Corporate report

Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services - November 2023

Updated 20 December 2024

Applies to England and Wales

1. Introduction

HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) responsible for the courts and tribunal system in England and Wales and non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It operates on the basis of a partnership between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.

HMCTS is undertaking an ambitious programme of reform which will bring modern technology and new ways of working to the courts and tribunals system with the aim of delivering a system that is just and proportionate, whilst also improving access to justice for all users, including vulnerable groups. HMCTS reform is a large and complex programme, made up of over 50 separate projects [1].

Reform has made it possible to collect a much wider range of data on our users including their protected characteristics, which means we can better understand how to improve access to justice. To meet this ambition HMCTS has developed a framework for assessing access to justice in its services.

An access to justice (A2J) assessment is a practical toolkit that enables HMCTS to identify, fix and monitor access to justice barriers. The assessments use existing data to identify access to justice barriers [2] and additional analysis and primary research to validate the findings, understand the underlying causes and develop solutions. HMCTS then continues to monitor the relevant data in the service to assess if A2J has been improved.

The assessments are different but complementary to the evaluation programme [1] in that they focus only on A2J, they do not measure the specific impact of reform on A2J and they are intended as practical assessments to help HMCTS identify solutions to improve A2J. The assessments and their findings are then fed into the evaluation programme where relevant.

The analytical framework that underpins the assessments has been developed by HMCTS from the definition of access to justice outlined in Byrom, N (2019) “Developing the detail: Evaluating the Impact of Court Reform in England and Wales on Access to Justice [3]”.

The definition consists of four elements:

1. Access to the formal legal system
2. Access to an effective hearing
3. Access to a decision in accordance with law and
4. Access to a remedy

From each of these four elements of the definition a series of analytical questions (see Annex A) and corresponding measures, indicators and data sources were identified. Not every element of the definition, analytical question or data source is relevant and analytically robust for every service, so although each assessment uses the framework there is some variation. For example, probate cases do not have hearings, so hearing experience would not be relevant.

The access to justice assessments draw on a wide range of data sources to answer as many of the questions as possible. This includes: management information (e.g. case volumes, timeliness, decisions), protected characteristics (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, age), digital data (e.g. take up, completion rate), service specific data (e.g. probate grants re-issued), contact data (calls, complaints, contact surveys) and other data (e.g. UK census data, accessibility tests).

Protected characteristics data [4] is collected for litigants in person who submit applications though the digital route, and for some users who use the paper route where bulk scan (the scanning of paper forms into the digital system) is available. The questions cover all nine protected characteristics, including age, ethnicity, sex, and disability.

Through linking protected characteristics data to case level data, we can understand if and how outcomes or case durations [5] differ by the characteristics of users. The findings of the A2J assessments are based on the principle that a uniform experience for all i.e., no variation in outcomes and timeliness between groups, is a positive indicator of access to justice. Where differences are identified, it could suggest an existing access to justice barrier that requires further exploration.

This publication is in line with the HMCTS data strategy [6], which outlines our commitment to being transparent and treating data as one of our most valuable assets. The following summary report highlights the key findings and actions for each of the completed assessments in probate, social security and child support (SSCS), divorce, and online civil money claims (OCMC) but is not an exhaustive report of every piece of analysis conducted.

When considering the findings of the completed assessments, it is worth noting that some of the data used was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, undertaking the analysis required to complete an access to justice assessment takes time and requires cases to be complete, so the data referenced may seem to be old. However, the findings in the report reflect the current position of services as we reference follow up work that has been conducted or planned, and we continuously monitor the relevant data.

A2J assessments will be completed in the remaining reformed services based on the following three dependencies: reform has been fully rolled out in the service, protected characteristic questions have been implemented, and when enough time has elapsed that a sufficient number of cases with protected characteristic data have reached a conclusion. We expect at this stage that six new assessments will be started before Autumn 2024, and their publication will follow in 2025. In terms of revisiting the completed assessments, we have yet to decide how often and when the completed analysis will be repeated but the assessments will not be one-off pieces of work.

Summary of findings

This publication is not intended as an exhaustive list of every piece of analysis undertaken or data source reviewed but provides a summary of the key findings and barriers that we think will be of interest to a public audience.

Probate

The probate assessment was completed as a proof of concept, so was not as detailed as the subsequent assessments. However, it did not find any evidence of users being excluded from the service, nor any evidence of differences in case timeliness or outcome by age, disability or sex.

The assessment found positive evidence of an improvement in access to justice as changes to the service have resulted in more users being able to apply for probate on their own.

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• cases from ethnic minority users take longer and are stopped more than white users
• older users rely on the paper service more which takes longer
• reasonable adjustments are under used and under recorded

Each of these barriers has an associated service fix in place, including improvements to user guidance that we expect to reduce the differences experienced by ethnic minorities.

SSCS

The SSCS assessment found that the geodemographic [7] profile of appellants is similar to the profile of those eligible to appeal indicating there are no groups finding it harder than others to access the service. In addition, user experience data, reasonable adjustments and travel time to hearing centres all suggest the service is providing access to justice for users in these areas.

Analysis of case outcomes did not provide any clear evidence of differences by protected characteristics.

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• the overall clearance times especially for paper cases
• the high proportion of lapsed appeals
• the difference in timeliness by region, and some protected characteristics such as ethnicity and English or Welsh as a main language

Initiatives and further analysis are in place to understand and address these issues including the relationship between region and ethnicity.

Divorce

The divorce assessment did not identify any differences in outcomes or timeliness by sex, disability or age. In addition, user experience data, digital metrics and representation all suggest the service is providing access to justice for users in these areas.

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• timeliness for paper channel users which is undergoing further analysis.
• users contacting HMCTS and the publicly available guidance
• timeliness and outcomes for ethnic minority users

Each of these is being addressed, for contact and guidance improvements have already been made to the service, and fixes are ready to be implemented to improve issues disproportionately affecting ethnic minority users.

Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC)

The OCMC assessment found that users are broadly similar to the wider population, there is no evidence of substantial differences in case outcome by protected characteristics (though there a large proportion of cases with unknown outcomes) and there is a positive user experience in accessing and using OCMC.

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• differences in timeliness to first full hearing for ethnic minority users
• low digital completion rate
• low engagement from defendants
• issues with the available guidance

Each of these barriers is either undergoing further analysis (e.g., defendant engagement) or service fixes are being developed (e.g., guidance and sign posting).

Evidence Gaps

Across the four completed assessments, there are commonalities in terms of evidence gaps. The evidence gaps identified include an understanding of paper users, user experience in general after the application process, user support throughout the process, and core A2J measures around fairness, trust, confidence and motivation.

To gain additional insight and fill these evidence gaps, we will explore ways in which we can survey our users at the end of their case. The aim of this is to provide insight into the overall user experience of our services, ensure service fixes are made where needed, and help us to continue to deliver evidence-based service design.

