HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) court staff acted reasonably when issuing a certificate of judgment (an order to enforce a judgment). Some of HMCTS's correspondence handling could have been better; however it took satisfactory steps to put this right.
What happened
Mr and Mrs G were involved in court proceedings regarding a debt to a company. The matter was settled by a consent order (an agreement between the parties), but Mr and Mrs G stopped making payments, and the company applied to enforce the order.
Mr and Mrs G complained that HMCTS court staff wrongly issued a certificate of judgment in order to enforce the order, when no judgment had been made. As such, they believed they endured the stress of an unnecessary bailiff visit.
What we found
We did not uphold this complaint. We found failings, but HMCTS had already accepted and remedied these.
The matter was initially settled by the consent of all parties. However, the wording on the original consent order was contradictory and unclear about whether the court had made a judgment on the matter. Without a judgment, the other party should not have been able to apply to enforce the order without first returning the case to court. We found that, given the information available at the time, it was reasonable for the court staff to believe there was a judgment and issue the certificate of judgment allowing enforcement action. We took the view that the intention of the wording on the original consent order was a legal matter which would need to be addressed by the court.
HMCTS accepted some delay in handling Mr and Mrs G's letters. It apologised for this and offered them £50. We considered this to be a reasonable response.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
UK
Not applicable
Not applicable