County Courts - The erosion of customer service.

I am currently dealing with a matrimonial case in the Family Court at Canterbury and tucked in with the latest order was a circular which said as follows:

 

“Please note that from 6^th May 2014 the court counter will shut.  You may however book an appointment to see a member of staff by dialling 01227 819267.  However, appointments will only be given for:- Applications for non-molestations and applications relating to removal or abduction of children.  If your enquiry does not fit the above, then please telephone the Court on 01227 819200 or, alternatively, email family@canterbury.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk.  There is a secure letterbox for dropping documents off at the front of the building (outside).  Appointments can be made Monday to Friday between 10am and 2pm.  Appointments will NOT be given for:- paying a fee, case specific enquiries, general enquiries, lodgement of documents, issuing applications, issuing divorce proceedings, issuing private law proceedings and collecting forms and orders”.

 

This mirrors similar arrangements which have been implemented by County Courts across the country but once again made me ponder whether there is any other service industry (which is what the County Court system is!) which operates at a profit but which provides such limited support to users.  I appreciate that staff cutbacks have made it difficult to maintain adequate counter staff, but is this level of service satisfactory.  In my previous item I commented on the challenge posed by litigants in person.  It seems to me unsatisfactory that they are expected to complete often complex forms and then are not able to hand deliver them so that they can be checked by court staff to ensure that everything is in order rather than waiting for the forms to be eventually returned by post if there is a problem.  For firms like ours we are regularly  required to issue on an urgent basis protective proceedings either where clients are seeking a lease extension under the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 or a new business tenancy under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 where significant rights can be lost if the prescribed deadline for the issue of protective proceedings is missed.  It is inevitable that on occasions we receive instructions to issue at short notice and whereas historically we would arrange for such applications to be hand delivered so that the court staff could check and issue the proceedings while we waited, this option is no longer available.  We have to simply deliver the documentation which may need to be dealt with on that day and then hope that everything is in order.  It means ensuring that the staff submitting these applications are on top of the relevant rules to avoid problems occurring is very important.  It still leaves the question as to why regular users of a service industry of this kind cannot expect the service to reflect their reasonable needs.  I would also query why the timescale for appointments on a daily basis has to be so limited bearing in mind the very small number of applications which will now result in an appointment being allocated.  The staff are after all in the building.  Is it really so difficult to ensure that a time is allocated which is convenient to the users paying for the service?  In the long term time and costs can be saved by ensuring that reasonable and adequate support is available and easily accessible to litigants in person as well as assisting lawyers who continue to endeavour to deal with litigation as efficiently and economically as possible.