to support these victims. These measures included: • investing £41 million in sexual violence and domestic violence advisors, and …
Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2026 2.2 The volume and proportion of trials involving sexual offences that are ineffective is small relative to ineffective trial outcomes in other …
Accepted
#13 — Court backlog delays severely impact victims' mental health and wellbeing, leading to withdrawals.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Written evidence to our inquiry highlighted concerns about the impact on victims, and particularly the serious impact that the backlog can have on victims’ work, family, and mental health and wellbeing.30 Academics from the Justice in COVID–19 for Sexual Abuse …
Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2026 2.2 The volume and proportion of trials involving sexual offences that are ineffective is small relative to ineffective trial outcomes in other …
Partially Accepted
#12 — Prolonged Crown Court waits, particularly for sex cases, contribute to increased victim attrition.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ acknowledges that long waits in the Crown Court are bad for everyone, including defendants, victims and the system as a whole.25 MoJ noted particular concern for victims of sex cases, which are very complex and often take a long …
Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2026 2.2 The volume and proportion of trials involving sexual offences that are ineffective is small relative to ineffective trial outcomes in other …
Accepted
#11 — MoJ and HMCTS's excessive reliance on the Leveson Review risks further backlog growth.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The Leveson Review is expected to report in two parts: firstly, in late Spring 2025 on options for long–term reform, and then not until Autumn 2025 on efficiency and timeliness.22 Until those reports, MoJ told us that it expects the …
Gov response: 1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: March 2025 1.2 The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is committed to bearing down on the Crown Court backlog and is delivering a wide range of …
Not Addressed
#10 — MoJ and HMCTS acknowledge numerous backlog issues but are deferring action pending the Leveson Review.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: We heard of the many issues that MoJ and HMCTS know need addressing if they are to reduce the backlog, but which they are waiting for the Leveson review to report on: poor case preparation, defendants being absent or not …
Gov response: 1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented: March 2025 1.2 The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is committed to bearing down on the Crown Court backlog and is delivering a wide range of …
Not Addressed
#2 — Reduce delayed or postponed serious sexual and violent offence hearings and protect victim support funding.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Long waits for cases to start, delays and the often–last–minute postponement of cases all have a significant impact on the victims of crime, particularly for victims of Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) and violent crimes, seriously disrupting their lives, …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) support services as much as possible in 2025/26, rolling over the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, as well as ringfenced spending …
Accepted
#25 — Lack of a joined-up data plan hinders understanding of outcomes for children.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency.58 Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular, …
Gov response: We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency. Delays in cases weigh …
No Published Response
#23 — No overall assessment exists for prioritising efforts to reduce family justice delays.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: An overall assessment of the drivers of performance is important to support the system to focus on areas most likely to secure improvements. A whole-system approach is needed to deliver outcomes no individual body can achieve alone.50 MoJ told us …
No Published Response
#22 — Overall capacity requirements for the family justice system caseload remain undefined.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The capacity required to manage the caseload efficiently on a timely basis, both at a national level, and in each part of the country, has not been set out.46 MoJ argued that there is more than enough capacity in the …
No Published Response
#21 — Case complexity, administrative landscape, and staff shortages contribute to London court delays.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ and HMCTS told us that cases can take longer in London partly because there are more complicated cases, often with international dimensions. There is also a complicated administrative landscape with 33 different local authorities all doing things differently.44 HMCTS …
No Published Response
#20 — Significant regional disparities exist in family court case durations, particularly in London.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: In some regions, particularly London, children have to wait much longer than in other areas to have their cases concluded.41 In December 2024, the average duration for public law cases was 24 weeks in Wales but 53 weeks in London; …
No Published Response
#18 — Mediation Information Assessment Meeting attendance remains low despite voucher scheme.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Keeping cases out of the courts, where possible, can be less contentious and lead to quicker settlements, saving money and benefiting children.36 Both MoJ and DfE are taking measures to keep more cases out of court that do not need …
No Published Response
#17 — Increasing numbers of unrepresented litigants affect family court efficiency, despite data limitations.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The proportion of cases where neither party was represented in family courts was 39% in 2024, three times that in 2013.31 Many stakeholders who provided written submissions told us that people going through legal disputes without legal representation (litigants in …
No Published Response
#16 — Public law cases suffer delays from cancelled hearings and excessive hearing numbers.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: In public law, 32% of cases had at least one hearing cancelled on the day, which contributes to delays.27 HMCTS told us that the main reason cases are cancelled or adjourned, in over 25% of cases, is non-compliance with what …
No Published Response
#15 — Family court processes plagued by inefficiencies, poor data quality and administrative errors.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: We asked the witnesses what they were going to do to address a range of inefficiencies in family court processes identified by the NAO. For example, poor quality information input by applicants was causing rework and delays, although there was …
No Published Response
#10 — Statutory 26-week public law case deadline consistently unmet since 2014.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Since 2014, there has been a statutory requirement that most public law cases should be completed within 26 weeks, but this statutory deadline has never been met.16 There is no equivalent statutory timeline for private law. For 2024–25, four of …
No Published Response
#9 — Thousands of children's family law cases persist beyond 100-week duration.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: In December 2024, there were still over 4,000 children involved in public and private law proceedings which had been open for over 100 weeks.14 MoJ told us that by the end of March 2025, the number of those waiting for …
No Published Response
#8 — Mean family law case durations remain high with significant regional variations.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: In 2024, the mean durations of public law and private law cases were 36 and 41 weeks respectively, significantly higher than the 27 weeks and 26 weeks on average in 2018.10 MoJ and HMCTS told us that the average duration …
No Published Response
#7 — Family justice backlog remains large despite recent decrease from 2021 peak.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Family justice faced rising demand before the COVID-19 pandemic, with public law receipts peaking in 2017 at 19,389, while private law receipts peaked in 2020 at 55,711. The backlog of cases increased by 2021 and cases were taking longer to …
No Published Response
#4 — Clarify required family court capacity and plans to resolve judge and social worker shortages.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Shortages in the number of district judges and social workers are contributing to delays, and to significant regional differences in timeliness of resolving cases. There are wide variations in durations of cases; for example, in December 2024, the average duration …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented The Ministry of Justice, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Department for Education, Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru are working together to assess and address capacity and …
Accepted
#3 — Improve efficiency in family justice processes and clarify £2 billion social care investment.
