| |
Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 1998 - March 1999 > C.197/98 - Full text
Sixth Report Session 1998-99
Volume 2
OCTOBER 1998 - MARCH 1999
The full report of selected cases
Summary of selected cases
LORD CHANCELLOR`S DEPARTMENT
Failure by the Court Service to supply notes of county court proceedings
8.1 Ms Q complained about the service she had received from the Court Service (CS), an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department, in connection with an action she had brought in a county court (WCC), and that CS had not offered her adequate compensation for the cost to her of their errors. She further complained that CS had failed to respond fully to her letters, particularly regarding what they intended to do to improve the level of service at WCC.
8.2 My investigation began in May 1998 once the Ombudsman had obtained the comments of the then Chief Executive of CS after the referral of the complaint by the Member. Appendix A to this report reproduces an extract from the Chief Executive's comments. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by the Ombudsman's staff but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked.
Back to top
Summary of case
8.3 Appendix B gives a chronology of the events which led to Ms Q's complaint. For ease of reference I summarise the key points here. In 1995 Ms Q represented herself at WCC in proceedings for the possession of property. On 3 August a circuit judge gave judgment dismissing her claim. The judge refused leave to appeal. Ms Q was told that in order to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal she would need to provide a transcript of the judgment by 19 September. She contacted WCC to obtain a transcript of the judgment, which she understood had been tape recorded. On 15 August WCC told her to appoint an approved transcriber, to whom they would send the tape. On 17 August Ms Q did so but on 24 August the transcriber told her that the tape had not been received. Ms Q immediately telephoned WCC who said that there was no tape and that she should write to them to obtain the judge's notes. She did so immediately. On 14 September, having received no reply from WCC, Ms Q sent them a note of the judgment which she had drawn up herself for endorsement by the judge. On 19 September WCC sent that note to the judge but on 26 October the judge returned it unsigned because he believed that the judgment had been tape recorded. On 16 November WCC returned the note to the judge saying that the judgment had not been taped. In the ensuing weeks Ms Q corresponded with WCC, the Court of Appeal and the courts administrator, attempting to get WCC to obtain the judge's endorsement of her note. On 19 December WCC telephoned the judge, who returned the signed note the next day. On 21 December WCC sent the note to the Court of Appeal. In July 1996 Ms Q's appeal was allowed with costs against her opponent. In October another hearing in the case had to be adjourned for three months because WCC had misfiled Ms Q's papers. In January 1997 Ms Q informed the courts administrator that the costs of her case had been assessed by the court but that £1,606.72 had been disallowed because it related to costs incurred because of maladministration by WCC; she sought reimbursement of that sum from CS. The courts administrator rejected the claim on the grounds that WCC had done their utmost to assist Ms Q and the delays she had experienced had not been wholly attributable to maladministration. From then to October 1997 Ms Q pursued her claim with the courts administrator and CS headquarters. CS eventually offered to pay £256.42. The then Chief Executive subsequently increased that offer to £282.67 (appendix A).
Back to top
Findings
8.4 It is not clear from the evidence available whether WCC failed to tape the judgment in Ms Q's case or whether they taped it and mislaid the tape shortly afterwards. What is clear is that the judge had expected it to be taped. Following Ms Q's written request of 10 August 1995 for a transcript, that omission should have been rectified promptly by WCC obtaining the judge's notes. However, WCC did not write to the judge until they had been contacted by the Court of Appeal on 19 September - the deadline for Ms Q's submission of the transcript. That delay was wholly WCC's responsibility; lack of clarity on their part as to whether a tape was available and as to the judge to whom the request should be referred contributed to it. It seems that WCC were also responsible for a failure to specify in the court order of 3 August 1995 the position regarding leave to appeal; when Ms Q tried to have that rectified, WCC were unable to find a copy of the court order and she had to send them one. WCC also failed to respond to Ms Q's request, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, for written confirmation that WCC did not have a tape of the judgment. The outcome was that, despite Ms Q's efforts to progress matters and impress upon WCC the urgency of the situation, she did not receive the documents she needed for her application to the Court of Appeal by the relevant deadline. I criticise WCC for that thoroughly ineffectual performance.
Back to top
8.5 It was fortunate that WCC's shortcomings did not prevent consideration of Ms Q's application by the Court of Appeal. Also fortunately, Ms Q was able to supply WCC with her own note of the judgment, which they sent to the judge for approval on 19 September. However, they failed to make clear in their covering letter why such a course was necessary, as a result of which on 26 October the judge returned the note unsigned. A further three weeks passed before WCC wrote again to the judge explaining the position. A month later, following persistent pressure from Ms Q, WCC telephoned the judge and secured the return of the signed note. A period of illness suffered by the judge may have affected the speed of his responses to WCC's letters; nevertheless the indications are that the matter could have been resolved significantly earlier if WCC had been clear at the outset about what was needed and why, and had followed up by telephone at an earlier stage their purportedly urgent written request of 16 November. Even if the judge's illness had been an insurmountable obstacle, more effective liaison by WCC with the Court of Appeal might have spared Ms Q the considerable stress, trouble and cost of trying to resolve the problem on her own and avoided the need for her to keep chasing WCC for progress right up to the deadline set by the Civil Appeals Office for her to obtain the relevant evidence. In the event, WCC did the bare minimum to help Ms Q and failed to keep her informed of what little they did, or even to respond effectively to her legitimate enquiries on the matter. On 19 and 21 December they belatedly sent her a description of their actions and on 17 January 1996 the courts administrator replied to her letter to them, acknowledging that she had received an unacceptable standard of service; however, those letters did not acknowledge the full extent of WCC's culpability. All those shortcomings merit my criticism. I now pass on to Ms Q through this report the apologies of the then Chief Executive of CS (appendix A) for the very poor service she received from WCC in the latter part of 1995.
