Review of digital reform of tribunals highlights challenges for Immigration and Asylum Chamber amid rising caseloads

Digital Reform and the Tribunal
User Experience in the Modernised
Tribunal Service

March 2026

A Report by the Digitisation Working Group
of the Administrative Justice Council

[…]

6.2 First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

The Working Group has drawn on five sources in examining this jurisdiction: the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Reformed Service: Evaluation Report (January 2025); [17] interviews with judicial leadership, including a salaried tribunal judge and reform lead, as well as a meeting with the resident judge overseeing the Virtual Region, conducted in December 2024; a focus group with senior legal officers, held in February 2025; an interview with a HMCTS technology service lead, and responses to the Call for Evidence.

Over the course of 2023 and 2024, the FTTIAC experienced a marked increase in workload. In 2024/25, receipts increased by an average of 36% to 79,000, compared to 2023/24. Receipts in Q4 of 2024/25 increased by 45% compared to the same period in 2023/24. In January to March 2025, FTTIAC disposals increased by 15% to 11,000, but receipts continued to outpace disposals, contributing to a sharp rise in the open caseload.

By March 2025, the FTTIAC's open caseload had grown by 81%, reaching 79,000 cases – the largest proportional increase among all major tribunal jurisdictions. This growth has occurred since the period covered by the 2025 evaluation report and reflects both the Home Office's clearance of legacy asylum cases and an increase in Human Rights appeals. The resulting pressures on judicial and administrative capacity have been intensified by growing clearance times, with the average time to disposal across all case types reaching 49 weeks.

A) Immigration and Asylum Appeals Reformed Service: Evaluation Report

The Immigration and Asylum Appeals Reformed Service: Evaluation Report, published in January 2025 (the 'HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report') was based on interviews conducted between December 2022 and March 2023. It assessed both the legally represented and Appellant in Person (AiP) services following digital reform.

AiPs were generally positive about the concept of a digital process. They described the online appeal form as clear and accessible, with minimal jargon. Many appreciated being able to track their case digitally, avoid postal delays, and express their case in their own words. Judges were frequently described as polite and understanding, and tribunal independence was noted as a source of trust for some appellants.

However, the report also identified substantial barriers for AiPs, particularly those with limited English or digital literacy. Many AiPs struggled with uploading documents, structuring evidence, or understanding how to respond to Home Office refusal points. Some cases were taken offline due to technical issues or user error, and in April-May 2025 4% (around 9,000 cases) of AiP cases submitted online were subsequently removed from the online service. This undermined the ability to assess timeliness and outcomes for this cohort.

While many AiPs reported confidence in representing themselves, the report highlights risks of unequal access to justice, especially for those without strong written English or familiarity with the system. These concerns frame the context in which the Working Group conducted its more recent inquiry.

B) Insights from Judicial Leadership

This section summarises findings from an interview with the judicial lead for reform in the FTTIAC. His reflections provide insight into the ongoing operational and digital challenges facing the Chamber, while recognising the many opportunities created by reform and contextualising earlier findings from the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report. The judge's account also sheds light on the impact of sharply rising case volumes in 2023 and 2024, as reported in the most recent official statistics.

Positive Developments

The judge reported that the Reform Programme has introduced several significant improvements to the case management process. The Chamber now uses the MyHMCTS platform, which provides a searchable digital case file. For judges, this represents a major advance over previously paper-based or fragmented digital systems. The system is broadly stable and facilitates efficient case access.

ListAssist, the automated listing tool, has also been successfully rolled out for bail and standard appeals, allowing judges to view their digital caseload and plan their work. Judges also benefit from structured processes for triaging urgent or complex cases. In high-volume areas such as asylum appeals, the platform enables more consistent workflows and better information flow between the judiciary and administrative teams.

In terms of user interface, a distinct online path has been developed for AiPs, referred to internally as 'Litigants in Person and the LiP journey'. This version uses simplified language and presents the appeal process in an accessible format. The aim is to enable unrepresented appellants to complete and track their appeals more easily, echoing positive feedback from the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report, where many AiPs reported that the online form was clear and helped them express their case.

