THE HOUSE OF COMMONS JUSTICE COMMITTEE: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE COUNTY COURT: RAT INFESTED BUILDINGS: A “DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM” THAT “HAS FAILED ADEQUATELY” TO DELIVER CIVIL JUSTICE: (NO PAYWALL)
In the Civil Justice system we do not have a figure such as the Secret Barrister who can publicise the major problems that exist in the county court. The House of Commons Justice Committee have gone a long way to remedying that by publishing its report on the Work of the County Court today. Here I provide edited highlights. I am encouraging everyone to read the report which is available here.
(I would add to this that the report is undoubtedly accurate, it highlights the frankly barmy nature of the “reforms” that have been attempted, most of which were never trialled or subject to a proper consultation process. However we must give credit to all those on the ground who work on the ground in the courts system, staff and judiciary, who struggle to make the system work despite the wholly unsatisfactory work of those who are supposed to manage the court system)
(Come and work in the court system and make new friends…)
“Despite its intended aim of simplifying the operation of the County Court, the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and results in debilitating delays for all parties. The current methods of contacting a county court do not work. Users cannot find the necessary contact information, and centralised inboxes and phone numbers appear unmonitored as they fail to provide the required response rate.”
A DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM
Labour MP Andy Slaughter MP said:
“The conclusions of our report make for stark reading: the County Court is a dysfunctional system, that has failed adequately to deliver civil justice across England and Wales.
THE “REFORM PROGRAMME” THAT WAS PRETTY HOPELESS REALLY
“The Reform programme was over-ambitious and ultimately under-delivered in its digital transformation, the report said, adding that all future digital reforms should be co-designed with users and stakeholders and must not be rolled out until they have proven reliable through extensive piloting and testing.”
THE STATE OF THE BUILDINGS: ASBESTOS AND RAT INFESTATIONS
“The County Court estate, MPs said is in a state of significant disrepair following years of ‘chronic’ underinvestment. Conditions have impacted staff and judicial morale, with extensive examples of poor court maintenance, including concerning instances of asbestos and rat infestations.”
THE CENTRALISATION SYSTEM THAT – AGAIN IS PRETTY HOPELESS
On communication issues, the report warns the centralisation of essential court operations has had a devastating impact on the delivery of justice, entrenching the postcode lottery and resulting in debilitating delays for all parties.
MORALE IS DOWN (WHAT A SURPRISE)
Turning to judicial capacity and staffing, the report cautions that the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession and it is vital more is done to attract high performing candidates to the district-bench.
A SYSTEM BESET BY UNACCEPTABLE DELAYS
“With over a million claims each year and a vast jurisdiction, the County Court is where most citizens and businesses encounter the justice system, yet it is beset by unacceptable delays, recruitment and retention issues across frontline staff and the Judiciary, and a complex “patchwork” of paper-based and digital systems.
“The causes of the inefficiencies and delays in the County Court are chronic, following years of underfunding, yet what is unclear is how HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), together with the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, intends to address such a serious situation.
DELAYS THAT ARE INCREASING
Our Report raises serious concerns over the current level of delays across the County Court. We found that although the pandemic contributed to such delays, this trend had been growing since 2012. The latest annual statistics show that currently it takes over 50 weeks, on average, for a small claims track case to be heard. The delays are driven by a range of well-known factors; factors that Ministers and officials have readily recognised. Such factors include increased demand, recruitment and retention issues, and increasing volumes of litigants-in-person.
NOW – JUST WHERE DID THAT £220 MILLION GO? (IT IS MYSTERY TO MOST COUNTY COURT USERS.
We also consider the condition of the County Court estate, and its impact on staff and judicial morale. We have heard extensive examples of poor court maintenance including concerning instances of asbestos and rat infestations. We are concerned by the notable lack of action taken by HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) to remedy these unacceptable working conditions. Given the prevalence of the issues that remain, we are unclear what proportion, if any, of the £220 million of capital expenditure allocated to HMCTS between August 2023 and March 2025 was spent on the County Court.
THOSE REFORMS THAT MADE MATTERS WORSE…
Our Report also considers the detrimental impact of the HMCTS Reform programme on the County Court following its eventual conclusion in March 2025. The programme promised to deliver transformational digitisation, yet this ultimately failed. As a result of the programme’s ever-diminishing scope, the County Court now operates with a myriad of legacy and Reform digital systems, and continues to use outdated paper-based processes. We conclude that the HMCTS Reform programme was over-ambitious and ultimately under-delivered in transforming the County Court; it follows that all de-scoped Reform projects should be prioritised as a matter of urgency.
THE CNCB AND THE “TEST OF ENDURANCE”
47. The persistent delays and “serious deterioration” in case management at the CNBC result in poor user experience.53 Those regularly using the centralised phone lines describe it as a “test of endurance” and cite wait times of anywhere from 30 minutes to over two hours.5
THE PHONE THAT ISN’T ANSWERED
49. Following our evidence session with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, HMCTS officials were able to share management information on the number of calls received by the County Court. This information showed that of over 865,000 calls to the CNBC between April 2024 and March 2025, just 60 per cent of calls were reached,56 with an average wait time of over 24 minutes.57 However, we have heard that once calls are received by a claims handler, the information that they are able to provide via these central phone lines can often be vague and limited. As claims handlers are not responsible for allocated cases but instead responsible for responding to the query of the caller, inquiries are frequently redirected to local courts for further information:
The County Court at Sheffield answers its calls promptly. The County Court at Barnet does not answer its calls at all. The County Court at Romford no longer has a telephone number. One must instead call a central inquiry line whose call handlers are unable to answer queries but can pass messages to the Romford Court, which might or might not deal with them.58
50. The available statistics are also based on users finding the correct phone service in the first place. From our roundtable discussion it was clear that legal professionals could provide an extensive number of examples relating to the sheer volume of central phone numbers causing confusion as claimants were not able to understand which was the most appropriate number for queries relating to their claim.
51. Southwark Law Centre described their interactions with the central phone lines:
Often the caller will be directed to email the Court in order to obtain an answer to their query, whilst being warned that the email will be placed in a backlog of 10 to 12 weeks.59
Consequently, the already backlogged email inboxes are put under further strain. Steven Jarman, Deputy Director of Civil Justice and Law Policy at the MoJ highlighted that:
80% of the emails that come through to the Civil National Business Centre are chasing updates on their cases. You can see how it is a vicious cycle. If you have a backlog, you get more chaser emails, which then takes more time to answer.60
We are concerned that the inefficiencies of the central phone and email systems, alongside the lack of “meaningful information” provided in any response, are compounding delays in correspondence.61
MY FAVOURITE RECOMMENDATION
“8. Litigants must be able to recover the legal, travel, and subsistence costs from HMCTS wasted as a result of over-listing and/or poor court administration preventing their cases from being heard. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)”