Back to top
8.6 In September 1996 WCC caused Ms Q further delay and fruitless effort by misfiling a bundle of her papers.
To make matters worse, the courts administrator's reply of 11 December 1996 to Ms Q's consequent complaint qualified their apology in terms which suggested an inadequate appreciation of the extent of WCC's failing, and offered no response to Ms Q's more general expression of concern about the standard of administration at WCC. Ms Q understandably remained unconvinced about CS's willingness to address the systemic and management issues raised by her complaints. CS have since offered assurances concerning improved procedures for tape logging and file handling at WCC. The then Chief Executive of CS has referred to a new computer system which is expected to improve matters nationally (appendix A). I note those assurances but note also that Ms Q's is not the only case under investigation by the Ombudsman involving complaints about administrative failings by WCC. In view of that it seemed to me that Ms Q's assertion that there were particular difficulties there calling for intervention by CS deserved further consideration. I therefore asked the present Chief Executive if he would have all Ms Q's complaints about WCC's standard of service re-examined and satisfy himself that WCC had done all that they reasonably could to avoid the need for any further complaints to the Ombudsman. The Chief Executive replied:-
"The performance of WCC is monitored throughout the year by a key performance indicator which measures the quality of service provided to our users. Part of the measurement shows how quickly we dealt with letters and phone calls and how accurately we process work. I discuss these results three times a year with each circuit administrator. If any court is under-performing we discuss proposals to help improve performance. I am satisfied that these arrangements will help improve the service provided to our users and prevent similar complaints to that endured by Ms Q."
Back to top
8.7 I turn next to CS's handling of Ms Q's claim of 8 January 1997 for compensation. In response to that on 22 January WCC sent the courts administrator a report which I find overly defensive and quite misleading over the extent to which Ms Q's costs were attributable to shortcomings by WCC. In particular, WCC's assertion that much of Ms Q's correspondence with them had been unnecessary and distracting took no account of the urgency of the situation or of WCC's persistent failure to respond to Ms Q's enquiries. On 3 February, on the basis of that report, the courts administrator rejected Ms Q's claim for compensation. I consider that WCC and the courts administrator might reasonably have been expected to look more critically at the way in which Ms Q's case had been handled before deciding her claim. Their failure to do so produced a decision which could not be defended and which prolonged the correspondence in the matter, with consequent additional cost to Ms Q and CS. No progress was made until after the claim had been referred to CS headquarters. On 12 May CS headquarters made Ms Q an offer of compensation which represented only a fraction of the amount she had claimed, but they made no attempt to explain the shortfall. Ms Q understandably found the offer unacceptable. CS then sent Ms Q a superficial and erroneous explanation of their calculation. It was not until 18 July that they gave her a proper explanation and breakdown of their calculation, which enabled meaningful discussion of the details of their offer to begin. If Ms Q's claim had been dealt with properly at the outset that position might have been reached some six months earlier. That was highly unsatisfactory. I therefore asked the Chief Executive whether CS staff at all levels had adequate instruction and training to enable them to resolve complaints involving alleged financial loss fairly and cost effectively at the earliest opportunity. The Chief Executive replied:-
"I should explain that we have a comprehensive best practice guide to complaints handling for use at all management levels within CS. The guide provides a point of reference which can be used in all types of complaints from a simple letter received in a court office to a large claim for compensation. This guidance for staff has been supplemented by frequent visits from my staff in [the Customer Service Unit] to Group Managers' Offices to conduct training seminars on how to deal with a claim for compensation. However, while I am satisfied that the general level of training is sufficient I am disappointed by this particular investigation. I agree that the report prepared by WCC did not adequately address Ms Q's urgency in getting the notes of judgment for the appeal hearing. I also regret that the reply prepared on 12 May 1997 failed to give Ms Q a proper breakdown of our offer. I accept that this caused further delay. I understand that my staff have been reminded to closely follow the guidelines as set out in the complaints handling guide to prevent this mistake happening again."
Back to top
8.8 I turn finally to the question of the adequacy of CS's latest offer of compensation (appendix A). The approach which the Ombudsman considers correct is that a person who has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration should as far as possible be put back in the position he or she would have been in had the maladministration not occurred. It is not in dispute that as a result of WCC's maladministration Ms Q was obliged to undertake work in taking her case to the Court of Appeal which she otherwise would not have had to do. However, Ms Q and CS have been unable to agree upon the precise extent of that additional work. There are three points of principle involved, which I consider in turn below.
