Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 1998 - March 1999 > Lord Chancellor's Department
Sixth Report Session 1998-99
Volume 2
OCTOBER 1998 - MARCH 1999
The full report of selected cases
Summary of other investigations completed
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Loss of capital caused by delays by the Public Trust Office in making investments
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from Mr N that money invested on behalf of his two sons by the Court Funds Office, part of the Public Trust Office, had not achieved as high a return as it should have done. He found that an initial delay in investing the funds had arisen because solicitors acting for the children had not provided the information requested by a judge, and the Court Funds Office had not followed up the matter with the solicitors. However, further delay would have been prevented had either the father or the solicitors received annual statements of accounts for the children which showed a nil balance. The Ombudsman was unable to determine precisely what had happened but it was clear that the children had suffered a loss of capital. It was agreed that the children's funds would be restored to the position they would have been in had the money been invested in capital with effect from 1 May 1995. Mr N would be provided with a detailed calculation.
Back to top
Mishandling by the Court Service (CS) of the results of an oral examination
In February 1992 an oral examination was held to establish the means of a defendant against whom Mr B had obtained judgment for money owed to him, plus costs. CS failed to send the results of the oral examination to Mr B's solicitors and did not tell them until four months after the hearing that they had lost them. After the defendant had failed to attend further hearings and had been declared bankrupt in January 1993, CS delayed before issuing a warrant for his arrest and then sent the order for the warrant to the wrong solicitors. In contravention of their guidance about the destruction of files, CS destroyed their file on the oral examination prematurely; they also lost two other files and mishandled correspondence about Mr B's complaints on the matter. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr B's complaint that CS's shortcomings had led to his failure to recover the judgment debt, but considered that CS had led to Mr B pursuing the matter of the oral examination proceedings for longer than he would have done had he known the result. At the Ombudsman's prompting, CS agreed to increase an offer of ex gratia compensation of £50 for Mr B and £350 for his solicitors if they could show that the losses they had incurred in pursuing the matter of the oral examination proceedings had been greater than that. CS also agreed to pay Mr B £200 for the botheration they had caused him.
Back to top
Complaint against the Court Service
Court staff listed the complainant's adjourned court case to be re-heard by a judge who had already told them that he could no longer hear cases involving the solicitor acting for the complainant's opponent. On the day of the hearing the judge realised he could not hear the case and asked another judge to take it. The complainant attended as a litigant in person expecting the case to be a continuation of the adjourned hearing, but it was heard in its entirety. He claimed that caused him to incur additional costs and that an order was made against him which was higher than it would have been had he been legally represented at the hearing. The Ombudsman criticised CS for making no record of the judge's decision not to hear cases involving the solicitor concerned, and for the fact that the complainant was denied the opportunity to take whatever action he thought necessary to prepare for a hearing before a different judge; but he found that CS could not be held directly responsible for the complainant not seeking an adjournment of the second hearing. The Ombudsman also found that the situation had arisen originally from a judicial decision, that the complainant would have incurred the expenses he did whichever judge had conducted the second hearing, and that the proper channel to challenge the amount of the order was by way of an appeal. The Ombudsman criticised the way in which CS had dealt with the complainant's complaints. The Chief Executive agreed to make an ex gratia payment of £250 to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