---

[1] HMCTS Reform Evaluation Framework (publishing.service.gov.uk)

[2] An access to justice barrier is understood as something that prohibits or impedes a user’s ability to access justice identified by 1) a variance in access for user type, 2) as measured against a target or level, or 3) where a barrier has been hypothesised and further analysis is required.

[3] https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Developing-the-Detail-Evaluating-the-Impact-of-Court-Reform-in-England-and-Wales-on-Access-to-Justice-FINAL.pdf

[4] HMCTS protected characteristics questionnaire 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[5] Case durations refer to the amount of time between the day on which the application was received and the day the case reached an outcome. In Tribunals this is referred to as clearance times.

[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-data-strategy-december-2021

[7] Using socio-economic and demographic data from each census, geodemographic classifications aim to identify residential areas of the country with similar characteristics

2. Probate

2.1 Introduction

The reformed probate service was launched in July 2018 as part of the HMCTS Reform Programme, offering a digital service for users to apply for and manage probate cases online. Public users can apply and manage their cases online through the Apply for Probate portal, or through the paper channel. In November 2020, the online probate service was mandated for legal professionals, so they must create and manage cases with a will using the MyHMCTS online platform.

Probate was the pilot service for the access to justice assessments, and so the analytical approach was reduced in scale. The initial assessment used case receipts from July to December 2020 (inclusive). However, additional analysis referenced in the findings of the assessment includes data up to 2023. Additionally, data derived from protected characteristic questions (PCQ) is based on a response rate of around 50% for online unrepresented applicants. The assessment focused on digital applications, where PCQs were initially available.

2.2 Evidence of access to justice

Profile of users

The assessment found no evidence of users being excluded from the service.

Analysis of the protected characteristics of applicants and their postcodes shows that applicants are older and wealthier than the general adult population. For example, 65% of unrepresented applicants are aged over 55 compared to 35% of the adult population for England and Wales. These age and wealth characteristics are expected, given the nature of the service. Applicants are typically the spouse or son or daughter of the person that has died, and probate is not required if there is no estate or if the estate is small.

These factors also explain the distinct profile of probate applicants by other protected characteristics such as ethnicity and main language. The ONS Wealth and Assets Survey shows that wealth varies substantially by ethnicity. Combined with age, this explains why only a small proportion of probate applicants are from an ethnic minority or have a main language other than English or Welsh.

Although definitive data on whether all users with a legal need can access the service is not available, there is no evidence to suggest an unmet legal need. There were only 2,000 unclaimed estates between 2013 and 2020[1], compared to approximately 3 million estates claimed through the probate service in this period.

Outcomes by protected characteristics

The assessment did not find any evidence of differences in timeliness or outcome by age, disability or sex.

2.3 Access to justice barriers

Contact, complaints and user experience

The probate access to justice assessment highlighted concerns due to higher-than-expected contact (complaints, emails and calls), as well as lower than expected levels of user satisfaction. Since then and throughout 2023, continuous analysis has been undertaken to understand the drivers for contact in probate and identify ways it can be reduced. Analysis of case and complaints data in autumn 2022 confirmed that the main driver for contact in the probate service was applicants seeking an update on the progress of their case, which was exacerbated by delays in the service and an increasing backlog of older, outstanding cases.

This analysis has led to improvements being made to the service and HMCTS processes during 2023. These include changing operational processes to target the backlog of older cases, introducing a Citizens Hub[2], where applicants can log in to get updates on their case, and changing messaging to let applicants know that cases will take around 16 weeks, rather than 8 weeks as stated in the original messaging.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The probate service is continually being updated and improved based on the analysis of performance metrics. Alongside these regular performance metrics, the most recent contact analysis and the related improvements to the service identified the need to closely monitor additional metrics. These metrics include the volume of outstanding cases split by channel and user type, and the volume of calls and complaints. This is to ensure that the changes being made will have the desired effect. Further areas for service improvement have been provided through analysis of data from the Citizens Hub.

Timeliness and stops by protected characteristics

The assessment identified that cases for ethnic minority users take longer and are stopped[3] more often than cases for white users.

Analysis of the protected characteristics data allowed us to understand whether the timeliness of applications using “stops” as a proxy measure varies by user characteristics. We focussed on four characteristics where we had sufficient data. These were sex, disability, age and ethnicity.

Analysis of data from the 2020 Q3 and Q4 cohort of litigant in person, digital applications showed that 63% of cases were never stopped, with 90% of these completing within 5 weeks. As expected, the 37% of cases that were stopped at least once took longer, with 90% of these cases completing in 12 weeks.

There are over 20 different reasons as to why a probate case is stopped. We have simplified these reasons into a smaller number of stop categories. It was found that the three most common stop reasons were Inheritance Tax (IHT)[4], Wills, and issues with names and dates.

Stop category (high level)	Volume	%
No stops	7330	63
Single stop - IHT related	687	6
Single stop - Will related	1216	11
Single stop - Name or dates related	353	3
Single stop - Other	910	8
Multiple stops or stop reasons	1086	9

Figure 1: Distribution of digital litigant in person probate applications by stop category, for grant of probate cases submitted in Q3 and Q4 2020, where protected characteristic response recorded.

The analysis did not identify any difference in the distribution of stop categories by disability or sex and minor differences by age. However, differences by ethnicity were apparent. It was found that 64% of white applicants experience no stops, compared to only 50% of applicants from ethnic minority groups. There were also clear differences in the distribution across stop categories by ethnicity. 

The most recent analysis of litigant in person, digital, grant of probate cases received between July 2020 to April 2022 has shown that differences by ethnicity remain:

• Will related stops affect 22% of ethnic minority applicants, compared to 15% of white applicants and ‘will condition’ is responsible for about half of the difference between the two ethnicity groups
• “Deceased Name” stops affect 5.6% of ethnic minority applicants and 1.5% of white applicants

To understand these differences, further research has been conducted in 2023 with a random sample of 60 cases from ethnic minority users that have been subject to stop types that were identified as disproportionately affecting ethnic minority applicants. Additionally, primary research with probate caseworkers has been conducted. This work has been completed, and we now have a better understanding of what is driving the differences. Broadly, ethnic minority cases are more likely to be difficult for HMCTS to process and/or are more likely to result in an error by the user. In turn, this increases the likelihood of a stop, or increases the time it takes to process. These difficulties include issues relating to the condition of the will, document translation, the consistent use of names in documents, and users having assets abroad.

For example, with regard to the “Deceased Name” stop we now understand the issues driving the difference and have improvements to the service ready to implement.

Issue

• If the deceased name given in the application does not match the name given in the will, then, unless the will name is added as an alias later in the application, the caseworker must stop the case.
• Users are often providing different names in the application to the one given on the will. This is particularly the case for ethnic minority applicants who are frequently employing ‘westernized’ versions of the full deceased name. In addition, religious naming customs are common on wills, which mean that, even if the in-application deceased name is correct, the application might still be stopped, as the primary deceased name would not match the extended name provided in the will.
• If the application name is different, users are often unaware that they need to add the deceased will name as an alias.