The Virtual Region (see p38), administered in Manchester, allows certain straightforward cases to be transferred from their originating hearing centre to a remote setting. It is seen as being a flexible and resource-efficient model.

Ongoing Challenges

Despite these improvements, a number of serious pressures remain. The system is under significant strain from rising case volumes, consistent with the reported 81% increase in open caseload during 2023–2024. The capacity of legal officers – key to managing routine interlocutory matters – has not kept pace with demand. There are marked regional differences in legal officer confidence and output, resulting in inconsistent quality and delays.

There has also been a drop in representation rates, which may be due to a combination of legal aid restrictions and cost pressures on providers. This reflects concerns raised in the evaluation report, particularly around AiPs struggling to navigate procedural requirements or respond to Home Office refusal points.

A major practical difficulty concerns the preparation of bundles, especially in unrepresented cases. Many AiPs submit disorganised or poorly formatted evidence, and judges often receive multiple sequential bundles from different parties with little alignment between them. Although some legal officers attempt to assist with collation, this is not always feasible due to the volume of work. The result is a procedural burden that sits disproportionately on judges.

Guidance on working arrangements in tribunals from the then Senior President, issued on 22 October 2024, sets out the preference for in-person hearings in FTTIAC cases, particularly where credibility is central. [18] While this is supported in principle, it was considered that it limits flexibility in listing and may not always reflect the practical constraints of remote users or judicial availability. That said, the Virtual region provides some flexibility.

A number of issues have arisen with MyHMCTS including issues concerning notifications and issues concerning the visibility of documents for users.

Finally, integration between the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal remains underdeveloped. Despite operating in the same jurisdictional space, the two tiers rely on separate digital systems (CE-files in the Upper Tribunal), with key documents such as grant or refusal notices not easily transferable. This creates inefficiencies, especially in appeals on points of law.

C) Insights from Legal Officers

This section draws on the views of senior and frontline legal officers in the IAC, expressed during a focus group held in February 2025. Their insights complement those of judicial leadership and provide an operational perspective on the implementation and ongoing use of the digital case management system (CCD). The discussion highlights both the system's evolution and the structural limitations, which continue to affect efficiency and user experience, particularly for AiPs.

Positive Developments

Legal officers reported that the digital platform (CCD/MyHMCTS) has improved considerably since its initial release, which was described as a 'minimum viable product' that lacked essential functionality. The system now offers integrated task lists, chronological case histories, and a portal-based interface that allows for direct interaction with other parties. For Legal officers, this has made routine case progression more structured and predictable. Judges also benefit from better visibility over the case management journey than under previous paper-based or email-driven systems.

The ListAssist tool has been positively received in those hearing centres where it has been implemented, such as Manchester and Glasgow. It supports the listing of appeals in a more automated and transparent manner. The integrated system also includes a Respondent Review stage, encouraging the Home Office to reassess its decision before the hearing, potentially avoiding unnecessary judicial time when agreement can be reached. At the time of the meeting, HMCTS reported that ListAssist was due to be rolled out to the Virtual Region in July 2025.

Ongoing Challenges

Despite these improvements, Legal officers identified a series of persistent operational and design challenges.

A key limitation is the inability to edit data-entry mistakes or withdraw directions once issued. If an error is made, a ticket must be raised and actioned externally, leading to inefficiencies, although plans are in place for administrative staff to make the changes. Similarly, the system's text-entry fields do not support paragraph formatting, which creates long blocks of dense text, particularly problematic for applicants with limited English. While the system is built to enhance access to justice, this design feature undermines clarity and understanding.

Legal officers also explained that they had to devote too much time to checking Home Office bundles to ensure the correct certificates have been produced or to remove inappropriate formats of evidence. This added to case waiting times and prevented them from undertaking functions delegated from the judges.

Another key theme was the lack of transparency about user interfaces. Legal officers do not know what AiPs or legal representatives see on their version of the portal. This disconnect makes it difficult to offer effective guidance or draft accessible directions. Although they have repeatedly requested screenshots or interface overviews from HMCTS, they have not received these, and the issue has persisted for several years. In contrast, under the legacy system, tribunal users and staff could see essentially the same interface.

