Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Case No.C.1528/00, C.438/01 and C.471/01
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
LORD CHANCELLOR’S DEPARTMENT
Court Service: loss or premature destruction of a case file
Mr M complained that because the West London County Court destroyed his case file prematurely he was unable to pursue the action he was taking through the courts. The Court Service accepted that they had lost, or failed to follow the correct procedures and destroyed prematurely, the file on Mr M’s case; had failed to deal promptly and properly with his correspondence; and had failed to handle his complaint in the way that he was entitled to expect. The Chief Executive apologised for those shortcomings and offered Mr M £300 for the trouble and expense he had incurred as a result of pursuing his complaint. The Ombudsman did not find sufficient basis on which to attribute to West London County Court’s mishandling of the file, any loss to Mr M in relation to the outcome of his legal action.
Back to top
Court Service: failure to implement changes to the rules on appealing against a decree nisi
Mr C complained that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the Court Service’s failure to alert him to the changes in the rules on appealing against a decree nisi; and their failure to give correct guidance in the notes to that decree. The Ombudsman found that the notes to the decree nisi issued by the Court Service had misled Mr C into believing that he could appeal as of right against a decree nisi, rather than first applying for permission to appeal, and that there had been shortcomings in the Court Service’s procedures for implementing changes to rules. He concluded, however, that there was no evidence that the additional costs Mr C had claimed had arisen as a direct result of those failings. The Chief Executive apologised for the shortcomings that the Ombudsman had identified, gave assurances that the Court Service had taken steps to improve their procedures, and offered Mr C £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and bother that he had experienced in pursuing his complaint.
Back to top
Court Service: decision not to meet in full a claim for compensation
Following the outcome of small claims proceedings brought against an electricity company, Z Services Ltd asked the Court Service to compensate them for costs amounting to £1,398.54 incurred, they said, as a result of maladministration by court staff. The Court Service offered £437.43. When Z complained about that offer, the Court Service re-assessed their liability at £166.56 but agreed to let the earlier offer stand on the ground that it would be unreasonable to withdraw the higher offer. Z complained to the Ombudsman about the Court Service’s decision not to meet in full their claim for wasted costs. The Ombudsman criticised the Court Service severely for a number of shortcomings in their handling of Z’s case and the Chief Executive increased the compensation on offer to £655.37, including a botheration payment of £100. The Ombudsman accepted that because Z had contributed to the situation payment of full costs was not appropriate. The Chief Executive also agreed to remind staff of the appropriate handling of claims for compensation arising as a result of maladministration; and the importance of recording reasons for decisions and telephone conversations with court users where, as in this case, they had had to take remedial action to put right earlier mistakes.
Previous < Contents > Next
Back to top
|