Service improvements

• The service is updating guidance on exactly what name is required to make it clear that the will name must be declared if different from the name given in the application.

Next steps for HMCTS:

Each of the individual causes identified as driving differences in stops for ethnic minority applicants has a corresponding service improvement like the one described in detail above. Once these have been implemented, we will continue to monitor the same stops data to identify if improvements to access to justice have been made. There is however an associated time lag as we need to allow cases to reach completion before we can monitor the changes.

The paper service

As highlighted earlier in this section, differences between the protected characteristics of probate applicants and the general population are to be expected. Many probate users are either the spouse or child of the deceased, and therefore we expect an age skew towards the older population. The data shows that 77% of paper applicants and 65% of digital applicants are aged 55 or over. Among the general adult population only 35% are aged 55 or over.

These figures highlight the importance of the paper channel in the probate service as around 1 in 6 users rely on it. Additionally, those users who use the paper channel are likely to be older than those using the digital channel. Therefore, it is important that A2J is delivered in both channels, and we must ensure that the paper channel operates as well as the digital channel where we know that cases in the paper service have consistently taken longer than the digital service between 2020 and 2023.

Next steps for HMCTS:

There are projects in progress that ensure all of our services are accessible for all users and therefore meet the needs of users choosing the paper service and older users specifically. These include:

• Paper form design: This ensures the paper forms are as accessible as the digital service, e.g., providing large print forms used mostly by older users.
• Reasonable adjustments: We are designing a process to collect Reasonable Adjustment requirements consistently across all services. This will include proactively asking service users for their support needs within their journey, and improvements to case management systems to make it easier for staff to manage and deliver these adjustments.
• Digital support: Delivering a national digital support service that enables all users to access our digital services.
• Metrics and performance: Tracking the performance of (e.g., timeliness) and access to our services for all users and channels and identifying underlying causes of any differences or issues so we can design and implement improvements to the service where needed.

User representation

A core user need of the reformed probate service is for users to be reassured that they can apply for probate without the need for expensive professional help[5]. This led to the hypothesis that users are potentially over-reliant on solicitors (across all probate cases 60% instructed a solicitor), especially users with low estate values of below £50,000, where 40% of users are still instructing solicitors. Additional primary research identified a mix of experiences, some users thought that the professional legal support they had did not offer good value for money while others wished they had chosen professional legal support because they found the process complex, difficult to understand and time consuming.

Based on the findings of this research we have provided additional signposting since December 2021 in the probate service to relevant external advice, which clarifies when users may or may not need the expertise offered by a solicitor.

Follow up analysis of data on representation for users with estate values of under £50,000 suggests that the net effect has been an improvement in A2J. This is demonstrated by the percentage of users with small estates making applications as litigants in person increasing from around 60% to 70%. Unfortunately, we cannot attribute the improvement solely to the change in guidance as there were two other additional significant changes affecting probate applicants implemented at the same time:

• Inheritance tax (IHT) simplification changes, in effect from 1st January 2022[6]
• Fee changes, such that applications via solicitor or litigants in person (personal) are now charged the same fee, in effect since 26th January 2022

However, we can attribute the access to justice assessment with identifying the potential barrier, understanding the underlying cause, and then implementing a change in the service and monitoring an improvement to access to justice that we would not otherwise have been aware of.

Next steps for HMCTS:

We continue to regularly monitor representation as well as a wider set of user experience metrics in probate to determine if the service remains accessible for litigants in person.

Re-issuing and withdrawals

As part of the assessment, we identified that around 2% of grants are reissued and 1% of grants are withdrawn. Both re-issues and withdrawals are potential access to justice issues. For example, a grant of probate can be issued to a user, meeting the access to a decision part of the A2J definition, but it may not allow the user to inherit their estate if there are any errors in the documentation, and so not meeting the access to a remedy part of the definition. However, the underlying causes of re-issues and withdrawals are not fully understood, and there are various reasons why grants may need to be re-issued that are not access to justice issues e.g., users requesting additional copies of the grant to be sent to additional executors.

As part of the assessment, it was decided it was not proportionate to investigate the current rate of re-issues and withdrawals in depth, but that it was better to set a limit for each at which point an analytical deep dive would be triggered. These limits are 3% for both metrics.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The rate of re-issues and withdrawals are continually monitored and if either metric exceeds 3%, a deep dive to understand the increase would be triggered.

Reasonable adjustments

The assessment identified the under reporting and under use of reasonable adjustments in the probate service with only three reasonable adjustments having been recorded in 2020.

Next steps for HMCTS:

We are improving how reasonable adjustments are requested and managed within Civil, Family and Tribunals. This will include proactively asking service users for their support needs within their journey, and improvements to case management systems to make it easier for staff to manage and deliver the adjustments.

---

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/unclaimed-estates-list

[2] The probate Citizens Hub is a public facing online platform which is centred around providing, primarily, unrepresented citizens with the ability to get status updates on their case

[3] A “stop” in the probate service is where a case is put on hold while it awaits an action either from the application or another external party, such as HMRC.

[4] Inheritance Tax is a tax on the estate (the property, money and possessions) of someone who’s died. Before applying for probate, the estate must be valued to understand if Inheritance Tax needs to be paid, as the value of the estate will be needed as part of the probate application. For more information see: https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

[5] Finding from research with over 100 Probate users between 2016 and 2020

[6] https://www.gov.uk/valuing-estate-of-someone-who-died

3. Social Security and Child Support (SSCS)

3.1 Introduction

The reformed Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal was launched in 2018 as part of the HMCTS Reform Programme and allows users to submit and manage their appeals online, known as Submit Your Appeal (SYA) and Manage Your Appeal (MYA) respectively. Additionally, bulk scanning was implemented which allows HMCTS to scan the paper appeals and upload them onto the same platform that is used to process digital appeals.

The SSCS reform programme has been rolled out in stages, starting with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals in July 2018 and then being extended to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in December 2018, and other benefit types later [1]. There are a small number of benefit types that are not subject to reform. However, this assessment has looked at both reformed and unreformed appeals where possible.

3.2 Evidence of access to justice

Profiles of users

The assessment generated geodemographic profiles of the wider population of Great Britain, those eligible to appeal a PIP decision (i.e., those that had been through the mandatory reconsideration process) and PIP appellants. The profiles were based on Output Area Classifications (OAC).

