Small but repeated errors amounted to unacceptable level of service

What happened

Mr C was representing a relative in an appeal hearing that involved the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Unfortunately, before the hearing took place, HMCTS lost the appeal paperwork and asked Mr C and DWP to provide copies. Although Mr C sent copies of the paperwork, DWP could not do so as it believed it had destroyed its copies of the papers. HMCTS subsequently apologised for losing the paperwork (we did not investigate this complaint).

HMCTS received copies of the appeal papers shortly before the hearing because DWP had found them. However, HMCTS did not realise what the papers were and rather than linking them to the existing appeal, it created a new appeal. Although Mr C pointed this out, HMCTS did nothing until a judge noticed the mistake three months later.

The appeal hearing went ahead without DWP's paperwork, and was dismissed. Mr C was unhappy about this and raised concerns with HMCTS about how the tribunal panel had been selected. HMCTS referred him to the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is responsible for panel appointments.

During a telephone conversation with HMCTS, Mr C asked for the name of HMCTS's chief executive but it refused to give him this information, and referred him to its website. Eventually the HMCTS officer terminated the call.

Mr C wrote to the chief executive to complain about the panel make up and about the telephone conversation. HMCTS responded but took slightly longer to do so than its published response times. Although it again explained about the panel, it did not deal with Mr C's concerns about his telephone conversation.

Mr C had several more telephone conversations with HMCTS and also wrote to it. He said he was unhappy about the late response to his letter to the chief executive. He also raised some additional concerns about the way HMCTS had treated him. He asked HMCTS to compensate him for the time and money he had spent chasing the matter. HMCTS refused Mr C's request and said, in its internal consideration of the request, that Mr C had been 'unrealistic' in expecting how soon HMCTS could respond to his letters.

Mr C continued to correspond with HMCTS, both by telephone and by letter. During these exchanges, HMCTS made a further error when it wrote to Mr C but did not include the author's name in the letter.

Eventually Mr C wrote to HMCTS and asked it again to compensate him for his time. He also asked it to respond to his complaints, including his concerns about the duplicate appeal. HMCTS again refused Mr C's request for compensation, saying that it had not been necessary for him to call as often as he had. However, it did not respond to his concerns about the duplicate appeal until we eventually pointed this out as part of our investigation.

What we found

HMCTS responded correctly to Mr C's concerns about the appeal panel. However, it did not give him the level of service he could have expected, particularly when it came to other aspects of his complaint.

HMCTS should have given Mr C the name of its chief executive and it had not been customer focused for it to simply refer him to its website. HMCTS should have investigated and responded to his complaint about this. We did not know whether HMCTS had good reason to terminate Mr C's telephone call, but it should have looked into this, particularly as its records clearly identified the officer responsible.

HMCTS should not have set up a duplicate appeal for Mr C, and it should have corrected this error as soon as he brought it to its attention. HMCTS should also have responded to Mr C's concerns about this before we intervened in the matter.

There was no fault in HMCTS's failure to respond to Mr C's letter to the chief executive within its published timescales. The time limits were an aim and there would be times when the aim could not be met, through no fault of HMCTS. However, we did not accept that Mr C's expectations were 'unrealistic'. We said they were based on HMCTS's published information and, if HMCTS felt the published time-scales were 'unrealistic', it should change them.

HMCTS made several errors in its dealings with Mr C. Most of these, alone, were not serious enough to be maladministration. However, when looked at together, they added up to an unacceptable level of service, particularly as they came so shortly after a more serious error by HMCTS (the loss of Mr C's appeal paperwork).

In the circumstances, we could understand why Mr C had begun to lose confidence in HMCTS and this explained why he had felt the need to contact it more often than might usually have been the case.

Putting it right

HMCTS apologised to Mr C for its unacceptable level of service and paid him £500 to recognise the inconvenience and frustration this had caused him.