Charter for court usersFollowing the launch of the Court Service in April 1995, its flagship document, the Charter for Court Users, was published.

A survey of court users had indicated what information people coming to court would find most useful and so the charter set out what the agency intended to do to make the system friendly and effective.

This was felt to be particularly important for people having to come to court for the first time.

The charter explained the standards users could expect from an efficiently managed service and also offered a means of focusing on the quality of service, a priority for any organisation which aims to be efficient in the way that it is run.How to complainThe Court Service aims to adopt a professional and consistent approach to complaints handling.

The leaflet 'I want to complain' (available in any court) explain s what to do if things go wrong:-- The first stage is to complain directly to the court manager, who is best placed to put things right and provide a prompt reply;-- If you are unhappy with the response from the court, ask the group manager (a role which has replaced the courts administrator) to investigate;-- Finally, the customer service unit, in Court Service headquarters, promises to make an independent investigation, if you still remain unhappy.There are, however, exceptions.

When a complaint is made by or through an MP, MEP or Peer, the chief executive of the Court Service replies personally.

A complaint about the personal conduct of a judge (for example that a judge was rude or offensive) should be addressed to the Lord Chancellor at the House of Lords.

However, because the judiciary is constitutionally independent, the Lord Chancellor cannot investigate complaints about judicial decisions.

When complaints are made about judges' decisions, all any government official can suggest is that a party considers the possibility of appealing against the decision.Claims for compensationClaims for compensation are normally dealt with first by the group manager's office.

If unhappy with the outcome of that investigation, claimants can ask the customer service unit to review it.

Claims where the advice of the lawyers of the Lord Chancellor's Department is likely to be needed, or a large offer of compensation is likely to be recommended, will also be passed to the unit.

If the court service cannot resolve a claim satisfactorily, claimants can ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA), through any MP, to look into it.Claims for compensation have to be considered in line with Treasury guidelines.

The overriding principle, where there has been an error leading directly to financial loss, is that the claimant should be restored to the position they would have been in had the maladministration not occurred.

This means that when assessing a claim, the Court Service needs to be satisfied that both criteria are met: first, that there was maladministration; secondly, that it led directly to financial loss (although some claims for non-financial loss can also be considered, for example the distress caused by wrongful imprisonment).Common types of claimsThe single biggest category of claims for compensation is costs arising from adjourned hearings.

Solicitors and other users often express concern about the judicial role in listing.

Listing is a judicial function and a listing officer acts under the general or specific guidance of a judge.

However, this does not justify a blanket refusal of all claims for abortive hearings.

For example, where the listing officer has acted outside the judicial guidelines, an offer may be appropriate.

There is also the purely administrative aspect of listing and examples of where compensation may be appropriate are:-- a part-heard case being listed before the wrong judge;-- the notice of hearing being sent to one party only;-- the parties not being notified of a cancellation/adjournment when there has been a reasonable opportunity to do so.So far as the actual list is concerned, all courts list more cases than can be heard in a day because of the rate of settlement and the inexact nature of time estimates.

There are also significant regional variations in the rate of settlement and these have to be reflected in the listing practices to maximise use of judicial time.

The approach taken where 'overlisting' is alleged is to assess whether a properly trained listing officer could reasonably have expected all the cases in the list to be heard.

Other factors are that urgent applications, particularly in family cases, often have to be added to a list at short notice, or that previous hearings may overrun.Other areas where compensation may be offered include:-- the court not listing applications promptly;-- not noting a defence being filed and therefore allowing judgment by default to be entered in error;-- wrongful arrest/imprisonment caused by an administrative mistake, for instance when court orders are drawn up inaccurately or are not sent as promptly as they should be;-- the court misinforming the parties about an automatic directions timetable (although the extent of the Court Service's liability will depend on the circumstances of each case);-- costs incurred that can be attributed to delays caused by files that go missing, in particular when transferred between courts.Claims about enforcement are often difficult to resolve.

Given that the courts can never guarantee repayment of a civil debt, the Court Service needs to be satisfied that there was a reasonable prospect of enforcement succeeding had the court handled the matter as promptly or efficiently as possible.If for instance a claimant says they are not now able to enforce a debt since the debtor has gone into bankruptcy, there must be some doubt that the debt could ever have been enforced successfully.Improving the serviceThe Court Service monitors the number of complaints and claims for compensation in particular areas of work and geographical areas.

CaseMan, the county court case management system, has replaced manual records and produces orders and notices.

Understandably, solicitors often express concern when files or record cards are misplaced but the new system will reduce the likelihood of this.

It will also prevent some of the errors that lead to judgments being wrongfully registered.The Charter for Court Users, available from Court Service offices, is being reviewed and a revised version is expected to be published later this year.

Following consultation with those who use the courts and representative organisations, including the Law Society, a sample charter has been produced with a section aimed at the legal profession.

Copies of the proposed charter are available from the customer service unit, The Court Service, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT; telephone: 0171 210 2269.Suzanne Burn, the Law Society's civil litigation committee secretary, may also be able to assist and make representations on your behalf; telephone: 0171 320 5739.To make a complaint about the personal conduct of a member of the judiciary, write to: The Lord Chancellor, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.