8.9 First is the question of whether some of the items of work attributed to WCC's maladministration were tasks which Ms Q would in any event have had to undertake as a normal part of the appeal process. I consider that that point has in effect been decided by the taxing officer's exclusion of them from the costs awarded against Ms Q's opponent; even if CS are inclined to question whether certain items should more properly fall to Ms Q's opponent than to them, the fact remains that the question of such an exclusion would not have arisen had it not been for WCC's maladministration, and it would be unfair now that the result should be to leave Ms Q with legitimately incurred costs which she has been unable to recover either from CS or from her opponent.
8.10 The second point is whether some of the tasks undertaken by Ms Q were unnecessary, for example that she might on occasion have sent several letters where one would have sufficed. Whether or not it is possible now to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that Ms Q might have pursued matters equally effectively with less effort and expense to herself, I do not consider that in the particular circumstances of her case such retrospective judgments should prevail. To my mind it can safely be presumed that whatever action she took was action which seemed to her at the time to be appropriate in the light of the difficulties she was encountering and the deadlines which had been imposed. In view of the fact that she faced the imminent prospect of losing - through no fault of her own - her right of appeal in a case which was of considerable importance to her - and which she subsequently won - I do not regard it as unreasonable if she had erred on the side of taking too much action in pursuit of the matter. In any case, in view of the fact that WCC not only failed to act as swiftly and effectively as they should have done, but also continually neglected to volunteer information about what they were doing, I cannot see that even a greater degree of activity on Ms Q's part than that for which she has claimed would have been unreasonable in the circumstances. I do not therefore regard as justifiable the exclusion from Ms Q's claim of any items on the grounds of doubt as to their necessity.
Back to top
8.11 The third point is whether the amounts claimed by Ms Q for specific tasks are reasonable, particularly as regards the time spent and the rate of reimbursement for that time. That is a matter which the taxing officer is best qualified to decide. Given that the taxing officer accepted Ms Q's claim that she should be reimbursed for her time at the rate of £24 per hour, I do not see why CS should take the view that they are being generous by following suit. They have offered little justification other than that perceived generosity for their decision to assume that most of Ms Q's letters took no more than six minutes each to produce. I consider that to be an inherently unreasonable approach in the circumstances; Ms Q should be paid for her letters and telephone calls according to the amount of time they actually and legitimately took. However, there remains the question of whether Ms Q's own estimates of the time spent should be accepted as accurate and justified. Ms Q has offered to obtain technical evidence to back up her estimates; that has not been done because CS have refused to agree to reimburse the cost. I am reluctant to suggest that more money should be spent by either Ms Q or the taxpayer in verifying relatively small sums. I consider that if in the light of my findings CS remain unable to accept all of Ms Q's claim as it stands they should arrange for the bill to be referred back to the taxing officer for an opinion as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed by Ms Q for specific items, and abide by that officer's view.
Back to top
8.12 For the reasons above I asked the present Chief Executive if CS would revise their offer of compensation to Ms Q to cover the full amount of her claim (or such lesser amount as the taxing officer might on consultation determine). I also asked if, in recognition of the fact that a suitable settlement of the claim had been significantly delayed by CS's initial poor handling, they would pay Ms Q interest from January 1997 on the amount eventually paid. In reply the Chief Executive agreed to offer Ms Q the full amount of her claim, £1,606.72, and to pay interest on that sum at 6.25% from 8 January 1997 to date, totalling £189.83.
8.13 In addition to the costs relating directly to her court case, Ms Q has incurred expenses in pursuing her claim for compensation with CS. She has also been caused a substantial amount of annoyance, frustration and anxiety by WCC's persistent mishandling of her case, particularly in relation to being kept in suspense as to whether she might lose her right of appeal on a matter which was of such importance to her. That has been compounded by CS's failure initially to deal properly with her compensation claim and complaints about WCC's standard of administration. I do not consider that individuals should necessarily expect to be reimbursed for expenses in pursuing claims with government departments on the same basis as a court might award costs; and the Ombudsman does not as a matter of routine recommend financial compensation for matters other than financial loss. Nevertheless I consider - and CS have already accepted - that an element of additional recompense is due for the cost to Ms Q of pursuing her claim; and the former Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recommended that consolatory payments should be considered for "botheration" in cases where the handling of a complaint had itself been maladministrative. I therefore asked the Chief Executive if in addition to the payment recommended at paragraph 8.12 above CS would make Ms Q an ex gratia payment in recognition of the extra expenses she incurred and the exceptional aggravation she experienced as a result of the catalogue of maladministration over a long period which I have identified in this report. The Chief Executive replied that it was clear that Ms Q had been caused extra worry and costs by CS; in those exceptional circumstances he was prepared to offer £300 in recognition of the extra expenses she had incurred and the exceptional aggravation she had experienced.
Back to top
Conclusion
8.14 Ms Q received a persistently poor service from CS in connection with her court action. CS have apologised for that, given assurances of improvement in future, and agreed to offer Ms Q compensation totalling £2,096.55. I regard that as a satisfactory outcome to a fully justified complaint.
