HMCTS failed to process defence and part admission in line with its procedures

What happened

Mr D had a claim issued against him. He submitted a defence and part admission to the court within the required time limit, but the court did not process this. Judgment was wrongly ordered in default against Mr D. After three months of court action, Mr D himself presented the claimant with his defence and part admission. This was accepted and a consent order was agreed between both parties on terms identical to those presented by Mr D in his original defence.

Mr D complained to HMCTS, who accepted it had made a mistake and offered to reimburse court fees of £80 and to pay Mr D £75 for the inconvenience caused. However, it maintained that Mr D had not suffered the level of injustice he was claiming and that the decisions on his case had been made by the judiciary.

What we found

If HMCTS had dealt correctly with Mr D's defence and part admission, matters could have been settled without the need for the court action.

HMCTS maintained, throughout its dealings with Mr D's complaint, that judicial decisions had determined the outcome of the claim made against him. It therefore did not accept that the injustice Mr D claimed could be linked to an administrative mistake by court staff. We disagreed: no judicial decision would have been necessary if the court had sent Mr D's defence and part admission to the claimant, as it should have. The matter would have essentially been settled out of court.

While Mr D eventually got the outcome he wanted, getting to that point took almost three months, during which time he endured unnecessary court proceedings; incurred costs; had a County Court Judgment registered against him; had bailiffs attend his property; and had to communicate directly with the claimant in order to reach a settlement. After the case was concluded, he also spent time pursuing a justified complaint with HMCTS.

Putting it right

HMCTS accepted its mistake and apologised to Mr D for both the error and for not recognising sooner the impact of its actions on him.

It also paid him £400 in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration suffered and for having to pursue a justified complaint.