Complaint about HM Courts Service
Jump to
Failure to act on a request to serve a third party debt order on a specific day
Background to the complaint
Ms D obtained a county court judgment against a debtor who owed her £3,411.81. In June 2006 she sent the county court an application for a third party debt order together with the £55 fee. She wrote that ‘as it appears crucial to time the application carefully, I would want the action planned so that the judgment debtor’s account is frozen on 1st of the month when funds are most likely to be available’. She wrote again on 3 July and reminded the court about the timing of the order. The court made an interim third party debt order on 26 July and posted it that day. It arrived on 28 July. The debtor’s bank accounts were frozen, containing just £150.75. The bank retained £55 for dealing with the order (as they are entitled to do), and a final third party debt order was made in October ordering that Ms D be paid the balance of £95.75.
In August 2006 Ms D’s father, Mr J, wrote twice to the court to complain that they had not served the order on the date requested. When he received no reply, he wrote to the Court Manager and received a one line response saying that ‘the court cannot control the date an account is frozen’. Mr J then wrote to HM Courts Service (HMCS) complaining about the lack and level of response, adding that the response he had received was at odds with the advice HMCS gave applicants about the need to consider carefully the date on which a third party debt order is made. In reply, HMCS said that the order was sent on the day it was made and that ‘the court is not aware of the time it takes to identify the amount left in accounts in the various banks’. They said there had been no maladministration, and so no compensation could be offered.
Mr J wrote back in October 2006. He said it was not true that the court could not control when a bank account was frozen: the court could have posted the order a day or two before the requested target date. He added that it appeared the court had no regard for its own advice and had made no attempt to follow Ms D’s instruction. In reply, HMCS accepted that the assertion that the court could not control the date an account is frozen was ‘somewhat disingenuous’ as it had some control over the day the order is served. They accepted that Ms D’s request for service on a particular date had been ignored and that the order had been sent as soon as it was drawn. They offered £55 compensation.
What we investigated
Mr J complained to the Ombudsman in April 2007 that HMCS had ignored Ms D’s instructions about serving the third party debt order, and that she had lost the opportunity of the claim against the debtor being satisfied.
Our investigation looked at HMCS’s handling of the third party debt order application, considered the adequacy of their leaflet Third party debt orders and charging orders and scrutinised their handling of Mr J’s complaint. During the investigation, we spoke with Mr J and made enquiries of HMCS and the bank.
What our investigation found
HMCS failed to take account of Ms D’s request about the date of service of the order. That was maladministrative. We were not convinced by their argument that sending a letter by post means that the date on which it will arrive is ‘entirely in the hands of the Post Office’. Most first class letters arrive the next working day, and it was therefore unreasonable of HMCS to fail to adopt that (or a similar) strategy. Even if the order had arrived on the second of the month, that would have gone a long way to meeting Ms D’s wishes. If HMCS had felt unable to comply with her request, they should have told her. One of the Principles of Good Administration is ‘Being customer focused’. This includes the need for public bodies to aim to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities. In ignoring Ms D’s request HMCS were not customer focused.
‘Being open and accountable’ is another Principle. The information in HMCS’s leaflet about third party debt orders fell well short of this; it did not mention that applicants can serve the order themselves, nor did it refer to the question about whether an applicant can ask for the order to be posted on a particular day. The general disclaimer included in the leaflet (that it cannot explain everything about court rules and procedures) was not sufficient to compensate for the lack of information about how a person can seek to ensure a third party debt order is served on a certain date. That was important and should have been covered by the leaflet. Taken together, these failings were serious enough to be maladministrative. A further Principle is ‘Putting things right’. Part of this is operating an effective complaints procedure which investigates complaints thoroughly, quickly and impartially. Mr J wrote five letters of complaint before he received a response which in any way addressed the points he had made. That fell short of the standard of complaint handling that Mr J was entitled to expect and was maladministrative.
Did Ms D suffer a financial loss as a result of HMCS’s maladministration? We found that no regular deposits went into the debtor’s accounts at around the beginning of each month, and nothing was deposited between 28 July and 6 August 2006. Furthermore, as an order is not sent to the debtor until seven days after it is sent to the bank, the debtor in Ms D’s case would not have known his bank accounts were subject to a court order until on or after 4 August 2006. We had no reason to believe that, even if the order had been served as Ms D had requested, she would have obtained any more satisfaction from the order than she did. Ms D did, however, suffer outrage and distress. From the inadequate information in the HMCS leaflet and the fact that they did not otherwise explain her options to her, she was also unable to make a fully informed decision about which route to pursue in trying to serve the order on the date she wanted. Mr J also suffered outrage and inconvenience because of the way his complaint was handled.
We partly upheld Mr J’s complaint and concluded our investigation in March 2008.
Outcome
At our recommendation, HMCS paid compensation of £150 (instead of £55) to Ms D and apologised for the outrage and distress they had caused her and Mr J.
We also recommended that the next time HMCS reprint their leaflet, they amend it to reflect the fact that applicants for third party debt orders may choose to serve those orders themselves, and that it states clearly what steps HMCS can and cannot take to meet requests for service on a particular day or time of the month. HMCS agreed to review the information given to court users on this subject.
Principles of Good Administration
The following Principles of Good Administration were referred to in this case summary:
- ‘Being customer focused’ (informing customers what they can expect and what the public body expects of them).
- ‘Being open and accountable’ (being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring that information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete).
- ‘Putting things right’ (operating an effective complaints procedure, which includes offering a fair and appropriate remedy when a complaint is upheld).
Principles of Good Complaint Handling
The Principles of Good Complaint Handling were not referred to in our report but this case summary serves to illustrate the following Principles:
- ‘Being customer focused’ (dealing with complainants promptly and sensitively, bearing in mind their individual circumstances).
- ‘Putting things right’ (providing prompt, appropriate and proportionate remedies).