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: There are inefficiencies in systems and processes that worsen experiences and outcomes for children and families, making it harder to achieve best value for money. Around 32% of public law cases have at least one hearing cancelled before the hearing …
Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. £2.4 billion for the Families First Partnership programme. This includes: • Continuing the £523 million investment available in 2025-26 for each year of the multi-year settlement. • £319 …
Accepted
#42 — Lack of clear plans to address well-established County Court inefficiencies and delays persists
Justice Committee
Recommendation: The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are well- established, and openly recognised by Ministers and officials, yet it is unclear how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of …
Gov response: Accept. We agree that developing data-informed listing practices can drive productivity improvements. HMCTS is currently exploring how the development of predictive analytical tools, underpinned by machine learning could support better administration of listing (noting that …
Accepted
#41 — County Court functions as a 'Cinderella service' facing systemic delays and reform failures
Justice Committee
Recommendation: The County Court is the ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system in England and Wales. It is beset by delays as a result of a failed attempt at digital reform, recruitment and retention issues, and a complex and dysfunctional “patchwork” …
Gov response: Not accepted. The work of the Justice Committee through its Work of the County Court Inquiry has been meticulous and thorough. The Inquiry itself has provided a solid foundation and highlighted the areas of the …
Not Accepted
#32 — County Court's continued reliance on paper files causes significant delays and inefficiencies
Justice Committee
Recommendation: It is very difficult to understand why the County Court continues to rely on paper files, which need to be shipped around the country at great cost. Paper is a serious cause of the delays in the County Court, caused …
Gov response: Accept. Under the Civil Auto File Share project (CAFS), HMCTS is introducing a new system (via Microsoft PowerApps) to increase the use of electronic document management processes to ensure effective working within the Civil National …
Accepted
#10 — Centralisation of County Court operations has devastated justice delivery, causing debilitating delays.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: Despite its intended aim of simplifying the operation of the County Court, the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and results in debilitating delays for all parties. …
Gov response: The Ministry of Justice and HMCTS already publish some information on the representation status of claimants through the following publications, namely: Civil justice statistics quarterly – GOV.UK, HMCTS management information – reformed services – GOV.UK …
Accepted
#5 — Develop programme to reduce County Court delays to pre-2015 levels by end of Parliament.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: As part of any future review, HMCTS must develop a manageable programme to reduce the delays to pre-2015 levels by the end of this Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33) 55
Gov response: HMCTS is developing a Remote Participation Strategy that takes a cross-jurisdictional view of how remote hearings can be used much more strategically across the justice system. While this work responds in part to the Committee’s …
Accepted
#2 — County Court delays are unacceptable and exacerbated pre-existing trends in the justice system.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ has never been more relevant to the work of the County Court: the current level of delays is unacceptable. Whilst we recognise the pandemic significantly contributed to the backlog in cases, the available data clearly …
Gov response: We accept that some waiting times for those claims that require a trial are too long. We are working with the Judiciary to improve this position. However, whilst we understand the Committee’s focus on the …
Accepted
#25 — Remand prisoners face lengthy custody with limited options due to court backlogs
Justice Committee
Recommendation: It is right that the remand population should not be mandated to participate in the regime, as they have not been found guilty. However, due to the length of time remand prisoners are in custody for due to the court …
Gov response: 122. As with recommendation 24, we are committed to ensuring that people in prison have access to an equivalent standard, range and quality of health care in prisons to that available in the wider community. …
Accepted
#20 — Long-term policy alignment between Home Office and MoJ crucial for broader crime reduction ambitions.