Appendix A
Edited extract from the then Chief Executive's comments
It is clear that Ms Q had some justification for complaining about the service received from WCC between August and December 1995 and I would like to add my own apologies to those already made. The court failed to answer correspondence about the availability of a transcript promptly which sent Ms Q on a 'wild goose chase'. The Customer Service Unit considered she should be compensated for having to prepare the draft notes of evidence herself which has been taken into account in our offer and indeed Ms Q has now accepted. However, as you know Ms Q remains unhappy about the remainder of her claim.
The offer of compensation took into account costs Ms Q incurred chasing the court and preparing the notes of evidence. The costs have been allowed at the rate of £24 per hour and take into account the work undertaken by Ms Q. While the service from the court was not to the standard we aim to provide I am satisfied that the court staff did try to progress the matter. The difficulties were compounded by the judge who took some considerable time to approve the draft notes of evidence provided by Ms Q. This added to her frustration and inconvenience. It was our view that she should be compensated for the costs she incurred pursuing the court at that time. However, having further considered the claim it is our opinion that there are additional costs that Ms Q should be compensated for. This is for eight additional letters and telephone calls made by Ms Q from August to December 1995. A schedule of the total amount we are now prepared to offer in satisfaction of Ms Q's claim is attached. In conclusion the amount to be offered to Ms Q now amounts to £282.67.
Ms Q is also concerned that CS have not provided any details of what we intended to do to improve the service provided by WCC. I am sorry if Ms Q does not consider this to have been sufficiently addressed in previous correspondence. I understand that steps have been taken by the Court Manager to ensure similar situations do not occur in the future. Court staff now use a log to record details of those cases that are taped and this ensures that staff are able to provide accurate information about the availability of tapes for transcription. In addition, over the last year all county courts have been equipped with a computerised case management system, CaseMan, to help with case tracking, case management and listing. CaseMan will support much of the county courts' work. In particular, it will replace existing manual records and produce orders and notices. I am confident that this will reduce delays, such as those experienced by Ms Q and further improve the service provided by the courts generally.
Back to top
Appendix B
Chronology of events
In 1995 Ms Q represented herself at WCC in proceedings for the possession of property. On 3 August a circuit judge gave judgment dismissing her claim. The judge refused her leave to appeal. Ms Q was told that in order to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal she would need to provide the Civil Appeals Office with a transcript of the judgment by 19 September. On 7, 8 and 9 August she telephoned WCC to ask about obtaining a transcript or tape recording of the hearing; despite her leaving messages WCC did not return her calls.
| 10/08/95 |
Ms Q faxed a letter to WCC asking if it was possible to obtain a transcript or recording of the judgment. She explained that she needed that for a possible appeal which had to be applied for within a strict time limit. |
| 15/08/95 |
Ms Q telephoned WCC who said that in order to obtain a transcript of the tape of the hearing she would first need to appoint an official transcriber from a list of approved firms. Once that had been done WCC would send the tape direct to the appointed transcriber. |
| 17/08/95 |
Ms Q appointed a transcriber. |
| 24/08/95 |
The transcriber told Ms Q that he had not received the tape from WCC. Ms Q telephoned WCC several times and was eventually told that there was no tape and that she should write to them to obtain the judge's notes. She faxed a letter to WCC requesting a copy of the notes. WCC sent a memorandum to their judges' office asking if it was possible to carry out Ms Q's request. |
| 25/08/95 |
Ms Q wrote to WCC asking for the court order of 3 August to be amended to show that the judge had refused leave to appeal. She explained that the court order she had received from WCC had made no mention of that and she had been told that the amendment was necessary to enable her application for leave to appeal to proceed. The judges' office noted on WCC's memorandum of 24 August: "Ask HH [His Honour] the Judge." |
| 30/08/95 |
WCC sent a memorandum marked "For your directions please" to the judges' office. |
| 01/09/95 |
WCC sent a memorandum to the judges' office asking if WCC could send Ms Q a typed copy of the judge's notes. The judges' office noted on it "to any CJ [circuit judge] please". |
| 06/09/95 |
WCC replied to Ms Q's letter of 25 August. They said that they could not find a copy of the court order for her case on file and asked if she would send them a copy. |
| 07/09/95 |
The judges' office noted on WCC's memorandum of 1 September that it had been placed in error with work for a district judge.
Back to top |
| 08/09/95 |
The judges' office noted on WCC's memorandum of 30 August: "Refer this matter to [the judge who had heard the case] for his notes. He should expressly approve their disclosure and he may wish to have them typed out." |
| 12/09/95 |
Ms Q faxed WCC a copy of the court order. She said that the Registrar of Appeals had asked her to ask WCC for written confirmation that they did not have a tape of her case and that it was not therefore possible for the Court of Appeal to be provided with a transcript of the proceedings. She also asked when she could expect to receive a transcript of the judge's notes. |
| Back to top |
| 13/09/95 |
The court amended the order to specify that leave to appeal had been refused. |
| 14/09/95 |
Ms Q faxed a letter to WCC referring to a telephone conversation she had had with them that morning. She repeated her request for an amended court order and asked for confirmation that WCC were unable to supply a tape, transcript or notes of the judgment. She enclosed for the approval and signature of the judge a note of the judgment which she had drawn up from notes made by a barrister who had attended the hearing. She added that the papers had to be lodged with the Registrar of Appeals by 19 September. She went on to complain about the service she had been receiving from WCC. She said that almost all her many telephone calls and letters since 10 August had been ignored; that WCC had misled her by saying that there was a tape of the proceedings, which had caused her unnecessarily to appoint a transcriber; and that WCC had required much chasing up before telling her that they could not find a copy of the court order.