OAC Supergroup	Population of Great Britain (%)	Those eligible to appeal (%)	SSCS Appellants (%)
Hard-Pressed Living	18	26	26
Constrained City Dwellers	8	18	19
Multicultural Metropolitans	13	16	16
Ethnicity Central	6	9	11
Urbanites	18	12	11
Suburbanites	21	9	8
Rural Residents	11	6	6
Cosmopolitans	6	4	4

Figure 2: Geodemographic comparison of the population of Great Britain (derived from 2011 census data), those eligible to appeal a PIP decision (i.e., had been through the PIP Mandatory Reconsideration process in 2021 [2]) and those who submitted a PIP appeal in 2021 [3]

The distribution of those eligible to appeal is very different to the general population. This is expected and aligns with census data. Census data shows that the ‘Hard Pressed Living’ and ‘Constrained City Dwellers’ supergroups have high levels of long-term sickness and disability relative to other groups. The concentration of potential appellants in these supergroups is therefore expected.

However, the distribution of actual appellants by supergroup is very similar to the distribution of those eligible to appeal. This can be interpreted as a positive sign, as it suggests there are no large-scale barriers affecting some groups more than others. Some caution is still required here, as geodemographic analysis can only ever provide evidence on characteristics that vary meaningfully by geographic location.

User experience

The SSCS online service is widely available, widely used and performing well. The assessment found that Submit Your Appeal (SYA) was available for 74,154 of 86,417 appeals submitted (86%), and 77% of appeals were submitted through SYA where it was available. Additionally, the digital completion rate (DCR)[4] for SSCS was 85%, which is broadly in line with other reformed services.

The findings of the SSCS assessment related to the exit survey are based on a response rate of 47%. Analysis indicated that the SSCS online service works well, as 89% of respondents to the survey rated their experience good or very good, and 62% said it was better or much better than expected.

Reasonable adjustments

Most reasonable adjustment requests were granted, and the proportion granted increased over time. There were 315 reasonable adjustment requests recorded in 2021, of which 88% were granted. This compares to 666 requests in 2020, of which 85% were granted. As described in the Probate section we are improving how reasonable adjustments are requested and managed within Civil, Family and Tribunals. This will include proactively asking service users for their support needs within their journey, and improvements to case management systems to make it easier for staff to manage and deliver the adjustments.

Travel times

HMCTS is committed to ensuring that the majority of the population in England and Wales should be within a reasonable journey time of a tribunal hearing centre, this is understood as being 2 hours, as outlined in our Estates Strategy. In 2022, HMCTS estimated travel times for SSCS by car and public transport. These results showed that the average travel time by car was 15 minutes, with just 2,200 people out of the population of England and Wales unable to reach a hearing centre within 2 hours. The average travel time by public transport was 50 minutes and only approximately 6% of the population were unable to reach a hearing centre within 2 hours [5].

Outcomes by protected characteristics

There are a number of potential outcomes for an SSCS appeal:

• Lapsed: The respondent (e.g., DWP) withdraws and the appellant is successful
• In favour: A decision is reached at hearing by a tribunal panel in favour of the appellant
• Upheld: A decision is reached at hearing by a tribunal panel upholding the respondent’s original decision
• Struckout: The tribunal strikes out an appeal, for example because an appellant has failed to comply with directions to such an extent that the tribunal feels it cannot proceed fairly or justly
• Withdrawn: The appellant withdraws their appeal

The analysis looked at outcomes for appeals submitted between March and August 2021 by protected characteristics. It controlled for benefit type and channel by looking only at PIP appeals submitted online. There was no evidence of differences in outcome by main language, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or sex. This was interpreted as groups having equal outcomes and therefore evidence of access to justice.

3.3 Access to justice barriers

‘Lapsed’ appeals and ‘In favour’ decisions

Of the appeals submitted between March and August 2021, including all benefit types, and submitted using both the digital and paper channels, 34% ‘lapsed’ (i.e., the respondent, usually DWP, withdrew from the case) and 35% received an ‘In favour’ decision at hearing (i.e., a decision was reached in favour of the appellant). It is in the interests of both parties to ensure the right decision is made at the earliest possible stage. This would likely mean more claims being accepted at the application or mandatory reconsideration stage and fewer appeals being submitted to the tribunal.

Next steps for HMCTS:

Following a hearing both appellants and respondents receive a decision notice specifying the outcome and outlining the reasons for the decision. Both parties can then request an additional statement of reasons if they choose. We will continue to monitor outcomes data. However the parties have the greatest ability to influence outcomes and there are limits to what the tribunal can achieve.

Overall clearance times

Overall clearance time is defined as the amount of time between the day on which the appeal was received and the day the case reached an outcome. HMCTS aims to clear 75% of cases within 16 weeks. Of the appeals submitted between March and August 2021, including all benefit types and those submitted online and on paper, 59% reached the target with paper cases taking longer to be cleared. This is particularly an issue for the relatively small proportion of appeals which can only be submitted on paper (i.e., where SYA is not available), and where bulk scan functionality is not available. This includes, for example, appeals against local authorities for Housing benefit. The most common cause of complaints at the time of the assessment was ‘Delays’, further reinforcing the point about the impact of clearance times on users.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The reform programme was designed in part to reduce overall clearance times, for example, through the provision of SYA and bulk scan and continues to be a priority and HMCTS is implementing and investigating further actions to reduce postponements and adjournments. For example, we have reissued guidance to processing centres on how to report ‘accommodation issues’ which can cause postponements or adjournments (e.g., lack of technical equipment in a particular venue preventing a remote hearing). We are also investigating if it would be beneficial to provide additional guidance around providing medical evidence as some appellants may mistakenly believe that DWP sources medical evidence from their GP on their behalf. This is not the case and can lead to adjournments if the tribunal does not have the required evidence.

Clearance times by region and protected characteristics

Analysis of online PIP appeals submitted in 2021 shows minimal differences in clearance times by region for cases disposed without a hearing, but large differences for cases disposed with a hearing. For example, appeals in Scotland disposed with a hearing had much shorter clearance times than appeals with a hearing in London, the Midlands or the North West.

Region	Number of appeals in 2021	Mean clearance time (days)	Median clearance time (days)
London	2,962	161	131
Midlands	3,275	140	121
North West	2,506	169	143
Scotland	2,407	83	66

Figure 3: Clearance times by region for cases disposed with a hearing, for online PIP appeals received in 2021.

This means that region needs to be accounted for when analysing clearance times by protected characteristics, as we know that users with certain characteristics are more likely to reside in particular parts of the country. Any variation in case clearance times by protected characteristics could be driven, at least in part, by the regions in which users live.

However, after controlling for region, the analysis still showed differences in clearance times by protected characteristics. For example, within a number of regions the cases of those from an ethnic minority group and those whose main language is not English or Welsh took longer than appeals from white users and those whose main language was English or Welsh.

Region	Ethnicity	Number of cases	Mean clearance time (days)	Median clearance time (days)
London	White	373	149	128
London	Ethnic Minority	317	165	142
North West	White	659	167	144
North West	Ethnic Minority	74	200	180

Figure 4a: Clearance times by region and the ethnicity of the appellant, for cases disposed with a hearing, for online PIP appeals received in 2021.

