Claimant in a court case wanted to know why the judge found in favour of the defendant, but discovered the court had failed to record the hearing. The claimant would never know the reason for the judge's decision.
What happened
Mr B started a claim in a county court which was a considerable distance from his home. He decided not to attend the hearing of his claim and relied on the papers he submitted to the court as he was entitled to do.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service's (HMCTS's) guidance to staff in March 2011 instructed them to carry out frequent checks on recording equipment. This was as a result of one of our earlier investigations that showed that a claimant had been disadvantaged by the court's failure to record the hearing of his case because of faulty equipment.
But in Mr B's case, the county court did not carry out the necessary checks, and so staff did not know that recording equipment in two hearing rooms had failed to operate. This meant a number of cases, including that of Mr B, had not been recorded.
Mr B wrote to the court and asked why it had found in favour of the defendant, and the court suggested he ask for a transcript of the hearing. It was only then that the court discovered the faulty recording equipment and that his case had not been recorded.
What we found
The county court failed to follow HMCTS's guidance, and only conducted infrequent checks on the equipment. The situation was made worse by the court's lack of a robust system for tracking recordings of hearings sent to transcribers. We also found shortcomings in the way HMCTS handled Mr B's correspondence. That and the infrequent checks to the equipment was an error that caused injustice to Mr B, who will now never know the reason why the court found against him.
Putting it right
The county court had already put in place a more robust system for tracking recordings of hearings between staff and transcribers and was training more staff to check recording equipment. HMCTS had already sent out a further reminder to all courts to check recording equipment daily. At our recommendation the county court apologised to Mr B for the mistakes we identified and their effect on him, and paid him £500 compensation.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
UK
Did not apologise properly or do enough to put things right
Did not take sufficient steps to improve service
Apology