Ms Q also wrote to the Registrar of Appeals enclosing the documents required for her application for leave to appeal, with the exception of the amended court order and letter from WCC confirming the unavailability of a tape or transcript of the judgment. In lieu of those she enclosed the unamended court order and her own note of the judgment. She added that following her fax to WCC that morning they had telephoned her saying that her note of the judgment was to be put before the judge for his signature the next day, but they had known nothing about her request for an amended court order or a confirmatory letter.
Back to top |
| 19/09/95 |
The Civil Appeals Office sent a fax to WCC saying that it was essential that the Office were told whether the judgment in Ms Q's case had been tape recorded. WCC sent Ms Q's note to the trial centre, where the judge who had presided over her case was sitting, asking that it be typed up and signed by the judge. |
| 26/10/95 |
The judge replied to WCC's letter of 19 September saying that he believed that his judgment had been tape recorded and that if that was so it should be possible to have a transcript prepared. He explained that illness had delayed his reply. |
| 02/11/95 |
The Court of Appeal granted Ms Q leave to appeal. |
| 16/11/95 |
WCC replied to the judge's letter of 26 October. They said that their tape log showed that the judgment had not been tape recorded. They asked the judge to approve Ms Q's note as a matter of urgency. |
| 22/11/95 |
WCC wrote to Ms Q in response to a telephone call from her that day. They explained the action they had taken regarding her note of the judgment. They apologised that it had taken so long to resolve the matter. |
| 23/11/95 |
Ms Q wrote to WCC enclosing notes of evidence which she had written up for endorsement by the judge. She repeated her request for a letter explaining why it had been impossible for her to provide the Court of Appeal with an official typescript of the proceedings. She said that she needed by 6 December the endorsed notes and judgment for inclusion in her appeal bundles. |
| 30/11/95 |
WCC sent Ms Q's notes of evidence to the judge. They asked him to approve and return them as soon as possible. |
| Back to top |
| 01/12/95 |
Ms Q wrote to the Civil Appeals Office enclosing the bundles required for her appeal. She explained that they contained a copy of the notes of judgment and evidence she had drawn up, which she had up to then been unable to get endorsed by the judge. She said that she had been trying since August to get an official transcript of the notes but that had proved impossible because WCC had been unable to produce the tape recording of the hearing; she understood from WCC that after some delays the notes had been returned to the judge for signing urgently. |
| 07/12/95 |
Ms Q wrote to WCC asking what was happening regarding approval of her notes by the judge. She complained that most of her many letters, faxes and telephone calls on the subject had been ignored. She copied the letter to the Civil Appeals Office. |
| 08/12/95 |
The Civil Appeals Office wrote to Ms Q saying that the bundles she had submitted for her appeal were defective because the note of judgment had not been approved by the judge and the judge's notes of evidence had not been included. They gave her until 22 December to rectify those defects, otherwise her appeal might be dismissed with costs against her. |
| 11/12/95 |
Ms Q wrote to WCC asking for urgent news of progress regarding approval of her notes by the judge. She also wrote to the Civil Appeals Office explaining her predicament and seeking their urgent advice on how she could get her notes approved by the judge. She also wrote to the courts administrator to ask for help. She described her dealings with WCC and her attempts to supply the Civil Appeals Office with the necessary documentation for her appeal. She said she did not know what to do next and feared that her appeal would be dismissed because she had been unable to get the correct papers from WCC.
Back to top |
| 12/12/95 |
The courts administrator sent Ms Q's letter of 11 December to WCC asking for a report on her complaint. They informed Ms Q that they would reply to her in detail within four weeks. Ms Q sent a fax to WCC regarding approval of her notes by the judge. She said that in previous telephone calls she had been told by WCC that they were having difficulty in locating the judge. She said that he was sitting that day elsewhere and suggested that they contact him there. She faxed a copy of that letter to the Civil Appeals Office saying that she understood from a telephone conversation with them that they were getting in touch with WCC about the failure to get the notes approved. |
| 19/12/95 |
Ms Q faxed a letter to WCC in confirmation of a telephone conversation which she had had with them that morning. She said that they had told her that the notes of judgment and evidence had been sent to the judge for his approval; that they had been returned to WCC because the judge had believed that the case had been tape recorded; that the notes had been re-submitted but had not been returned to WCC because the judge had been ill; that WCC had spoken to the Civil Appeals Office, who were fully aware of the circumstances; and that WCC would ensure that by 22 December the notes were approved and sent direct to the Civil Appeals Office to be included in Ms Q's bundles. She asked why WCC had failed to respond to her many earlier letters, faxes and telephone calls and what proposals they had for compensating her for the costs, inconvenience and lost income she had been caused by their maladministration.
