Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Anyone else having problems with HMCTS Harlow?
I don’t know is this is a national or a local problem but I would be interested if anyone else is experiencing the same problems.
If an appeal is lodged online, and evidence is not uploaded at the same time, we are told to send any further documentation in hard copy to a PO Box in Harlow. In one of our current cases we sent a submission and several pieces of evidence and they were not added to the appeal file. Instead duplicates of material already issued by DWP and a form from them which should not be sent to appellants was issued. On another occasion the Harlow office duplicated documents issued by Sutton HMCTS, but with the wrong page numbers, and there seem to be significant delays in issuing documents. Are others having problems with the Harlow office?
I had a rather frustrated Tribunal on Tuesday whose appeal papers weren’t numbered the same as mine.
I don’t bother with Harlow. I send stuff direct to Liverpool; much better service even when they’re short staffed.
Yeah intermittently. I had sent notification that I was representing (after the SSCS1) and they appeared to get that and action it but still left me out of the circulation list for future documents. Fixed by contacting webchat. I sent a notification that I was representing and asking for an extension to a time limit to supply more evidence and they dealt with my appointment as rep but seemed to completely miss the request for more time so we got a slightly snotty direction notice (to both me and the appellant which was how I know they had me down as rep!) saying how we hadn’t complied and should do so ASAP but the appeal should be listed anyway. A very common one is sending large bundles of evidence (medical records mostly) that come back as four or five ‘additions’ which are then totally out of order. So addition A might be pages 50 - 100 of the medical records, addition b pages 101 - 124, addition c pages 1 - 49 etc.
I had my issues with Newcastle and later Leeds (our local centres) but they were pretty on the ball in general. I’m not sure if we’re supposed to or not but we’re increasingly sending stuff to Leeds again rather than Harlow as a) it seems to work and b) they actually get stuff done properly.
We did it was a nightmare!
Gave up on them for all the reasons described above and some more e.g. photocopying. We would get back illegible stuff and have to…..............................
We go direct to Cardiff and or CTS query SSCS email although having doubts about the latter. Long delays too after we’ve been told the docs have been uploaded to distribution to all the parties.
These issues are not exclusive to Harlow. The problems describe appear to be common throughout HMCTS regardless of which administrative centre(s) is involved.
We have lost count of the number of complaints we have made about basic admin. failures (sometimes a complaint is the easiest / quickest way to get the issue resolved and ensure a tribunal is not adjourned due to an admin. issue like documents or a Directions Notice not being issued to all parties or at all!).
Thanks to everyone who offered views on HMCTS Harlow. My case was turned into a complaint and I got a rapid response. Colleagues may be interested in it. I’ve left out the fulsome apology and the bits relating to specifics of my case.
” I am responding on behalf of the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC) which manages the online service and our bulk scanning service at Harlow.
You submitted further evidence on 10th February, but this wasn’t added to the case.
What went wrong
Your application was received at Harlow, which is where our bulk scanning service providers are located.
When documents are received, bulk scanning check the cover letter for a case reference number. If there is no cover letter, the documents are scanned and uploaded into our ‘digital exceptions list’ which is where documents are scanned when they cannot be allocated to a new or existing case.
In this case, bulk scanning did not follow the correct process and scanned your documents into our digital exceptions folder. .
The search facilities within this list do not allow us to search for specific cases, and we currently have a high volume of documents on the digital exceptions list which we are working through in date order. This is why we weren’t able to see that your documents had been received.
The physical copies were destroyed after 30 days in accordance with our data retention policy.
What we’re doing to improve
The management team have addressed the errors made with the staff members responsible.
Our Senior Management Team are reviewing the current processes and contract arrangements in place with our 3rd party service providers to ensure improvements are made.
We’ve also allocated additional resource to clear all outstanding documents on the exceptions list, this will allow us to trace any remaining applications that have been submitted in this way.”
Paul the reference number referred to above is it the SC number or the long UC esque pin ish number?
Thanks for your work on this too!!!!!!!!!
With a couple of early exceptions I have tended to avoid the digital service and Harlow. I consider the former to be a long way from being fit for purpose and I feel largely the same about Harlow albeit I have limited experience of the latter as, like Dan, I tend to go straight to Liverpool. Unfortunately, for me, Liverpool is a mixed bag so I take a belt and braces approach and send everything to both Liverpool and the .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) email address. Liverpool either then jump or get kick-started by the latter.
