Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 2000 > Lord Chancellor's Department
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April to September 2000
Volume 3 - 3rd REPORT - SESSION 2000-2001
Chapter 2
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Case No: C.250/00
Court Service: failure to cancel a maintenance order following the making of an adoption order, leading to alleged wrongful imprisonment of the father for non-payment
Mr T served a sentence of imprisonment in 1994 for non-payment of child maintenance. During family proceedings in February 1998 Mr T produced a copy of an adoption order made in June 1992. The proceedings were adjourned and the magistrates' court wrote to Mr T in March 1998 saying that that was the first they had known of the adoption order. On the making of that order his obligation to pay maintenance had ceased. They told Mr T that part of his prison sentence had been served for maintenance arrears that had accrued after the adoption. Mr T's solicitors wrote to the Court Service requesting compensation for the part of the sentence served for post adoption arrears; the Court Service refused the claim. Actions of the magistrates' court are not for the Ombudsman or the Court Service to comment on. However the Ombudsman criticised the Court Service for not ensuring that the sentencing magistrates' court had been aware of the making of the adoption order. Although the Court Service's admitted failure to notify the magistrates' court of the adoption order led to confusion between the courts and inconvenience to Mr T, the Ombudsman was unable to conclude that it had led to Mr T's imprisonment; his sentence was already in place, although suspended, prior to the adoption order being made. He considered the Chief Executive's offer of a £250 ex gratia payment a suitable outcome to a partially justified complaint.
Back to top
Case No: C.774/00
Court Service: listing of a county court trial
On 21 November 1997 at R County Court a judge adjourned a trial that Mr T was defending as there had been insufficient time for him to hear the trial. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr T's complaint that the Court Service had overloaded the list. However, he criticised the Court Service for their failure to inform the judge that another trial earlier in the list could not be heard that day. As a result of that failure, the judge had not been in possession of all the relevant facts when deciding whether there was sufficient time for him to hear Mr T's case that day. The Ombudsman further criticised the Court Service for their failure to record action they had taken, as a result of which, he was unable to say whether the Court Service had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the adjournment. The Chief Executive of the Court Service agreed to remind staff of the importance of fully recording action taken in circumstances similar to those giving rise to Mr T's complaint; and to compensate both parties for wasted costs incurred as a result of the adjournment on 21 November 1997.
Back to top
Case No: C.942/00
Court Service: wrongful registration of a county court judgment and failure to offer adequate explanations and redress
On 23 October 1995 a district judge awarded judgment in the late Mrs S's favour in proceedings brought against her. (Mrs S was living with her daughter, Mrs H, and her family at that time.) On 10 January 1996 a district judge set aside that judgment and ordered that proceedings be relisted for arbitration. The Court Service failed to relist the proceedings. On 30 October 1998 Mrs H complained to the Court Service that she and her husband had recently discovered from credit reference agency files that the judgment had been registered wrongfully against her late mother, as a result of which they had been refused credit. She asked for compensation. In the absence of evidence that Mr or Mrs H had applied for credit or that credit had been refused as a result of registration of the judgment wrongfully against Mrs S, the Court Service offered £50 in recognition of Mrs H's efforts to resolve matters. The Ombudsman criticised the Court Service severely for a catalogue of errors in their handling of the proceedings and Mrs H's correspondence but did not uphold the complaint that the Court Service had failed to provide adequate explanations. However, he found that they had not taken all relevant facts, or their guidance on complaints arising from wrongful registration of county court judgments, into account when considering Mrs H's claim. The Court Service agreed to reconsider matters on receipt from Mr and Mrs H of information from credit reference agency files that they had disclosed to the Ombudsman during his investigation.
Back to top
Case No: C.1542/00
Court Service: alleged failure to ensure that a judge had jurisdiction to hear a case and failure to offer adequate redress
During divorce proceedings in 1997 Mr P became subject to a Mareva Injunction. In June 1997 the injunction was discharged after Mr P made certain undertakings to the court. In October 1997 Mr P was suspended from doing business as a financial adviser and subsequently applied to the court to have the undertakings discharged. The High Court could not offer a hearing date until March/April 1998, so Mr P's solicitors approached the county court to ask whether the application could be heard there. They were told that two of the circuit judges could be authorised to sit as High Court judges. The case was listed before judge B for 17 December. On 16 December the listing officer obtained authorisation for judge B to sit as a High Court judge. On 17 December, on seeing the papers, judge B adjourned the hearing saying that the authorisation only covered her to hear Children Act cases. The case was heard on 15 January 1998, after which Mr P was able to resume trading. Mr P's opponent made a claim for wasted costs of the abortive hearing; that was paid by the Court Service. When Mr P made a claim for a much higher amount, which went to a senior office to authorise, it was refused. The Court Service said that there was no evidence that his losses had been caused by an administrative error by court staff. The Ombudsman found that there had been no maladministration in the listing of Mr P's case before judge B and that her decision not to hear the case had been a judicial one. There were issues about the general handling of matters relating to Mr P's claim for costs. The Ombudsman criticised the Court Service for not following Treasury guidelines in considering the opponent's claim, and welcomed the Chief Executive's offer to apologise and make a payment of £150 to Mr P in recognition of the misunderstanding caused.
Back to top
Case No: C.1198/00
Public Trust Office: failure promptly to notify a receiver of a change in benefit law
The Ombudsman did not uphold a complaint by Mrs M on behalf of her late brother, Mr W, that the Public Trust Office had failed to notify her promptly about a change in benefit law which affected Mr W's entitlement to income support. He accepted that it would be impractical for the Benefits Agency to notify other agencies of the many thousands of decisions affecting benefit law made by Social Security Commissioners each year. As it was the receiver's duty to claim benefits from the Benefits Agency, and Public Trust Office did not assume responsibility for keeping receivers informed of developments in social security legislation, the Ombudsman did not find fault with Public Trust Office for failing to do more than they had done to keep abreast of such developments. Although it was some 15 months after the change in law had been made when Mrs M had found out about it, the Ombudsman did not find that that delay had been due to fault on the part of bodies within his jurisdiction. He found that Public Trust Office had notified receivers of the decision as soon as had been practical after they had become aware of it. The Ombudsman also observed that, even had Mrs M known about the decision sooner, Mr W would still not have been entitled to income support.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