WCC wrote to Ms Q saying that her judgment note had been sent to the judge for approval; that on 26 October he had returned it because he thought the judgment had been tape recorded; that that had not been the case and the note had been resubmitted to the judge on 16 November; that on 30 November WCC had sent the judge Ms Q's notes of evidence; that they had contacted the judge earlier that day and he had promised to return the notes the following day; that they had told the Civil Appeals Office that the delay had been due to the judge's ill health and the fact that he had been in hospital for two months; and that they had agreed to send the notes direct to the Civil Appeals Office on receipt from the judge.
Back to top |
| 20/12/95 |
The Civil Appeals Office faxed an urgent message to WCC asking whether Ms Q's hearing on 3 August had been tape recorded. The judge returned to WCC the notes of judgment and evidence, which he had signed. |
| 21/12/95 |
WCC sent the notes of judgment and evidence to the Civil Appeals Office. They wrote to Ms Q saying that on 24 August they had received her request for the judge's notes and had referred the file to the district judge that day. The district judge had directed that a circuit judge should look at it. On 30 August they had referred the file to their resident circuit judge as the judge who had heard the case was a visiting judge. On 8 September the circuit judge had directed that the file be referred to the judge who had heard the case. On 19 September they had sent it to the judge. When writing to the judge on 16 and 30 November they had not been aware that he was ill in hospital; they had become aware of that on 19 December and had spoken to him that day. On 21 December he had returned the file and they had sent the notes to the Civil Appeals Office. |
Back to top
1996 |
| 17/01/96 |
The courts administrator wrote to Ms Q apologising for the delay in responding to her complaint of 11 December. They said that they had seen a copy of WCC's letter of 21 December which provided a chronology of the events surrounding Ms Q's complaint. They said that it was apparent that WCC had referred the file to the judge on 19 September but had been unaware until 19 December that the judge was in hospital and consequently unable to approve the notes. They said that those events had been outside WCC's control, but apologised for WCC's lack of response to Ms Q's enquiries, for which they were unable to offer any explanation as the file was with the Civil Appeals Office. They acknowledged that Ms Q had received an unacceptable standard of service and apologised for the delays and inconvenience she had experienced. |
| ??/07/96 |
Ms Q's appeal was allowed with costs against her opponent. |
| 12/11/96 |
WCC wrote to Ms Q asking her to supply a duplicate copy of a bundle which she had lodged with them in preparation for a hearing on 29 October, which had been postponed to 27 January 1997. |
| 15/11/96 |
Ms Q replied to WCC saying that the bundle in question, of more than 200 pages, had originally been sent to them by recorded delivery and she had since provided them with a copy of the relevant post office docket. She asked them to reimburse her in advance for the time and cost of obtaining and sending a duplicate, which would come to £115. She referred to WCC's earlier failings in her dealings with them and asked that her letter be placed on the file. She also wrote to the courts administrator complaining about WCC's continuing inefficiency. She said that WCC's loss of the bundle of papers for her latest hearing had caused it to be adjourned. She said that WCC had made at least five other errors since her last complaint to them and asked what the courts administrator intended to do about the situation. She also made reference to difficulty in contacting WCC by telephone. She copied the letter to WCC. |
| 21/11/96 |
WCC replied to Ms Q. They said that after an extensive search of their premises they had been unable to find her bundle. They suggested that she forward the bundle to them, whereupon they would copy it, place a copy on file and return the original to her within five days. They apologised for the problems she had had in contacting them by telephone, which they attributed to teething problems following the installation of a new telephone system. Later that day they wrote to her confirming a telephone conversation that afternoon in which they had informed her that they had located the bundle.
Back to top |
| 26/11/96 |
WCC submitted to the courts administrator a report on Ms Q's complaint. They said that they had received Ms Q's bundle on 23 September but had misfiled it, as a result of which the hearing on 29 October had been adjourned. They said that the procedure for filing bundles had since been tightened and staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that all papers were available at the hearing date. |
| 11/12/96 |
The courts administrator replied to Ms Q's complaint of 15 November explaining that her bundle had initially been misfiled and offering apologies for the error. However they said that WCC had on more than one occasion tried to resolve the situation by offering to copy the file for Ms Q rather than put her to the inconvenience of having to do that herself. |
| 15/12/96 |
Ms Q wrote to the courts administrator. She said that she had already surmised that her bundle had been misfiled and had written to the courts administrator in their role as overseers of courts administration to ask that something be done to prevent recurrence of such errors in the light of the consistently poor level of service which she and others had received from WCC. She did not want another apology but wanted to know what was being done to make WCC more efficient. She pointed out that their statement concerning WCC's efforts to resolve the situation did not accurately reflect what had happened as shown by the relevant correspondence. |
Back to top
1997 |
| 07/01/97 |
The courts administrator replied to Ms Q. They said that while their office had overall responsibility for WCC, the systems of file management were controlled at local level. They had therefore asked WCC to write to her and explain the systems used. They copied the letter to WCC. |
| 08/01/97 |
Ms Q wrote to the courts administrator saying that the costs of her case had been taxed (that is, assessed) that day by the court's taxing officer. She enclosed a schedule of the costs and said that £1,606.72 of the amount she had incurred had been excluded from the amount awarded against her opponent because it had been caused solely by maladministration by WCC. The taxing officer had suggested that she seek reimbursement of that sum from CS. The sum comprised £1,395.25 in time at £24 per hour (her professional rate as a journalist) and £211.47 in disbursements. |
| 15/01/97 |
WCC wrote to Ms Q regarding their file management system. They described the system in use for maintaining the files so that all relevant documents were on file in readiness for perusal by the judiciary prior to the hearing date. They repeated that Ms Q's bundle had been misfiled but had since been linked with the court file in readiness for the hearing on 27 January.
