Litigant-in-Person/Defendant applications/counter-claims 2015-2017 never sealed and issued

Indigo made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Ministry of Justice
FOI Team

Dear Sir/Madam

I am seeking information held on the HMCTS by the MoJ.

Please could you send me the following information:

1. In each of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, how many Litigant-in-Person

Defendant applications and counter-claims were not sealed and issued by the

County Court of England and Wales, although the Defendants' cheque payment of

the correct court fee was presented at HMCTS' bank and honoured?

2. What protocols or procedures are in place to ensure that, when the correct

court fee cheque payment has been presented at and honoured at HMCTS' bank,

the service paid for - ie sealing and issuing the /Litigant-in-Person/Defendant's

application or counter-claim, by the County Court - is actually provided to the

Litigant-in-Person within a reasonable period (eg within six or 12 months)?

I have an interest in this because two of my applications as a Litigant-in-

Person/Defendant (filed and served on15 February and 26 March 2017) and a

substantial counter-claim (filed and served with supporting evidence including a

sworn Affidavit 50 pages long on 27 May 2015, yes more than two years ago, in

2015), for which I paid the correct court fee with a personal cheque that cleared

through the HMCTS bank account, have never been sealed and issued by the

County Court. That is to say, £280 + £255 + £255 = seven hundred and ninety quid

for which I have not had the service "advertised": £790 is a lot of money to me but,

unlike in other areas of life, there is no "alternative service provider/competitor" that I

could use instead of HMCTS (ie I cannot "take my custom elsewhere").

The Civil Procedure Rules in these instances have not been complied with by the

Court (although compliance with the CPRs is compulsory in litigation), my Article 6

rights (HRA) have been ignored, and, as a result, my access to justice has been

completely blocked by the Court (which has an over-riding duty to justice and

upholding the rule of law), and is still being blocked by the Court. Not issuing

Defendant Litigant-in-Persons' applications/counter-claims is, of course, not an

acceptable way of reducing the Courts' workload. I should like to be able to put

that right, even now: ie receive the service I have paid for (months/years ago) and

have my Article 6 rights upheld by the Court.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully
Rachel Mawhood

Rooke, Darren, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Rachel Mawhood,

 

Please find attached an acknowledgement to your recent Freedom of
Information request.

 

Kind Regards

Darren Rooke

Civil Jurisdictional and Operational Support

Courts & Tribunals Development Directorate │6th Floor (6.16) │102 Petty
France │London │SW1H 9AJ

 

 

 

 

 

Rooke, Darren, Ministry of Justice

2 Attachments

Dear Rachel,

 

Please find attached a response to your recent FOI request.

 

Kind Regards

Darren Rooke

Civil Jurisdictional and Operational Support

Courts & Tribunals Development Directorate │6th Floor (6.16) │102 Petty
France │London │SW1H 9AJ

 

 

[1]HMCTS_BLK_DIGI

 

 

 

Mr Darren Rooke
Courts & Tribunals Development Directorate

Dear Darren Rooke

It appears, from your response, that HMCTS is routinely and unapologetically failing in its fiduciary duty to court users and the taxpayer. Therefore, I write now to request an internal review of the response to my FOI request received today from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), for the following reasons (numbered paragraphs, below):

"In relation to question one, the MoJ does not hold this information, this is because there is no legal or business requirement for us to do so."

1.
HMCTS, like any Government department, has a fiduciary duty - to court users and to the taxpayer - to prevent and detect fraud. That is part of its "legal and business requirement" of the MoJ. That is part of the cost of its "doing business".

2.
All Government departments are under pressure to cut costs, hit "targets", manage workload. But I am very clear that not issuing a defendant's defence, claim or application, while banking the cheque for the full, correct, published court fee, is prima facie fraudulent activity. Furthermore, in legal proceedings between a corporate Claimant and a Litigant-in-Person Defendant, there is no equality of arms whatsoever. So when the HMCTS staff fail to issue the defendant's defence, claim, application (despite taking payment of the correct court fee), that ensures that the unrepresented Litigant-in-Person has no "arms" at all - a grotesque interference in and distortion of the defendant's Article 8 rights. The corporate Claimant need not - and does not - respond to a defence that has not been issued at all and can - quite obscenely and without any legal right to do so - behave as if the defence was never filed and served.

"I can confirm that HMCTS has a standard operating process in place for fee accounting and also for issuing a defence and counter claim. These standard operating procedures should be followed by all HMCTS staff who have responsibility for fee accounting and case management."

3.
There is nothing "standard" about taking hundreds of pounds in fees, repeatedly, for a service that is NEVER given. There is nothing normal or civilised about the administration of justice being deliberately undermined by the very (and only) statutory body charged with upholding justice and the rule of law in the courts.

4.
It is compulsory upon everyone, including HMCTS staff and the judiciary, to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (including the Jackson-reformed CPRs) - those are part of the "operating procedures" - and the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud in the operating procedures rests with the HMCTS executive and management. Management’s responsibilities include creating an environment where fraud is not tolerated, identifying risks of fraud, and taking appropriate actions to ensure that controls are in place to prevent and detect fraud. Executive officers at HMCTS must also understand the environment and procedures well enough to be able determine how and where HMCTS staff can override or malignly influence the controls in place and - in order to fulfil HMCTS' statutory duty to the administration of justice and upholding the rule of law - ensure that that never happens (making it clear that there are swift and severe penalties for fraudulent activity).

Statement of truth: I believe that the facts stated by me are true.

Yours sincerely
Rachel Mawhood

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Mawhood
 
Please find attached acknowledgement of your request to conduct an
internal review of FOI 113832
 
Yours sincerely
 
NE RSU FOI and DPA team
 
NE RSU FOI and DPA team
NE Regional Support Unit| HM Courts & Tribunal service | Level 5 | Leeds
Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre  | Please consider the
environment before printing

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Mawhood
 
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review
of FOI 113832
 
Yours sincerely
 
NE RSU FOI and DPA team
 
NE RSU FOI and DPA team
NE Regional Support Unit| HM Courts & Tribunal service | Level 5 | Leeds
Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre  | Please consider the
environment before printing

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

Mr Darren Rooke
Civil Jurisdictional and Operational Support
Courts & Tribunals Development Directorate

Dear Mr Rooke

Please inform The Knowledge Information Liaison Officer, North East Regional support unit, that

(a) the MoJ/HMCTS are not exempt from their legally binding obligations under the law of contract of England and Wales;

(b) the information I seek could be supplied by responding my FOI request "MoJ Caseman system and claim B4PP8642" (which the MoJ has so far ignored).

Yours sincerely
Rachel Mawhood

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

Thank you for your email. It has been received by the NE RSU FOI & DPA
Team. This inbox is monitored regularly and a member of the team will
respond in due course.  
 
***Please be aware if you mark your message as private, we will not be
able to see this in our inbox. Please send under standard MS outlook
settings***

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

Anthony Badaloo left an annotation ()

It is only fair to give a response to this long-suffering tax payer.
It is a well known fact, that many claimants and their solicitors, are not paying the court's fees, and the cases are not ISSUED BY THE COURT, leaving the victims in a Court Order Scam.
Sign and Share the petition www.ScamBuster.TV