HMCTS should not have referred case to bailiffs

What happened

In summer 2013 Mr S was convicted of a driving offence at a magistrates' court. The magistrates' court banned him from driving for six months and ordered him to pay a fine. Mr S appealed the driving ban and fine at a crown court and the bailiffs who were managing payment of the debt were told about this. The crown court heard the appeal and the ban was reduced to three months but the original fine was not changed. The bailiffs were told the outcome of the appeal and issued a notice telling Mr S the fine had to be paid within ten working days or further action would be taken.

Mr S queried this with the bailiffs and HMCTS because he was concerned that the appeal had overlooked his objection to the fine. The bailiffs put the fine on hold until autumn 2013. At the same time Mr S asked the crown court how he could appeal the decision. Mr S said the crown court told him to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. HMCTS said that it was unlikely the crown court told him that, given that it is not permitted to give legal advice, but accepted that there may have been a misunderstanding.

Mr S called the bailiffs to tell them about his intention to appeal and he submitted the necessary application form to the crown court. The crown court replied telling Mr S that appeals heard at the crown court from the magistrates' court could not be appealed at the Court of Appeal. It advised him to seek legal advice. The bailiffs issued a distress warrant (a permit authorising the seizure of someone's property for money owed).

Mr S continued corresponding with the crown court and the bailiffs. But the crown court took no action until early 2014 when HMCTS considered his query and put the fine on hold. The judge confirmed that the fine still stood and Mr S paid it. However, he was also liable for the bailiff fees, which he did not believe to be fair in view of HMCTS' delay in dealing with his query.

Mr S complained to HMCTS who accepted that it had given confusing information about his appeal and overlooked his autumn 2013 correspondence. It offered him £100. However, HMCTS maintained that it was right to have instructed bailiffs. Mr S was not satisfied with the outcome because he had wanted HMCTS to allow him to pay the fine directly to it without the addition of any fees and/or charges, which he believed were still outstanding. He also wanted payment for the inconvenience caused.

What we found

Had HMCTS not given Mr S confusing information about his route of appeal and had it dealt with his autumn 2013 correspondence appropriately, then his fine would have been put on hold while the matter was considered. In view of Mr S's clear intention to pay the fine once his query had been addressed, there was a strong possibility that he would have done this before the need for HMCTS to instruct bailiffs. We recognised that HMCTS had accepted its failings, and offered Mr S £100. However, we felt that it needed to do more to put things right.

Putting it right

HMCTS accepted our recommendations and settled the outstanding debt of more than £180 with the bailiffs on Mr S's behalf. It also gave Mr S a further payment of £100 on top of the £100 already offered for the distress of having the bailiffs visit him.