Back to top |
| 22/01/97 |
WCC sent the courts administrator a report on Ms Q's complaint and claim of 8 January for compensation. They said that the main reason for Ms Q's complaint was that she had been convinced that the hearing in August 1995 had been taped; once it had been discovered that it had not been taped WCC had made every attempt to accommodate her requests. They added that Ms Q had not helped matters by sending in faxes and then copies of her correspondence on a very regular basis. She had also made numerous telephone calls chasing up her correspondence, which might have confused the issue. WCC said that some of the delays had been outside their control, particularly that the judge had gone on sick leave shortly after the hearing in August 1995 and staff had had difficulties in locating him. Also, the judge had returned Ms Q's draft notes the first time without signing them. WCC concluded that, while there had been some delays in dealing with Ms Q's requests, her criticisms were not justified and she should not be compensated for all the time she had spent communicating with them as much of her correspondence had been unnecessary. In order to tighten up the controls with regard to cases which had been tape recorded WCC had introduced a tape logging system.
|
| 03/02/97 |
The courts administrator replied to Ms Q's letter of 8 January. They said that it was apparent that there had been a delay in her receiving a copy of the judge's notes of judgment; in their letter of 19 December 1995 WCC had explained to her the difficulties they were experiencing. Some of the delays had been caused by factors outside WCC's control, for example, the judge's hospitalisation for two months and the fact that the hearing had not been tape recorded. They concluded that they did not accept that the delay was wholly attributable to the court administration and that WCC had done their utmost to assist Ms Q; accordingly they refused her claim for compensation. |
| Back to top |
| 04/02/97 |
Ms Q replied to the courts administrator. She did not accept that the delays and costs she had suffered in getting the necessary papers from WCC had been beyond the control of the court. She asserted that everyone at the hearing in August 1995 had been led to believe that it was being taped; the judge had asked the clerk at the beginning of his judgment if the tape recorder was running by gesturing at the tape recorder, and the clerk had indicated that it was. Also, when she had approached WCC about obtaining a transcript the clerk had instructed her to go through the process of appointing an official transcriber; she asked why that had been necessary if the proceedings had not been taped. She said that not only had WCC failed to pass on the tape to the transcriber but they had also failed to let her know what was happening, causing a long delay. Her numerous requests for information in that regard had been disregarded. When WCC had finally admitted that the tape recording had been lost she had supplied the necessary papers and asked WCC to pass them on to the judge; WCC had taken months to do that. She did not accept that the judge's time in hospital accounted for the delay and suggested that a more thorough investigation into the efforts WCC had made to get her papers signed by the judge was appropriate. She concluded that she wished to be properly compensated for her time, costs and distress and asked who she could approach for a review of the decision to refuse her compensation.
Back to top |
| 20/02/97 |
WCC sent the courts administrator a further report. They said that they had looked through all the tapes for 1995 and could confirm that the proceedings in August 1995 had not been taped; Ms Q had been informed of that around 21 August 1995. They suggested that the reason Ms Q had been given information about appointing an official transcriber was because she had been adamant that the hearing had been taped. They accepted that a slight delay could have been avoided if Ms Q had been told at that point that the case had not been taped; they had since instructed staff to check whether proceedings had been taped before providing information. Once the notes had been received from Ms Q they had made every effort to contact the judge. They concluded that the main delays had been due to Ms Q erroneously thinking that the judgment had been taped, the judge's illness and the fact that he had at first returned the notes without signing them, all of which had been outside WCC's control. |
| 26/02/97 |
The courts administrator wrote to Ms Q. They said that her assumption that the hearing had been taped was unfounded; the case had not been taped and she had been informed of that in a telephone conversation on or around 21 August 1995. They conveyed WCC's view concerning the advice she had been given about the use of a transcriber. They said that the court were under no obligation to take notes of a hearing or to tape record it. Ms Q's notes had been despatched as soon as possible once WCC had located the judge but the matter had been compounded by the judge's ill health and the fact that the notes had initially been returned by him unsigned. They concluded that the delay surrounding the matter had not been due solely to WCC's inaction but also to circumstances outside their control. They therefore maintained their refusal of compensation. They undertook to refer the matter to the Customer Service Unit (CSU) at CS headquarters if Ms Q remained dissatisfied. |
| 07/03/97 |
Ms Q replied to the courts administrator. She said that if her assumption that her case had been taped was unfounded then it was a misapprehension she had shared with the judge, her opponent and at least one clerk at WCC; that was why the judge had at first refused to sign her notes, causing further delay. She asked why the court had not taped the hearing. She asked that the matter be referred to CSU.
