I have just seen the most amazing document. It is a Central London County Court order, dated 11 November 1993, following an application dated 10 November 1993.


Contrast this with recent experience. In the same court, an application for a consent order was filed on 23 April 2008. At the time of writing, 5 June, it has not been processed in spite of telephone enquiries and reminder letters. In the same court, a claim for possession was filed on 23 May but again, in spite of telephone enquiries, no acknowledgement has yet been received.



The Central London County Court does not appear to be alone in its inability to process its business with any sense of urgency. On 1 April 2008, following a hearing at Willesden County Court and an order settled by counsel, the sealed order has still not been received. This is in spite of a number of enquiries. In the same proceedings, an earlier 'case management conference' was a total waste of time, because the court had forgotten to serve the notice of hearing on the other parties.



At Edmonton County Court, the parties' solicitors were directed to attend a 'case management conference'. At this meeting, both parties were told the matter (concerning the renewal of three separate shop leases) was 'bog standard' and had not required our attendance. A draft consent order was approved, subject only to the additional requirement of paying £100 for the privilege of filing a pre-trial checklist and £1,000 for a hearing fee.



In a recent application to Barnet County Court for a new tenancy, the court declined jurisdiction on the grounds that the premises were outside its area. Subsequently, just before the expiry of the applicable time- limit, it accepted that it had made a mistake and accepted jurisdiction.



In Wandsworth County Court, the parties' solicitors were required to attend a case management conference, only then to be told by the district judge that she had it listed as a telephone conference. Of course, neither of the parties had been so informed.



These are just some random examples of what appears to be the total incompetence of the county courts in respect of their ability to conduct business in an acceptable way. We are told by our professional body how we must 'kowtow' to clients, and in particular inform them how to complain if the 'service' is in any way 'inadequate'. It is about time that the courts got their act together so that the appropriate level of service can be 'delivered'.



The matters referred to concern considerable sums of money but unfortunately this seems to have little bearing on the way the courts are run. While the judges are, in general, persons of integrity and competence, the staff on whom they have to rely are, for whatever reason, totally unable to cope.



I am sure that my experience is not unique. The deficiencies in the court systems should be remedied as a matter of urgency.



Stuart Killen, David Wineman, London