Unfortunately, as I want digital copies of appeal papers i.e. pdfs I inevitably have to provide my email address and somewhere in the background someone keeps repeatedly using this to plug me and my appellant into the digital appeal process even when we’ve explicitly not gone down that route. This has caused all sorts of madness including one case where someone at HMCTS clearly created an account for the appellant and then I start getting invites to login and see what I presume was the appeal papers despite neither the appellant nor I having any clue about the login details.
I have found the Liverpool and contact centre email addresses fairly effective for getting directions out but you really do need a belt and braces approach e.g. I have to break my emails into sections with bold headings to make it clear to the reader what is going on or what is being requested.
There is an issue as I understand it with paper bundles not matching the ordering used in the digital bundles where those are used by the more IT literate judges. I understand that will remain the case for the foreseeable too.
Paul the reference number referred to above is it the SC number or the long UC esque pin ish number?
Thanks for your work on this too!!!!!!!!!
It’s the long number, not the SC.
Paul the reference number referred to above is it the SC number or the long UC esque pin ish number?
Thanks for your work on this too!!!!!!!!!
It’s the long number, not the SC.
That explains a lot.
I do PIP appeals in Rotherham area
I have had issues with things being sent to Harlow and not coming out
I send papers to Leeds local office which works better (Leeds is lucky to have a wonderful worker who seems to be able to sort things out promptly)
On numbers I quote the long 16 digit number and the SC number if it has it
I also want bundles emailed back to me as can then be put on our system but been told that they cant do this
i would be keen to know how others manage to get bundles and later evidence emailed to them?
They can absolutely scan and email stuff. The argument tends to be that they don’t currently have enough admin. staff physically in offices to do so and when they do have those staff there then they have other priorities around allocation; listing and basic production of appeal papers rather than “specialist” need. Locally I was made aware that the head of HMCTS admin. had advised clerks to not do this sort of thing at all. I consider that to very much be a case of the tail wagging the dog so I have requested a judges direction to that effect on a handful of occasions. On the whole that has been effective.
I do have two advantages in this respect in as much as
1 - I can request it as an EA 10 reasonable adjustment for me or for some clients.
2 - we’re in a hybrid working scenario where incoming post is scanned in and distributed by email to staff who may be split in various combinations between office and home. Those scans are pdfs. That (usually) works for me but not always as they’re sent with a dpi which often makes the files too large to load into things like AdvicePRO. I still prefer a sensibly sized one from HMCTS.
I do PIP appeals in Rotherham area
I have had issues with things being sent to Harlow and not coming out
I send papers to Leeds local office which works better (Leeds is lucky to have a wonderful worker who seems to be able to sort things out promptly)
On numbers I quote the long 16 digit number and the SC number if it has itI also want bundles emailed back to me as can then be put on our system but been told that they cant do this
i would be keen to know how others manage to get bundles and later evidence emailed to them?
I mainly deal with the Sutton office which I find to be OK in general, except for the extremely long waiting times for hearings and interlocutory decisions. I’m happy to have bundles in hard copy but when I asked them recently to use email they were fine with that. It was an HB case so maybe they are subject to a more manual process anyway.
Do you know what drives me mad?
Two separate reference numbers; the long one and the SC one. Variously included or not in various combinations. So we need to quote both which is an absolute nuisance.
I’ve only ever quoted the one they’ve used to me. As yet it’s never been an issue. The use of the long one at all is a major irritant and fairly incompetent though.
Friday rant time.
Imagine a client with visual issues; numeracy issues; literacy issues or concentration issues trying to repeat that long reference to anyone in respect of their case or even note it for themselves.
You simply do not issue references which are not broken up in any way. It is such a basic accessibility fail from an organisation which deals predominantly with disabled people (not that they’ve ever seemed to notice) and, fundamentally, it’s fairly incompetent. They have a long standing system for case references. Whilst not perfect it was at least short, broken up, relatively easy to deal with and close to foolproof.
As a point of principle (and practicality) I refuse to ring anyone who sends me a phone number in the format 00000000000 until they have reformatted it as 00000 000 000 so I can read it.
Good rant. Gesundheit!
Are you saying that HMCTS is failing at PSED? No way! Someone needs to tell them.
On a more serious note; do we know if anyone raised this referencing numbers nonsense with the TS?