Home Affairs Committee
Recommendation: The joint working, supported by the Government, between the police and the criminal justice system was essential in bringing about swift justice to the perpetrators of the disorder. This helped to prevent further disorder. However, we agree with the Policing …
Gov response: The Government has set out an unprecedented objective of halving the levels of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We will deliver a cross-Government transformative approach, underpinned by a new Strategy to …
Accepted
#18 —
Justice Committee
Recommendation: Delays have a fundamental impact on all those involved in proceedings. The Ministry of Justice and HMCTS should set out what is being done to specifically address delays in the youth justice system and manage any existing backlogs. The Ministry …
Gov response: 72. A table detailing the volumes of youth outstanding cases in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales between January 2020 to June 2020 is below. No official published statistics …
Under Consideration
#10 —
Justice Committee
Recommendation: The Committee’s inquiry on court capacity has focused on the Crown Court where the delays are the most acute. In that context, it is imperative that the criminal legal aid system should be structured to facilitate resolution of cases at …
Gov response: The Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review is considering whether the structure of the Criminal Legal Aid System incentivises or enables modern and proportionate methods of service delivery. The review will consider whether changes to when …
Not Addressed
#19 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The Department explained how the longer victims wait for their case to be heard in court, the greater the risk the victim withdraws their support of the process and the case collapses.34 It told us that the proportion of cases …
Gov response: 6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2023 6.2 The first local criminal justice system scorecards for all crime and adult rape were published in March 2022, bringing together data …
Accepted
#18 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: The Department explained that victims of rape and serious sexual offences had been particularly affected by the pandemic. These difficult and complex cases are more likely to need a jury trial, which need space to accommodate the jury. It was …
Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2024 2.2 Since publishing the End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions in June 2021, the government has made significant progress in …
Not Addressed
#7 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: As the backlog has increased, so has the time that defendants, witnesses and victims have waited for their case to be completed. Between March 2020 and June 2021, the 1 C&AG’s Report, Reducing the backlog in criminal courts, Session 2021–22, …
Gov response: 1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: September 2022 1.2 The criminal justice system is complex with many moving parts, and delays can be caused by any of the parties involved. …
Not Addressed
#1 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (the Department) and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service about the backlog in the criminal courts.1
Gov response: Based on a report by the National Audit Office, the Committee took evidence on Monday 13 December 2021 from the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Committee published its report …
Not Addressed
#2 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: Victims of rape and serious sexual offences are facing unacceptable delays to justice that compound and extend their suffering and lead to too many cases collapsing. The number of such cases waiting longer than a year has increased by more …
Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2024 2.2 Since publishing the End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions in June 2021, the government has made significant progress in …
Not Addressed
#33 —
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: In our March 2022 report on reducing the backlog in criminal courts, we reported there were 59,928 Crown Court cases awaiting trial in September 2021, increasing from 33,290 cases since March 2019 (an increase of 80%). We concluded that the …
Gov response: 6. PAC conclusion: Government has not yet set what impact the programme will have on forces’ ability to tackle crime, the public’s trust in policing or the wider Criminal Justice System. 6a. PAC recommendation: The …
Accepted
#6 —
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation: We strongly recommend that the Government introduce a specialist housing court as the surest way of unblocking the housing court process. Whether it does this or not, it is absolutely essential that the Government significantly increase the courts’ ability to …
Gov response: The vast majority of tenancies end without the need for court involvement, and we expect that to continue after our reforms. However, for those difficult cases which do escalate to the courts, the government recognises …
Partially Accepted
#29 — Rollout of the Pathfinder model for private law remains significantly slow
Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation: MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model.72 However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and the potential to improve timeliness, …
Gov response: MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model. However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and …
No Published Response
#43 — Launch urgent, comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court by Spring 2026
Justice Committee
Recommendation: We recommend an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court. This review must be launched by Spring 2026 and encompass recruitment and retention challenges within both the Judiciary and HMCTS, establish a realistic and sustainable plan for future …
Gov response: Not accepted. The work of the Justice Committee through its Work of the County Court Inquiry has been meticulous and thorough. The Inquiry itself has provided a solid foundation and highlighted the areas of the …
Not Accepted
#40 — Launch consultation on effectively using AI to improve County Court performance and operations by 2026
Justice Committee
Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice must launch a consultation, into how it plans to effectively use AI to improve the performance and operations of the County Court and report its conclusions by the end of 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 156) Conclusions on …
Gov response: Accept in part. The AI Action Plan for Justice, published in July 2025, sets out the Ministry of Justice’s approach to responsible and proportionate AI adoption across courts, tribunals, prisons, probation and supporting services. It …
Accepted
#8 — Enable litigants to recover wasted costs from HMCTS due to poor court administration.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: Litigants must be able to recover the legal, travel, and subsistence costs from HMCTS wasted as a result of over-listing and/or poor court administration preventing their cases from being heard. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)
Gov response: Accept in part. The Lord Chancellor commissioned the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to undertake a Major Review of the judicial salary structure in December 2024. The Major Review is looking at the role of …
Partially Accepted
#7 — Collect data on listing and settlement rates to minimise County Court over-listing practices.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: HMCTS, together with the Judiciary, must work together to collect the necessary data on listing and settlement rates to allow for data-informed listing practices ensuring any over-listing is minimised. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)
Gov response: A roadmap has been developed to improve the Find a Court or Tribunal (FaCT) system. Key actions include auditing and updating content for accuracy, reviewing related policies such as the Ministry of Justice’s Reasonable Adjustments …
Accepted
#6 — Block listing negatively impacts court users and undermines trust in the County Court system.