Region	Main language	Number of cases	Mean clearance time (days)	Median clearance time (days)
London	English or Welsh	588	155	135
London	Other	155	170	143
North West	English or Welsh	720	168	147
North West	Other	35	188	162

Figure 4b: Clearance times by region and the main language of the appellant, for cases disposed with a hearing, for online PIP appeals received in 2021.

Next steps for HMCTS:

Additional analysis is underway to understand the root causes of the disparities by both region and protected characteristics. This may include primary research looking at samples of cases to understand at what stage(s) in the appellants’ journey cases take longer, and why.

Outcomes by protected characteristics

The analysis looked at outcomes for online PIP appeals submitted between March and August 2021 by protected characteristics. There was no evidence of differences in outcome by main language, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or sex. Differences were observed by marriage/civil partnership and age, but the effect size was small and did not warrant further investigation at this time.

Next steps for HMCTS:

We will continue to monitor this data closely for any substantial changes to understand if and when additional analysis is required.

---

[1] For more detail on the SSCS Reform programme see Fact sheet: Social security and child support tribunals - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[2] Data provided by DWP

[3] For more information on the geodemographic system used see 2011 residential-based area classifications - Office for National Statistics

[4] The digital completion rate (DCR) is the number of digital transactions that users complete as a percentage of all digital transactions that users start. Transactions will have clearly defined start and end points and considered as complete when someone finishes the task that the service provides. Users who do not met the eligibility criteria, therefore not progressing further into the service journey are not included in this calculation.

[5] For more detail see [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Census geography - Office for National Statistics (nationalarchives.gov.uk). Travel data is provided by Transport API. For further information see Credits – TransportAPI

4. Divorce

4.1 Introduction

The reformed divorce service was launched in March 2018 offering a widely available, end-to-end online application service.

In April 2022, a new no-fault divorce service was launched across England and Wales. This change ended the need for separating couples to apportion blame for the breakdown of their marriage, helping them to instead focus on key practical decisions involving children or their finances and look to the future.

The divorce access to justice assessment focused on the reformed fault-based service and a cohort of case receipts from October 2020 to March 2021 (inclusive). This was because the new no-fault divorce service was not yet live when the assessment was conducted. Following the assessment, further work has been undertaken, using data from the fault based and no-fault divorce services. The no-fault divorce service data was from April 2022 to June 2023 (inclusive).

Additionally, there are several caveats and data limitations that need to be considered when understanding the findings of the divorce A2J assessment.

• Protected characteristics questions data is only available for online, unrepresented applicants [1], with a response rate of around 50%
• There is no reliable proxy for legal need: We do not know which subset of the general population has a need for the divorce service so we cannot say whether the current user profile provides positive reassurance around level of access to justice.

4.2 Evidence of access to justice

Profile of users

The assessment did not find any evidence that any population groups are over or underrepresented in the service. The profile of users is similar to that for the adult population of England and Wales, but divorce users are more likely to be younger.

Outcomes and timeliness by protected characteristics

The assessment did not identify any differences in outcomes or timeliness in relation to sex, disability and age. However, differences were detected in relation to applications from users who were from an ethnic or religious minority, or where English or Welsh was not their main language (see next section).

Digital uptake

The assessment indicated that the reformed fault-based online service was widely available, widely used and performing well. The digital uptake, which is the proportion of applicants who choose to apply online, has been steadily rising from around 70% at the beginning of 2021, to nearly 90% in December 2021. Subsequent service performance monitoring has shown that the digital uptake of the no-fault divorce service is higher, with an average of 92% between April 2022 to March 2023. The increase in digital uptake can be understood as being driven by marketing campaigns which have stressed the simplicity of the online route, the mandating of the online route for solicitors in September 2021, and the roll out of the no-fault divorce service, as this further simplified the online process. The levels are high in relation to other HMCTS services and are evidence that the online service is widely accessible and widely used.

User experience

The findings of the assessment related to the exit survey should not be treated as generalisable to divorce users, as it has a completion rate of 2% and responses are from users who were self-motivated to complete the survey. However, of those that chose to complete the survey, 87% of respondents rated the online service extremely good or good, and 72% of respondents stated that the online service exceeded their expectations. Additionally, users who called the CTSC about their divorce and chose to complete the CTSC telephone survey showed a high level of user satisfaction. Over two thirds of users rated their call very good or good and felt that it was very easy or easy to get what they needed from their call.

Representation rates

Representation rates in divorce have been steadily reducing since 2018. The proportion of divorce cases where at least one party was represented ranged from 50-59% in 2018, to 35-40% in 2021. The average representation rate has continued to fall, and since the roll out of no-fault divorce is 28%, analysis shows that most represented divorce cases have an attached financial remedy case. A lower representation rate suggests that the service is simple and more accessible and is a positive indicator of access to justice.

4.3 Access to justice barriers

Timeliness of paper cases

The divorce A2J assessment of cases, under the previous system, found that the average monthly paper case duration to be consistently over 90 weeks for all cases which received their decree absolute between July 2021 and April 2022. In comparison, digital applications over a similar period took on average 23 weeks.

To improve the timeliness of paper applications, bulk scanning was implemented in the no-fault divorce service in April 2022. This process involves scanning the paper applications and uploading them onto the same platform that is used to process digital applications. From an administrative perspective, this means paper cases become digital. Further analysis conducted in 2023 found that the difference in average case duration from issue to final order had decreased, with paper applications taking 7 weeks longer than their digital counterparts. However, this figure is rising each month as more complex cases, which have been in the system longer are reaching final order stage and are contributing to the monthly timeliness averages.

We would expect paper cases to take slightly longer than digital cases to reach final order stage in the no-fault service, due to the time taken for users to post new forms for their conditional and final orders. However, the difference observed is higher than what we would expect and the reasons for this are still unclear.

Next steps for HMCTS:

To ensure access to justice for users of both the digital and paper channels, HMCTS will continue to monitor paper case duration, until it is possible to quantify the level of paper delay occurring in the no-fault service. Additionally, cohort analysis will be conducted for no-fault divorce cases and compared with fault-based digital cases. This will allow us to further understand delays between paper and digital applications. This is expected to be completed in 2024. Depending on the level of the delay, it may be necessary to conduct further investigations to understand the demographics of paper applicants and motivations for choosing the paper channel to make recommendations to improve access to justice.

Contact

Analysis of contact data, including calls, emails, complaints and digital user feedback, showed that users were finding it difficult to get in touch with HMCTS to get status updates on their case, and to get guidance on the application process.

