HMCTS failed to consider man's needs when it wrote to him about a tribunal claim

What happened

When he was made redundant, Mr B submitted a claim to an employment tribunal for a protective award, a financial award made to employees if a company does not inform or consult with employees in the correct timescale. The tribunal then sent him two different letters on the same day.

The tribunal's first letter told Mr B that his claim had been accepted. It suggested that it could issue a default judgment against the employer after 28 days. The second letter told Mr B that his employer had gone into administration, and his claim could not proceed without the consent of the company's administrator, or the permission of the court that granted the administration order. The second letter also said that a judge would consider Mr B's claim in six months, at which time it could be struck out if he had not actively pursued the matter.

Mr B contacted the company's administrator, but could not get its consent to his claim, so he emailed the tribunal to tell it about this. Nothing happened on his case for two years and eight months. The tribunal then wrote to Mr B to ask him if he still wanted to pursue his claim. Mr B wanted to pursue the claim, but by this time the employer had been dissolved as a company, which made it much more difficult for Mr B's claim to be heard.

Mr B complained to HMCTS about the delay in its handling of his claim, and asked HMCTS several times to explain why a default judgment had not been made against the company after 28 days. He wanted HMCTS to pay him compensation to remedy the difficulties he now faced in pursuing a claim against the employer. HMCTS agreed there had been a delay in the tribunal's handling of Mr B's case and offered him a goodwill payment of £50, but it refused to compensate him further. Mr B asked his MP to refer the complaint to us.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. HMCTS failed to consider the impact the letters sent to Mr B on the same day would have had. Mr B had asked why his claim had not been put before a judge after 28 days. The correct position was that his claim could not have been put before a judge because the company was in administration. Mr B would have been upset by receiving differing information and, as a person with no specialist legal knowledge, he would have been frustrated by having to clarify what the correct position was. Although there was a delay in the tribunal's handling of the claim, HMCTS's failings had not left Mr B in a materially worse off position. We could not say that it was likely his claim would have been heard because the company had already been put into administration. HMCTS could have better answered Mr B's questions when it responded to his complaint.

Putting it right

HMCTS apologised to Mr B for the frustration he was caused by receiving information in a confusing manner, and also by not receiving answers to all of his questions in the response to his complaint.