|
| 12/03/97 |
The courts administrator referred Ms Q's complaint to CSU for review. They told Ms Q that they had done so. |
| 12/05/97 |
CSU wrote to Ms Q apologising for the delay in doing so. They said it was clear from the court record that she had not received the level of service which she was entitled to expect; they were prepared to offer her £176.47 in full and final settlement of her claim for compensation. They added that if she remained dissatisfied she could ask the Member to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. |
| Back to top |
| 15/05/97 |
Ms Q replied to CSU's offer of compensation. She said that WCC's incompetence had cost her nearly £2,000, as she had shown in previous correspondence. She had also suffered immense distress and worry because her appeal had been put in jeopardy. She said that CSU's offer was unacceptable and asked if there was any other internal review procedure which she should use before approaching the Member. |
| 18/06/97 |
CSU replied to Ms Q. They reiterated their apologies that WCC had not provided the service which CS aimed to provide. They explained that the purpose of compensation payments was to restore individuals to the financial position they had been in before administrative errors occurred. They said that as a large part of Ms Q's claim included costs for work going back to 1994, they had calculated an amount using the figures provided for the difficulties encountered between August and December 1995. They were unable to increase their offer. There were no further internal procedures to follow and the only option left to Ms Q was to ask the Member to refer her case to the Ombudsman. |
| 21/06/97 |
Ms Q wrote to CSU. She said that she had not been asking to be compensated for anything other than those costs incurred as a result of WCC's errors between 7 August 1995 and 7 March 1996, those being the costs amounting to £1,606.72 disallowed by the taxing officer. She asked them also to consider compensating her for the letters she had had to send in pursuit of her compensation claim. She still wanted to know what would be done to improve the performance of WCC, as she considered that their continuing administrative incompetence both in her case and in general was putting justice at risk.
Back to top |
| 18/07/97 |
CSU replied to Ms Q. They apologised for the confusion caused by their letter of 18 June concerning the period in respect of which she was claiming costs. They explained that their concern was that many of the items she was claiming for had been duplicated unnecessarily. They gave a breakdown of how their offer had been calculated. They said that they had also included the cost of two letters in pursuing the claim for compensation; as Ms Q had since sent two further letters to them, they increased the offer to £181.77. On the question of improving the performance of WCC they said that the administrative procedure for monitoring the recording of hearings had been tightened. They added that CS used complaints to identify areas where the standard of service caused concern to users and tried to improve those areas; however, the management of the court concerned was an internal matter. |
| 21/07/97 |
Ms Q replied to CSU. She disputed their calculations regarding the time required to write the letters and make the telephone calls in respect of which she was claiming reimbursement. She also took issue with their calculation that it had required only one hour to draw up her notes of the judgment and evidence. She offered to obtain expert evidence to substantiate her claim as to the time taken for each item, subject to CS's agreement to reimburse her for the costs of doing so. |
| 22/08/97 |
CSU replied to Ms Q. They said that they were sorry that she remained unhappy with their offer of compensation; however, they had fully taken into consideration the expense and inconvenience she had experienced because of errors and delay at WCC and had made their offer accordingly. They said that an exception had been made in her case by making an offer based on the rate she charged in her professional capacity as a journalist (£24 per hour) even though she had not been acting in her professional capacity in her case. The usual rate allowed for litigants in person was £9.25 per hour. They were therefore unable to justify any increase to the amounts offered for her telephone calls and letters. They were however prepared to increase the time allowed for transcription work to four hours, and add the cost of her latest letter to them. That increased the offer to £256.42, which was the final offer they were prepared to make.
Back to top |
| 01/09/97 |
Ms Q replied to CSU. She explained that the rate of £24 per hour had been agreed by the taxing officer as she had been able to demonstrate that it was a fair reflection of the pecuniary loss she had suffered. She accepted their offer of four hours for the transcription work. She again took issue with their estimates of the time required to write letters. She referred to five letters in particular and said that those had included references to previous correspondence which had had to be looked up, read and copied. Some of the letters had been more than 400 words long, the typing of which alone had taken longer than the six minutes per letter allowed in CSU's calculations. She asked for a response to her proposal that she obtain further evidence to substantiate her claim. She asked why CS had not admitted initially that compensation was due and why they continued to increase her financial loss by their intransigence. |
| 09/10/97 |
CSU replied to Ms Q apologising for the delay in doing so. They said that they considered that the six minutes per letter which they had allowed was a reasonable time based on their experience and that exceptionally she had been allowed her professional rate rather than the litigant-in-person rate. In response to her request that CS should meet the cost of making further investigations to assist her claim they said that they were able to pay the reasonable costs of pursuing a claim, such as letters and telephone calls, but not the costs of formulating a claim. They repeated their offer of £256.42. |
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Short text of this investigation
|
 |