This is potentially indicative of an access to justice issue, and so in early 2023, we conducted further analysis of the drivers of contact to understand the underlying reasons for these issues. This analysis found that over half of contact (57%) in the divorce service was concentrated at the post-submission stage of the process which can be broken down into two further stages:

• Firstly, the stage in which the applicant has submitted their divorce application but before the case has been issued was found to make up 26% contact. This was largely driven by a small number of user errors such as, missing documents, the quality of the uploaded marriage certificates, and discrepancies between the application form and the marriage certificate provided. When issues such as these are identified, users will need to contact HMCTS to provide corrections. It is also common that users going through this process are also contacting HMCTS for updates on their case, and with queries relating to guidance.
• The next stage of the process, in which the respondent is expected to complete the acknowledgement of service (AOS) form detailing how they wish to respond to the divorce application, was found to be driving around 31% of contact. This contact is largely being driven by users who have not got a response from the respondent, so have had to request a re-issue of the divorce papers or make an application for an alternative form of service[2]. The contact to the CTSC was found to be for guidance on how to progress their divorce or having to submit corrections because they have filled out their application for alternative service incorrectly. A high number of alternative service applications are returned to users for clarification due to errors, which in turn drives contact.

Next steps for HMCTS:

As a result of these findings, we have developed and are extending the current Citizens Hub [3], to include the post-submission pre-issue stage of the divorce process. It is expected this extension will be launched in 2024. This will allow users to submit the relevant corrections and clarifications to their divorce application digitally and remove the need to contact HMCTS by phone or email at the post-submission pre-issue stage of the process. We are also publishing improved guidance detailing the requirements for uploading documents, to improve the quality of uploads. This updated guidance will be available in 2024.

Additionally, we have altered internal processing procedures, so that applications that do not meet the quality standards can still progress by cross checking marriage certificates. Further investigation has been conducted into the process of proofing names, and we have redesigned the way in which we ask applicants about their full name, the new layout will be available for users in 2024.

To further understand the reasons why applicants and respondents are calling about the AOS stage, we are conducting a speech analytics project which will explore the recorded calls made by users to the CTSC. This will provide more information about why users call HMCTS and enable us to identify any improvements or service fixes needed. This is expected to be completed in 2023.

We are also exploring the option to digitise the journey where applicants receive no response from the respondent to their divorce application. The aim of digitising this part of the divorce process is to better guide users to make the correct application for their situation to progress their divorce. Clearer and more tailored questions, as well as additional content and validation on the screens should also help to reduce the user errors that are common in the paper versions of these applications.

Timeliness and outcome by protected characteristics

The divorce A2J assessment identified differences in the timeliness and outcomes of cases in which the applicant was from an ethnic minority or where English or Welsh was not their main language. Applicants with these characteristics were less likely to finalise their divorces and, on average had significantly longer case durations.

Stage of divorce reached	White applicants	Ethnic minority applicants
Decree Absolute	9136 (91%)	1282 (83%)
Decree Nisi only	424 (4%)	74 (4%)
Above stages not reached	443 (4%)	182 (12%)

Figure 5a: Divorce case stage reached split by the self-reported ethnicity of unrepresented, online applicants received between 1st October 2020 and 31st March 2021, data on case progress as of 8th August 2022.

Stage of divorce reached	White applicants	White applicants	Ethnic minority applicants	Ethnic minority applicants
—	Mean weeks	Median weeks	Mean weeks	Median weeks
Decree Absolute	21.5	15.1	24.5	16.7
Decree Nisi	11.1	8.1	15.1	9.6

Figure 5b: Time taken to reach divorce case stage split by the self-reported ethnicity of unrepresented, online applicants received between 1st October 2020 and 31st March 2021, data on case progress as of 8th August 2022.

To further understand these differences, additional analysis was conducted. A sample of 80 cases from applicants who identified as part of an ethnic minority were analysed, and primary research was carried out with operational staff. This research highlighted that there were a range of common issues that were more likely to affect ethnic minority user groups and suggest why the differences in timeliness and outcomes were identified. These issues include:

• How HMCTS handle cultural naming customs: Names and titles included in the application form must match what is listed on the marriage certificate provided. It was found that in some applications from ethnic minority users, different or additional names or titles had been included to what was listed on the marriage certificate (this is similar to the findings from the probate assessment).
• Multiple dates listed on marriage certificates: To process a divorce application, the date of the legally binding marriage is required. It was found that marriage certificates from ethnic minority applicants are more likely to have multiple dates listed, or not include any date of marriage.
• Location of marriage: There is currently no agreement on an accepted level of specificity around locations, and what is provided on foreign marriage certificates varies. They will often include the foreign body that approved the marriage but not the specific location where the marriage took place.
• Uploading certified translations of marriage certificates: When the original marriage certificate is not in English, users are required to upload a certified translation, along with their original copy. It was found that this task has an error rate of over 50% in the initial application, and it is suggested that errors are largely driven by what constitutes a certified translation, how to obtain one and where to submit it to.
• Serving respondents: Under the new no-fault divorce service, it is the applicant’s responsibility to serve the respondent if they have indicated in the initial application that the respondent resides abroad. The protocol on the ways this can be done are complicated, and varies by country, with the available online guidance difficult to navigate.
• Providing official documentation: In divorce applications, applicants are required to upload a copy of their marriage certificate and official documentation explaining any name changes since marriage, for example a deed poll. If these were originally issued in the UK, HMCTS can advise users on how duplicates can be obtained. However, due to local variations are unable to do this for documentation issued by foreign bodies. Additionally, some foreign bodies will not issue additional copies.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The additional analysis has provided the insight into the reasons for the differences in timeliness and outcome for some divorce applicants, so we are working towards service fixes to specifically address these issues. We are undertaking an exploration of current guidance to understand how this can be improved to reduce the issues with uploading certified translations, this is expected to be started in 2024. We are also improving the internal procedural guidance, to ensure that all HMCTS staff are consistently proofing foreign marriage certificates. This is also expected to be completed in 2024.

---

[1] Under the fault based reformed digital service those who applied for divorce were understood as petitioners, however under the no-fault divorce service they are understood as applicants. For ease, in this report when we refer to applicants, we mean users who have applied for divorce under both the fault based and no-fault divorce services.

[2] An application for an alternative form of service is used when the respondent to a divorce application is not contactable by conventional means

[3] The divorce citizen hub is a public facing online platform which is centred around providing, primarily, unrepresented citizens with the ability to “self-serve” - that is, to be able to take specific actions related to a case. This includes completing their conditional order and final order applications

5. Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC)

5.1 Introduction

OCMC was launched in March 2018 as part of the HMCTS Reform Programme and enables users to make or defend a civil money claim online. The service was initially available for cases where there was only one claimant and one defendant and neither party is represented, and where the claim value is under £10,000. In May 2022, the eligibility criteria were expanded to include legal representatives of claimants with claims under £25,000.

At the time of the assessment OCMC did not provide an end-to-end civil money claims service. However, the OCMC A2J assessment did focus on the whole journey for cases that had been started through the OCMC service. Additionally, at the time of the assessment the service was only available for unrepresented users with claims under £10,000. Therefore, these findings only relate to cases with these specifics.