Justice Committee
Recommendation: We recognise the role that block listing plays in providing flexibility to the schedule considering the high settlement rate in the County Court. However, we have heard concerns that it negatively impacts court users through financial implications and the increased …
Gov response: An action plan is underway to improve contact rates on County Court contact services. At the heart of this transformation is the integration of Civil Auto File Share (CAFS), a solution that enables call handlers …
Accepted
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Crown Prosecution Service urgently amend their guidance on ‘witness summons1’ to reflect that the timeliness of the system impacts victim wellbeing. The guidance already mandates that prosecutors should ensure a risk assessment is carried out by policing to …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice extends the deadline for applications for criminal injuries compensation where criminal proceedings are ongoing, to 12 months after the conclusion of the criminal case. Related document Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice carry out a review of its financial loss allowances policy1, to ensure that reimbursement rates are brought up to date. This review should also consider the level of reimbursement available for witnesses where the trial …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Crown Prosecution Service carry out a review of its witness expenses rates1 and policy2, to ensure that reimbursement rates are brought up to date. The review should also ensure that, in circumstances where a witness or victim has …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Crown Prosecution Service monitors, reviews and publishes data on the number of cases discontinued because they no longer meet the public interest test to evaluate the degree to which current procedural delays are impacting their frequency. Related document …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Lord Chancellor urgently reviews and amends the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Criminal Practice Directions1, to ensure the rights and needs of victims and witnesses are given equal weight as those of defendants throughout the court process and …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice prioritises the evaluation of the court co-ordinators pilot. If successful, these roles should be rolled out across England and Wales as soon as possible. Related document Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog …
Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown Court backlog on victims, victim …
Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice undertake an assessment to determine what additional resources are required to enable victim services to support victims through the court backlog crisis, with a view to submitting a business case to HM Treasury for emergency …
Wetherby (2020)
Prior to COVID-19, an increasing number of YP remained in custody on remand, experiencing lengthy delays before their case came to trial. A large proportion of those YP are acquitted. Inevitably, the situation now is worse. What can be done to accelerate the legal process for those YP on remand?
Ministry of Justice
Hewell (2023)
What is being done to address or influence the backlogs in the court system which mean prison beds are taken up with men on remand or awaiting sentencing?
Other
Cookham Wood (2023)
When will urgent action take place to reduce court backlogs and thus the length of time children spend on remand before sentencing?
Ministry of Justice
Durham (2021)
Of concern is the rise in the number of unsentenced prisoners: there has been a 100% increase in the numbers who have been in Durham for more than one year. The Board awaits the Minister’s response on what else can be done to reduce the backlog in criminal cases and hence reduce time on remand (4.1.2 / 4.1.4).
Other
Brinsford (2024)
Delays in the court system mean prisoners are on remand for longer.
Other
Wetherby (2025)
At the end of the reporting year, 42 young people were held on remand in Wetherby. What urgent measures is the Minister implementing to reduce these delays and ensure timely access to justice?
Ministry of Justice
Norwich (2021)
Will the Minister advise the action that will be taken to mitigate the effects of delayed hearings on remand prisoners in reception prisons, caused by the growing backlogs in courts? (see section 6.2).
Ministry of Justice
Hewell (2022)
Ministers should use their influence to reduce the number of remanded prisoners, and the length of time for cases to be heard in courts.
Ministry of Justice
Durham (2022)
by the increase in time that unsentenced prisoners are spending in HMP Durham. The Board awaits the Minister’s response on what else can be done to reduce the backlog in criminal cases and hence reduce time on remand (3.1/ 4.1.2).
Ministry of Justice
Cookham Wood (2022)
The unacceptably high percentage of the population who are on remand will continue to be a problem until Crown Courts are able to reduce the backlog caused by the pandemic. When will the government tackle the inhumanely long periods that boys are currently being held in prison on remand?
Ministry of Justice
Birmingham (2022)
What will the minister do to reduce the backlog in court hearings and so reduce the time that men are held in prison without being convicted or found not guilty and released?
