HMCTS told Mr and Mrs D that a document was a valid order because it had a court seal on it. It said this even though the document did not contain key information the rules say it should have on it, including the date it was issued.
What happened
Mr and Mrs D received a document from their opponent's solicitor with a court seal on it.
They did not think it was a valid order because it was a draft of an apparent consent order but they had not agreed to it, and it did not have a date of issue or the name of the judge who was supposed to have authorised it.
Mr and Mrs D wrote to HMCTS to ask it whether the document was a valid court order. HMCTS said it was valid because it had a court seal on it and because its computer records showed that the case had been settled by consent early in 2008. HMCTS therefore decided that the document must have been a consent order that Mr and Mrs D had agreed to at the hearing in 2008. Mr and Mrs D told HMCTS that they had not agreed to this or any other consent order. They sent HMCTS a copy of the judge's decision from the hearing in early 2008 – it was different to the document.
HMCTS still insisted that it was right to say that the document was a valid document even though there was significant evidence to suggest that it might not have been.
What we found
HMCTS should not have told Mr and Mrs D that the document appeared valid, especially as it did not contain key information. HMCTS cannot decide whether a legal document is valid, only a judge can do that.
Putting it right
We asked HMCTS to apologise to Mr and Mrs D for telling them the document was valid when it should not have done. We also asked HMCTS to apologise for not recognising its mistake sooner and explaining what Mr and Mrs D should do to sort things out.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
UK
Not applicable
Apology