5.2 Evidence of access to justice

There are two information gaps that limit the OCMC assessment of access to justice, relative to the other assessments in probate, divorce and SSCS:

• There is no reliable proxy for legal need: We do not know which subset of the general population has a greater need to be making civil money claims, so we cannot say whether the current user profile provides positive reassurance around levels of access to justice.
• There are unknown outcomes for substantial sets of claims: OCMC cases can be settled out of court without HMCTS being notified, meaning case disposal information is not comprehensive. The set of cases with an unknown outcome may include cases which have settled, cases where the claimant may have wanted to pursue a default judgment but were not able to due to service issues, but this is not known. As such this introduces a potential source of bias when we attempt to assess variations in known case outcomes or case timeliness by user characteristics.

Profile of users

In the context of these information gaps, the findings of the assessment do not evidence any obvious indications that any population groups are over or underrepresented in the service, as the profile of claimants and engaged defendants is broadly similar to the population of England and Wales aged 16 and over.

Outcomes by protected characteristics

The assessment did not identify any substantial differences in case outcomes by protected characteristics. However, the analysis cannot be interpreted as being conclusive, given the large proportion of cases with unknown outcomes.

User experience

The findings of the assessment related to the exit survey should not be treated as generalisable to OCMC users, as it has a completion rate of 4% and the responses are from users who were self-motivated to complete the survey. However, of those that chose to complete the survey 86% of respondents reported that they did not need help with using OCMC. Additionally, 18% of responses consisted of constructive criticisms of OCMC, with the remaining 82% consisting of praise or no further comments. This suggests that users do not have difficulty with using the service.

5.3 Evidence of potential access to justice barriers

Defendant Engagement

In the period September 2020 to January 2021, 70% of cases received no formal response to the court from the defendant. This has remained fairly consistent up to 2023. However, it is unclear why so many defendants do not respond to the claim, so we cannot be certain that the low levels of engagement indicate barriers to engagement.

Next steps for HMCTS:

To understand why some defendants do not engage with their case, we are going to conduct primary research with unengaged defendants of money claims. Once we have this understanding, if barriers are identified, we will work on improvements to the service to reduce the barriers. This work is scheduled to begin at the end of 2023.

Digital Completion

The digital completion rate (DCR)[1] for OCMC is under 50%, which, when compared to other services, is relatively low. SSCS has a DCR of around 85% and probate around 90%. A low completion rate could mean that users are unable to, or have decided not to, complete their digital task or application.

When considering the DCR for OCMC, it is important to consider that when users start a civil money claim through OCMC they are encouraged to consider mediation, and to resolve their dispute by other means. Therefore, if other routes are successful, this can result in them not completing the claim. This makes it difficult to accurately compare the DCR with other services, where processes are different. This does not rule out the possibility that there could be a usability issue with OCMC for some users. This could be due to factors like technical issues, difficulty understanding the content, difficulty supplying the required information, or deciding not to continue with the claim for other reasons. We were also able to identify that 13 out of the 441 complaints analysed were regarding errors on forms.

Next steps for HMCTS:

Through combining performance data from Google analytics[2] with contact data, in-page and exit survey feedback and speech analytics, we will be able to investigate the user journey and get a greater understanding of issues. From here we will be able to make decisions about what modifications to content, guidance and signposting can be put in place to increase user engagement and potentially the Digital Completion Rate. This work is due to be completed by early 2024.

Timeliness by protected characteristics

There are unknown outcomes for substantial sets of OCMC claims. The set of cases with an unknown outcome may include cases which have settled out of court, or cases where the claimant wanted to pursue a default judgment but were not able to due to service issues. This makes interpreting case timeliness difficult. So, the analysis initially focused on the time taken for cases to reach successful meditation or a default judgment. The average time to successful mediation and default judgment was similar when considered by the ethnicity of the claimant. The differences in the average (mean) times below are not statistically significant. This means that differences of this scale are likely to be observed even if there is no relationship between user characteristics and timeliness.

Mediation	N cases/claimants	Median Days	Mean Days
Ethnic Minority claimants	85	44	46
White claimants	626	42	48

Figure 6a: Time taken to reach Successful Mediation split by the self-reported ethnicity of unrepresented, online claimants received between September 2020 and January 2021.

Default Judgment	N cases/claimants	Median Days	Mean Days
Ethnic Minority claimants	384	23	38
White claimants	2234	23	41

Figure 6b: Time taken to reach Default Judgement split by the self-reported ethnicity of unrepresented, online claimants received between September 2020 and January 2021.

By contrast, there were significant differences in the average time taken to reach a full first hearing, with cases taking 37 days longer on average to reach this stage if the claimant was from an ethnic minority group, than those from white claimants.

First Full Hearing	N cases/claimants	Median Days	Mean Days
Ethnic Minority claimants	188	260	286
White claimants	973	208	249

Figure 6c: Time taken to reach first full hearing split by the self-reported ethnicity of unrepresented, online claimants received between September 2020 and January 2021

Next steps for HMCTS:

We will be further investigating the data to understand if there are additional contextual factors driving the differences, such as region, which we have seen previously in HMCTS outcome data. However, given the data limitations already discussed we may not be able to definitively answer the question as to whether a barrier exists or not, but we have chosen to include the finding here for transparency. This work is due to be completed by March 2024.

Issues with available guidance

There was evidence which suggested that current available guidance on GOV.UK could be improved. Court and Tribunals Service Centres (CTSC) call data showed that approximately 54% of calls made by OCMC claimants, and 45% of calls from OCMC defendants were for how-to guidance. Additionally, research conducted with 11 Query Management and Case Administration Officers (QMCAs) at the CTSCs also echoed issues around guidance, as participants felt that they needed to give more guidance to users than was available online. However, the majority (10 out of 11) of participants felt that most users had not read or understood the guidance before calling. This suggests that there might be a deeper underlying issue, such as users preferring to receive their guidance through routes alternative to GOV.UK.

A specific lack of guidance around the different type of court fees was found, as current GOV.UK guidance only details the costs associated with the application fee. Analysis showed that 26 out of the 441 complaints analysed were about fees users needed to pay in addition to the initial application fee. These included paying additional fees to amend forms, as well as hearing and listing fees. This created the perception that the cost of an online civil money claim was increasing beyond users’ expectations. The responses in the exit survey also highlighted the need for better guidance, with 43 of the 189 constructive criticisms mentioning issues around needing guidance on the various court fees involved in the process, the different stages within the OCMC court process and on calculating interest rates.

In addition to the evidence suggesting there is a lack of guidance, it was found that some users are waiting longer than expected for a response to a query for advice that cannot be easily located on GOV.UK or in web searches. 85 out of 441 Civil Money Claims complaints that could be identified as related to OCMC cases received from claimants and defendants were complaints about how long they had to wait for HMCTS to respond to them. This included call queue times and responses to their emails. Wait times that exceeded users’ expectations were a major pain point for users as they were contacting HMCTS to seek support or guidance on responding to a court order, clarify correspondence they had received (i.e., hearing date) or missing or conflicting information (i.e., two hearing dates or if they did not receive any joining instructions for a remote hearing), or to get an update on their case.