Ministry of Justice
Dovegate (2023)
The number of remand prisoners at HMP Dovegate has increased further since the last reporting period, and some have been on remand over 12 months, with no court date yet given. A focus on clearing the back log of court appearance for remand prisoners would be beneficial.
Ministry of Justice
Birmingham (2023)
Despite reporting on this last year and the year before, Birmingham IMB observe that there has been no reduction in the length of stays on remand, which can be up to three, or even exceptionally four years. In reply to the last annual report the Minister gave certain assurances and yet there has been no measurable improvement. What steps will …
Ministry of Justice
Norwich (2020)
How does the minister plan to address the injustice of long-term remands, and to hasten prepared cases into the courts? Many prisoners who are innocent until proven guilty are held on remand for substantial periods, frequently to the detriment of their wellbeing; this is partially due to restrictions on Crown Court sitting days, delaying their trials.
Ministry of Justice
Durham (2020)
What plans does the minister have to reduce the backlog of court hearings from HMP Durham?
Other
Cookham Wood (2020)
The percentage of boys at Cookham Wood who are there while being held on remand has increased over the reporting year. An urgent review of court procedures is required, to avoid children enduring long periods in prison while being held on remand – with the potential for at least some of them being found ‘not guilty’ at the end of …
Ministry of Justice
Dovegate (2022)
There has been a significant increase in the number of remand prisoners held in HMP Dovegate due to delays in the court system. We urge the Minister to take action to mitigate this situation.
Ministry of Justice
Bristol (2022)
Remand prisoner numbers and the length of time spent in prison continue to increase due to lack of access to court time. What support can be provided to help with release planning as they are not eligible for probation services?
Ministry of Justice
Belmarsh (2022)
Will the Minister act upon the issues noted last year, which have not progressed as yet: speed up the courts process
Ministry of Justice
Eastwood Park (2024)
Ensure the proposed video conferencing centre becomes operational to reduce lengthy prisoner journeys to court.
HMPPS
Brinsford (2023)
The length of time prisoners remain on remand before appearing in court continues to be too long. Prisoners are being released into the community following sentencing at court without attending any programmes to examine their offending.
Ministry of Justice
Altcourse (2020)
Delays in scheduling Coroner inquests have caused anxiety for staff attending as witnesses and families awaiting closure.
Ministry of Justice
Thameside (2024)
The period of time that remand prisoners spend in custody pending their court appearances remains lengthy. The Board urges HMPPS to develop a strategy for dealing with remand prisoners, including providing support and advice for them on entry to prison, as well as tackling the increasing backlog of court cases waiting to be heard.
HMPPS
Belmarsh (2020)
Will HMPPS work with the prison and Serco to ensure that Belmarsh prisoners are not delayed in returning to the prison after attending court (see section 4.1)?
HMPPS
Oakwood (2022)
The independent adjudicator (IA) ceased sitting shortly after the start of the lockdown period and has yet to return to the prison; hearings were held remotely. The Courts Service made a decision to continue to use remote systems, as it is more efficient and makes it easier for solicitors to join the meeting. It would be helpful if the Board …
Governor / Director
Hindley (2022)
Whilst the Board acknowledges that the government is reviewing prisoners on indeterminate sentences, it is concerned about the continued impact of uncertainties and delays in parole board hearings. The Board requests a review of individual cases as their continued imprisonment in many cases is disproportionate, inhumane, and inappropriate with time served significantly exceeding the original tariff.
Ministry of Justice
Foston Hall (2023)
Delays in notifying prisoners of parole decisions, arising from a backlog of cases, causes significant difficulties for prisoners and staff. When will this be addressed?
Ministry of Justice
Gatwick IRC (2024)
Eliminate unnecessary delays as far as possible in immigration case decision-making and travel booking and work with the Probation Service to improve timeliness in bail accommodation approval.
Home Office
Wetherby (2025)
What steps will the Youth Custody Service take to reduce delays and ensure a smooth, timely transition for young people moving from youth custody to the adult estate?
HMPPS
Wealstun (2025)
The outsourcing of drug testing to the national centre has resulted in delays in bringing prosecutions, which affects security in the prison. When will these delays be addressed?
HMPPS
Usk and Prescoed (2025)
The Minister should plan to reduce the delays in holding parole boards.
Ministry of Justice
Cardiff (2020)
Allied to the above issue is the length of time that prisoners have had to wait to be transferred from court to the establishment, often travelling long distances (see paragraph 4.1.2). Could this be raised with the contracted transport companies?
HMPPS
P-003156 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr T complains that HMCTS lost his court file for eviction proceedings which went unnoticed for several months, causing delays in removing the tenants from his property.
UK Government Nov 2024
P-001521 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr E complains about the length of time HMCTS took to process his C100 application which led to a delay in an order being amended. Mr E says this impacted on the contact he had with his children and has affected his mental health.
UK Government Sep 2022
P-002340 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr A complains that HMCTS wrongly banned him from driving despite successfully appealing its first judgement. He adds that HMCTS failed to tell DVLA that he had successfully appealed the ban.
