Although Mr T sent in a correct application for a fee remission, a county court did not handle it properly. When Mr T complained to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, (HMCTS), which is responsible for the running of the courts, he did not feel that it properly considered his concerns about how the court had handled his application.
What happened
Mr T was the claimant in a case about a car accident. In summer 2013 he applied to the court for a refund of the fee he had paid (£135) to issue the claim on the basis that he was getting income-based jobseekers allowance.
At first, the court correctly refused Mr T's application because he had not given it proof that the fee had been paid. He returned his completed application, which was stamped as received by the court, later that month.
Over the next two months, the court refused Mr T's application for different reasons and with little explanation. When Mr T questioned the court's refusals, it did not address his concerns. The court maintained that Mr T had not provided a valid fee remission application and it refused to refund the court fee. Mr T complained about the court to HMCTS, which issued its final response in spring 2014. HMCTS did not uphold the complaint and felt that the court had acted reasonably.
What we found
The court should have accepted Mr T's application as valid in summer 2013. Instead, it sent him misleading correspondence that gave contradictory reasons for refusing his application. HMCTS failed to properly consider Mr T's complaint or respond to the various points he had made.
Putting it right
HMCTS accepted our findings and recommendations in full. It refunded the court fee of £135 and paid Mr T £200 for the distress and inconvenience its poor handling had caused. It also apologised to Mr T.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
UK
Did not apologise properly or do enough to put things right
Replied with inaccurate or incomplete information
Apology
Compensation for financial loss
Compensation for non-financial loss