Next steps for HMCTS:

Based on these findings we are working to improve the content and signposting of ‘how-to’ guidance pages on GOV.UK. Additionally, we have developed our Signposting Strategy in which we set out how we support users who need it, to external support organisations. As part of this we are looking to include signposting across channels including our written content. We are also conducting a content audit on the various guidance published on GOV.UK. To understand what information users are looking for, including what search terms they are inputting online, and any barriers they may face, we are carrying out user testing of the guidance and exploring the Google analytics data. This will help us to understand the best ways to improve the guidance.

Functionalities of OCMC

OCMC lacks some of the key functionalities required by organisations [3] (as opposed to individuals). In April 2022, we conducted 12 in depth interviews with organisations who could have submitted their cases through OCMC but used alternative routes, and we conducted 10 interviews with organisations who used OCMC. The aim of the interviews was to understand why organisations who could be submitting a claim via OCMC were instead submitting their claim via another route (e.g., Money Claims Online, the legacy digital system). The main issues identified were:

• There is a lack of company log in, allowing for multiple users within an organisation and saving the company details.
• Having to repeatedly complete the eligibility questions, even after users are confident they know which claims can be issued on OCMC
• A lack of notification or nudges for key dates, e.g., when a case is eligible for a default judgment. Which means organisations need to manually check their cases, and so like MCOL users they have developed internal systems to manage and monitor their cases outside of OCMC
• When users have large numbers of claims, the lack of a search or filter function makes it very tricky to find a specific case out of the many they have issued
• Users end up completing a part-digital part-paper journey which both confused and frustrated users

Next steps for HMCTS:

Further analysis has been conducted to understand how to implement new and improve existing functionalities within OCMC. Additionally, we are planning to expand the MyHMCTS platform to allow non legal professionals to access and create claims via this route. These new functionalities will be available for users as the MyHMCTS platform continues to be rolled out.

Accessibility of OCMC

At the time of the assessment, it was found that the published accessibility statement for OCMC was out of date, meaning that the service was not compliant with the Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Requirements (PSBAR), despite the service being believed to be compliant with the WCAG2.1 AA standard. Although OCMC is compliant with WCAG2.1 AA standard, there are outstanding accessibility issues with certain emails. This means the accessibility statement has to say that the service as a whole is only partially compliant with WCAG2.1 AA.  

Next steps for HMCTS:

Based on this finding, HMCTS has now updated the published accessibility statement for OCMC [4], and are working to fix the outstanding issues with emails, this is expected to be completed by early 2024.

---

[1] The digital completion rate (DCR) is the number of digital transactions that users complete as a percentage of all digital transactions that users start. Transactions will have clearly defined start and end points and considered as complete when someone finishes the task that the service provides. Users who do not met the eligibility criteria, therefore not progressing further into the service journey are not included in this calculation.

[2] Google analytics are a tool that tacks and reports website traffic which allows us to understand user behaviour and improve our online customer journeys

[3] In this context, organisations refer to anyone who is not an individual citizen, this could include sole traders and larger businesses

[4] https://www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk/accessibility-statement

6. Summary and next steps

The four completed access to justice assessments have enabled HMCTS to identify A2J barriers that would have otherwise been unknown, as well as providing additional evidence for known areas for improvement. For every barrier that has been identified HMCTS has been able to develop a next step to understand the underlying cause (e.g., primary research to understand low defendant engagement in OCMC) or to identify a change to the service that we believe will reduce that barrier (e.g., updating guidance for probate users around the requirements for names). Furthermore, the assessments highlight areas where access to justice is being delivered and where access to justice has been improved and we will provide updates on this ongoing improvement work in the next publication and will continue to monitor A2J related data to improve our services.

These assessments are one of many ways in which A2J issues are identified and fixed. All the services regularly monitor a wide set of performance data which cover some of the same sources as the A2J assessments. This regular monitoring includes activity to understand why users might be complaining to us, or why cases are taking a long time to resolve. In both cases the same teams across HMCTS that undertake the A2J assessment are responsible for analysing the data and making decisions about changes and improvements to the service. This ensures that the evidence can be used in the most efficient and effective way.

The evidence from the assessments has highlighted the importance of collecting protected characteristics data. Notably the probate and divorce assessments showed commonalities in differences by ethnicity which we now understand to be driven by case processing complexity and the handling of aspects such as naming conventions. By identifying these barriers and understanding the underlying causes we have been able to recommend service improvements including improved guidance for users which we will monitor to understand if access to justice is improved. These findings also provide learnings for future service design and testing to ensure we have services, processes and guidance free of the barriers that disproportionately affect users with protected characteristics.

In SSCS and OCMC we are at an earlier stage of resolving the access to justice barriers and have work underway to try and better understand the differences in case timeliness by ethnicity but will be following the same processes as in probate and divorce and will report on updates when we publish the next assessments.

The assessments also highlighted some clear evidence gaps primarily around the user experience after the application process as well as measures around fairness, trust, confidence and motivation which are critical to understanding access to justice. To address these gaps we are reviewing options for how we can understand users experience at the end of their case.

Over the next two years we will complete up to six more assessments as services are reformed, protected characteristics data is collected and enough cases reach completion for robust analysis. These assessments will also be published as will regular updates on the protected characteristics data. We have yet to decide how often and when the completed analysis will be repeated but the assessments will not be one-off pieces of work.

Finally, we are one of the few, if not the only country to be assessing access to justice in its court services in this way including the use of protected characteristics data. This has been recognised by the OECD, with whom we are exploring options to publish a joint document outlining our approach, for use by other OECD members.

If you want to know more please contact us at hmctsinsight@justice.gov.uk

Annex A

A2J Framework

The access to justice assessment consists of a series of questions under each of the four elements of the definition. The following A2J questions are explored where relevant for each service:

1. Access to the formal legal system

a. Is the volume and profile of users broadly what we would expect?

b. Is there any evidence that certain users may be excluded?

c. Is the service completed accurately?

d. What is the cost and effort involved with accessing the service?

e. What are the difficulties for users seeking to access the service?

2. Access to a fair and effective hearing

a. How many users reach the hearing stage? What types of people and claims drop out of the process prior to hearing?

b. How well do users engage in the process?

c. Do users engage with external sources of help and support to navigate the process?

d. Is the process fair and what is the user experience?

3. Access to a decision

a. How long does it take to secure a decision?

b. What types of users and cases secure a decision?

c. What types of decision do they secure?

d. What is the user experience of accessing a decision?

4. Access to a remedy

a. What proportion of users who file a claim go on to secure the remedy?

b. Are different types of users more or less likely to secure the remedy than others?

c. How long does it take from the time a user secures a decision to the time they secure a remedy?

d. What is the user experience of accessing a remedy?