UK Government Dec 2023
P-003061 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr O complains that HMCTS failed to seal an order that was sent to the debtor’s bank. Mr O also says there was a delay in the court correcting this mistake.
UK Government Oct 2024
P-003637 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr V complains that HMCTS staff at the Central London County Court failed to act on his written request to change the hearing date and delayed sending him a copy of the order striking out his claim.
UK Government Jun 2025
P-004661 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr M complains HMCTS failed to provide him with court directions for 11 months and ignored his concerns about this until he put in a formal complaint.
UK Government Jan 2026
P-002488 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Ms F complains about the handling of a court hearing for a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) in October 2021. She complains HMCTS did not tell her about the hearing which was heard in her absence and that it failed to send her information she asked for.
UK Government Oct 2023
P-002295 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr I complains about which court HMCTS allocated his case for the Money Claim Online service to. He complains that it will not refund his court fee.
UK Government Nov 2023
P-002330 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr O complains HMCTS made errors when handling an application for divorce made by his wife. He says papers were returned to him twice and he does not believe HMCTS's explanation for the delays.
UK Government Dec 2023
P-002475 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Ms O complains that HM Courts and Tribunals Service prevented her from having an oral hearing of her applications in court.
UK Government Feb 2024
P-003194 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Miss A complains that HMCTS delayed drawing an order, the court did not reply to her emails and that her Help with Fees Application was not processed.
UK Government Dec 2024
P-003280 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr P complains that court staff lost the original will copy he sent to them. He is unhappy with the length of time the probate application has taken and with wating times when trying to contact HMCTS.
UK Government Jan 2025
P-003677 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Ms E says HMCTS has not offered her a suitable remedy for a delay in its process which caused her to be issued a CCJ and damaged her credit rating.
UK Government Jul 2025
P-004307 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr A complains about HMCTS, on behalf of himself and his wife in relation to an application to obtain the grant of probate for his father’s estate. He says it made a number of errors in the handling of their application which caused a delay in probate being granted.
UK Government Not Upheld Nov 2025
P-004317 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr L complains that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) did not notify him of the hearing date for his civil claim, which resulted in the hearing going ahead without him and his claim being struck out. He also says HMCTS delayed passing on correspondence to him during his request …
UK Government Nov 2025
P-004435 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr I complains that HMCTS lost documents he sent with a probate application. He also complains about the time HMCTS took to respond to his complaint.
UK Government Dec 2025
P-004777 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr Y complains staff at HM Courts and Tribunals service wrongly noted how long his hearing was meant to last. He says this led to a Legal Advisor being appointed to his case for only one day, which was not long enough to cover all his scheduled hearing.
UK Government Feb 2026
P-001807 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Miss A complains about how HMCTS handled her court case. She says it took two and a half years to refund her £80 court fee and she could not speak to anyone about making an online payment. She also complains HMCTS took eight months to send her the name of …
UK Government Feb 2023
P-003229 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Ms O complains HMCTS failed to tell her about a hearing held on 24 August 2022. She also complains about the judgement in her case as she does not believe the court took full account of her evidence.
UK Government Dec 2024
P-004489 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr X complains that he was not informed that the claim he submitted had been struck out, until he contacted HMCTS in and was informed that the claim had been struck out in mid 2023. Mr X says he did not receive any correspondence from HMCTS, or any request to …
UK Government Dec 2025
P-004750 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr R complains about HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), raising concerns about the disclosure of evidence and the way a family court hearing was listed and conducted while he was acting as a litigant in person.
UK Government Jan 2026
P-001180 — HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Mr I complains about the service he received from HM Courts and Tribunals Service relating to a court case to determine a contact order with his children.
UK Government Upheld Nov 2021
P-001537 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr M complains HMCTS issued a grant for probate while a legal document was still in place that should have stopped this.
UK Government Sep 2022
P-001679 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr L complains HMCTS could not locate a form, which led to a default judgement being issued and caused a loss of earnings.
UK Government Dec 2022
P-001799 — HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Mr A complains HM Courts and Tribunals Service were wrong to enforce a maintenance order that was started in another country.
UK Government Partly Upheld Feb 2023
P-002000 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr R complains HMCTS gave him incorrect advice about how to file and amend his small claims application, it did not tell him when his claim was struck out, it unfairly decided not to give him a refund for all court fees paid and it lost documents he sent by …
UK Government May 2023
P-002411 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr L complains that HMCTS did not contact him to take a court fee although he asked it to. He also complains he asked several times about paying the fee and HMCTS did not answer his question.
UK Government Upheld Jan 2024
P-002709 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mrs H complains that HMCTS delayed in processing her divorce application.
UK Government Jun 2024
P-003213 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr K complains about the service he received from HM Courts and Tribunal Service following an application (to set aside a court order) he made in September 2020. He says it failed to process his application(s) or deal with his complaint appropriately.
