HMCTS mishandled debtor's case

What happened

Mr T had two fines outstanding from two different magistrates' courts (fine A and fine B). Fine A was for keeping a vehicle on a public road without a valid licence, and fine B was for travelling on a train without a valid travel card on a number of occasions. In both cases, the courts had told Mr T that failure to pay could make him liable for further enforcement action, including involving bailiffs, which would incur additional costs. The courts told Mr T that if he had difficulties in paying the fines, he should contact HMCTS' enforcement team at the local Collection and Compliance Centre (CCC).

Mr T made some payments towards both fines but he then became unemployed. During that time his father also died and he travelled overseas for his burial, for two weeks and later for a month. He did not notify HMCTS of his father's death nor did he tell it that he was travelling. Mr T was meant to make payments during this time but didn't because of being away.

The CCC then sent Mr T notices because he had failed to make payments. Mr T rang the CCC and agreed a payment plan for fine A but it made a mistake on its computer system. This led to an automatic distress warrant (a licence authorising the seizure of his property for money owed) being issued against him. The CCC referred Mr T's cases to the bailiffs without his knowledge. Mr T was away at the time and did not have a chance to speak to the bailiffs to try to negotiate a repayment plan.

Mr T complained to the CCC about the bailiffs' involvement in both cases. He strongly complained about the administration charges that the bailiffs had added to his fines and said that he felt harassed and stressed by their actions. He also referred to the national standards for enforcement agents and said that the bailiffs had not informed him of these standards.

He said that he never received responses to some of the letters he wrote to the courts and the bailiffs. He wanted a consolatory payment to reflect the stress HMCTS caused him and for HMCTS to improve how it informs defendants of the national standards for enforcement agents in the future.

What we found

There were failings in the way HMCTS had dealt with Mr T's first fine, which denied him the opportunity to negotiate a repayment plan with the bailiffs and a chance to avoid an escalation of his debts. But we found that, as Mr T had missed his next payment anyway, the bailiffs would still have visited his house a month later demanding payment. We did not find any failings in the way HMCTS dealt with Mr T's second fine.

We found that although HMCTS was not required to tell Mr T about the national standards for enforcement agents, it would have been customer focused if it had done so and we considered that this information should be made more generally available to debtors.

Putting it right

HMCTS apologised to Mr T and paid him a consolatory payment of £100 in recognition of the lost opportunity for him to negotiate a payment plan for fine A, and for the stress he experienced. It also reviewed the information it gives to defendants in vulnerable situations and made proposals on how to make that information available to debtors.