UK Government Dec 2024
P-001358 — HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Mr A complains that HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) sent two disclosure orders to the wrong party, he told us he lost valuable time in a court hearing as its staff were having difficulty using video technology and he says there were delays in its complaint response.
UK Government Apr 2022
P-001921 — Independent Assessment Services
Ms O complains IAS took too long to assess her for a Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
UK Government Upheld Mar 2023
P-002655 — Insolvency Service
Mr M complains the Insolvency Service refused to remove a charge placed on his property, to escalate his complaint and to provide a timeline for resolution.
UK Government Jun 2024
P-003009 — HM Passport Office
Ms G complains HM Passport Office acted without any urgency in taking 11 weeks to issue an emergency passport in mid-2020.
UK Government Sep 2024
P-003216 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr E complains HM Courts and Tribunals Service made errors when it handled his penalty charge notice.
UK Government Dec 2024
P-004541 — HM Revenue and Customs
Mr A complains that HMRC mishandled his tax affairs relating to his travelling expenses claims. Mr A also complains that there were significant delays in its handling of its claims and during the complaint process.
UK Government Dec 2025
P-002720 — HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Mr R complains about how HMCTS handled his application to reseal his mother’s probate and the way it handled his complaint.
UK Government Partly Upheld Jun 2024
21-014-439 — Staffordshire County Council
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with a direction by the Secretary of State to deal with a definitive map modification application. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault, his clients cannot sell their property which is causing them distress and unnecessary time and trouble. We …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Upheld Aug 2022
25-011-025 — Brighton & Hove City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Jan 2026
21-016-733 — Shropshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s policy on council tax exemptions and the empty property premium is unfair. The policy can only be questioned at court via judicial review.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Mar 2022
21-017-273 — Nottingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delays in progressing her Right to Buy application. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her under the Right to Buy procedure in the County Court.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Mar 2022
22-001-900 — Manchester City Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a penalty charge notice as a court has rejected Mr X’s case against it.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways May 2022
22-001-041 — Stevenage Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays and issues relating to her Right to Buy application. The Council have admitted delays and offered a goodwill payment. Ms X has the right to go to county court to resolve the other issues of which she complains which it …
LGO (Local Government & … Housing May 2022
21-010-875 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in considering or acknowledging her representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). As a result she had to pay the fine to ensure she could do so at the reduced rate. Once she had paid the Council refused to consider her representations. There …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Upheld May 2022
22-003-434 — London Borough of Croydon
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council is pursuing a penalty charge notice debt. Ms X used her right of appeal to the County Court’s traffic enforcement centre. The Council is entitled to pursue debt recovery and we cannot achieve what Ms X wants.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Jun 2022
22-004-954 — City of London
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delays in progressing his Right to Buy application. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him under the Right to Buy procedure in the County Court.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Jul 2022
22-003-427 — Manchester City Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s bailiff did not release his car following his application to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for an out of time challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN) debt recovery order. We cannot lawfully investigate because Mr X used his right of …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Jul 2022
22-002-622 — Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed in passing an appeal about a housing benefit overpayment to a tribunal. We upheld the complaint. We found there were potential grounds to delay the appeal. But this was a decision for the tribunal service to take, not the Council. Consequently, the Council’s …
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Upheld Aug 2022
22-007-219 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that Mr X did not receive documents about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X asked a court to consider his case and so we can no longer do so.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Sep 2022
22-010-674 — Devon County Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Mr X’s arising from his court action against the Council in 2017. This is because the matters raised are inextricably linked to the court case, so we have no remit to intervene.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Nov 2022
23-009-346 — Torbay Council
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling and escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has taken the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Mar 2024
23-019-740 — London Borough of Bromley
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to her representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X has challenged the Council’s escalation of the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Mar 2024
23-018-876 — London Borough of Bromley
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because the validity of the penalty charge notices is a matter for the appeals process and it would be reasonable for Miss X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Mar 2024
23-020-143 — London Borough of Hounslow
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the penalty charge notice carried a right of appeal and it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to reinstate this right.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Mar 2024
23-020-614 — London Borough of Harrow
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council in 2022. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for him to use and he may apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Mar 2024
23-019-830 — London Borough of Hillingdon
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint-handling and a housing matter. The underlying substantive issue is late, without a reasonable prospect of reaching a clear enough view now. It is also more properly for the courts than for us. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate …
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Apr 2024
23-020-706 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delays in the Right to Buy process, but said she had to contribute to roof works, and she was not eligible for its energy efficiency scheme as she had started the RTB process. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because Mrs X …
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Not Upheld Jul 2024
23-018-631 — Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs G’s complaint about its decision to cancel her Right to Buy application. It failed to make her a written offer within 8 weeks, failed to tell her of her right to seek a remedy through the courts when it cancelled her …
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Upheld Jul 2024
24-006-021 — West Northamptonshire Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a penalty charge notice as the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre has refused to accept Mr X’s case against it.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Aug 2024
23-012-501 — London Borough of Southwark
Summary: Mr D complains the Council delayed progressing his housing register application and formal complaints. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay Mr D redress.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Upheld Aug 2024
24-001-720 — Hyndburn Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking recovery action against Ms X over unpaid council tax due from 2014 to the present year. We cannot consider these matters which have been subject to court proceedings. It was reasonable for Ms X to have challenged the liability …
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Aug 2024
24-003-360 — Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in resolving issues relating to a highway improvement scheme and a Compulsory Purchase Order. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Aug 2024
24-005-417 — Bristol City Council
this complaint about the Council and its enforcement agents recovering costs for unpaid traffic penalty charges. The complainant is taking legal proceedings against the Council and its agents for the action taken against her.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Sep 2024
24-006-989 — London Tribunals
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about various matters in connection with Ms X’s appeal to London Tribunals about a penalty charge notice. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Sep 2024
24-012-361 — Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed progressing his report of a planning control breach. Based on current evidence I have found fault by the Council because it has failed to progress the case for over 12 months, this has left Mr D unsure about how his case has been …
LGO (Local Government & … Planning Upheld Mar 2025
24-014-973 — Westminster City Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s legal proceedings in a business rates matter. We have no power to investigate the taking of court action and only a court can decide liability for business rates.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Apr 2025
25-001-586 — Surrey County Council
We will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about delay issuing her son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan because it is too old. We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about B’s education from 17 October 2023 because of her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. That leaves just five weeks …
LGO (Local Government & … Education Jul 2025
25-009-256 — Slough Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed when enforcing a council tax payment against Mr X. It is not in our jurisdiction to investigate legal proceedings.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Nov 2025
24-021-363 — London Borough of Lambeth
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council issuing liability orders for council tax in 2017 and pursuing them in 2025. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Nov 2025
25-009-321 — West Northamptonshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays completing a lease. Some of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. It is unlikely we could achieve much more by investigating. Some points are more properly for the courts to decide.
LGO (Local Government & … Other Categories Nov 2025
25-011-145 — Liverpool City Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about long queues at the court on the day of his court hearing. This is because we cannot investigate matters subject to court proceedings or events that happened at court.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Dec 2025
25-009-980 — Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN). This is because Mr X has used his court remedy as he has applied to the
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Dec 2025
25-010-525 — City of Wolverhampton Council
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council wrongly cancelled her ‘right to buy’ claim. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take the Council to court.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Dec 2025
25-020-760 — East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council not maintaining the road where she lives. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue this matter at court.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Dec 2025
25-017-809 — London Borough of Bromley
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mrs X’s property as it is unlikely we will find Council fault led to the injustice Mrs X claims plus damage claims can only, ultimately be determined in court.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Dec 2025
25-010-275 — Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this housing complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action on the dispute about his application to buy his home. On other points, either the law prevents us investigating or it is unlikely we could reach a clear view.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Dec 2025
25-010-240 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a penalty charge notice issued for a road user charging contravention. The complainant has already taken court action about the matter, it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Dec 2025
21-014-874 — Durham County Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on her planning application, and its decision to refuse the permission. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate regarding any Council delay in its decision, an appeal it was reasonable for her …
LGO (Local Government & … Planning Jan 2022
21-014-242 — Sheffield City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. The complaint is about the start of court action. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about council tax demands.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Feb 2022
21-013-607 — Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the matter has been considered in court and because it is a late complaint.
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Feb 2022
21-015-278 — London Borough of Redbridge
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in responding to a request for pre-planning application advice. The Council has apologised and refunded the fee. This is a suitable remedy. We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application as he has used …
LGO (Local Government & … Planning Upheld Feb 2022
21-004-846 — Surrey County Council
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for a mini s278 agreement under the Highways Act. The Council was at fault for not clearly managing Mr X’s expectations about the timescales involved and for delay in completing the agreement. The delays caused Mr D frustration …
LGO (Local Government & … Transport And Highways Upheld Feb 2022
21-011-573 — Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in investigating possible breaches of planning control. This is because the Council has agreed to pay Mr X and Mrs Y £200 to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble they were caused as a result of the delays. This …
LGO (Local Government & … Planning Upheld Feb 2022
21-016-173 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed the purchase of a property under the Right to Buy scheme. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to use the remedy available to her via the courts.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Mar 2022
21-013-827 — Leicester City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed the purchase of a property under the Right to Buy scheme. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to use the remedy available to her via the courts.
LGO (Local Government & … Housing Mar 2022
21-016-707 — Stafford Borough Council
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision regarding council tax liability and delay in dealing with her planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and a Planning Inspector.
LGO (Local Government & … Benefits And Tax Mar 2022
21-016-699 — Stafford Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in dealing with a planning application because Ms X could appeal to a Planning Inspector.
LGO (Local Government & … Planning Mar 2022
Back to all themes