Legal officers also reported that many of the same technical and procedural vulnerabilities identified in the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report remain unresolved. The report reveals that AiP cases must be moved offline because users are unable to comply with digital procedural steps, make data-entry mistakes, or fail to engage once representatives withdraw. In such cases, the appellant often cannot resume digital access independently. This was also identified as an issue in HMCTS Access to Justice assessments, where it was noted that:

'This can have access to justice implications as there can be a delay whilst the case is moved offline, and the user will then no longer benefit from the expected advantages of the online service'. [19]

This has since been improved and cases taken offline have decreased to 4% in April/May 2025. However, even now, 4–5 years after implementation, workarounds remain necessary to progress basic casework.

The legal officer group also highlighted that the volume of appeals has escalated sharply, in line with recent official statistics. One team reported 19,000 outstanding tasks and only 20 staff members, making it impossible to prioritise cases unless there is a clear risk of immediate harm. This reinforces earlier points made by the Reform Lead judge about the scale of pressure on legal officer teams and the consequences for timely decision-making.

D) Insights from the Call for Evidence

Call for Evidence responses regarding the FTTIAC came from a mix of advisers, representatives and one judge. To avoid identification, this section considers their contributions collectively. Participants' overall view of the impact of digitisation on efficiency was mixed, shown in the figure below, taken from materials produced by the consultancy that led the Call for Evidence.

[…]

Figure 2. Participant's quotes on digitisation

Reflections on the pre-hearing process

These participants expressed a consistently negative view of digitisation in the stages prior to the hearing in their free-text responses. The major challenges at the pre-hearing stage primarily concern the justice system itself and the specific disadvantages that appellants in the FTTIAC face, rather than technology specific challenges. Challenges include:

Reflections on Online Hearings

Comments around the digital challenges associated with online hearings were far more mixed. These comments cut across the technology itself, the appellants' ability to use it well, and the ways in which tribunals and others used it. A positive aspect of video hearings reported was that many participants are familiar with videoconferencing software (for example, using it to engage with family or friends), meaning that the medium can be less 'unusual' than a courtroom experience. Areas for development, however, are detailed below:

● Appellants may not have the necessary technology to take part effectively, so technological support can be necessary. Poor access to technology can undermine privacy.

● Technical issues persist (though they appear less frequent than during the COVID-19 period). This has a flow-on effect on experience and timelines.

● The call experience, including seeing several participants at once, can be challenging.

● Video calls can make it harder for tribunal members and representatives to understand a person's mental state.

● Link distribution does not always go well (for example, links may not be sent or sent to the wrong person).

● Receiving support from an interpreter.

● Communicating privately with other people who are in the hearing

● Cases with credibility issues can be held remotely, restricting the judge from being able to assess whether the appellant can be believed.

E) Insights from the Home Office

This section outlines insights gathered from two senior appeal officials at the Home Office (HO) in meetings during February and March 2025. Both had been involved with the design and delivery of the Reformed FTTIAC since the outset of the Reform Programme. They were very enthusiastic about the reformed system and processes. They reported that changes to HO working that have come about are significant and the impact is very positive.

Cases in the CCD system are clear and follow a linear timeline, making it easier, quicker and more transparent for all parties. For the HO, it is an end-to-end system enabling them to validate appeals and upload bundles. The HO is notified of a new appeal through an Application Programming Interface (API). This was a joint initiative between the HO and HMCTS. The HO now has an internal service level agreement of 24 hours to validate an appeal.

After the bundle has been uploaded, there can be a considerable wait before the legal officer accepts it and moves the process on. There are still misunderstandings about disclosable evidence. The HO understands the workload pressures on legal officers and recognises that, in an ideal world, they should be able to focus on their delegated functions rather than deal with administrative tasks (although the preparation of bundles is part of their remit).

Delays also occur when the progression of a case is held up pending payment of the tribunal fee. The Working Group were informed that the HO fee-collection process does not cause the same difficulties. HMCTS reported that it would introduce work allocation tasks for administrative staff to remind them to chase unpaid fees.

There are persistent issues with representatives' use of the system that could be reduced through improved guidance and nudges within the MyHMCTS application. Despite the procedural rigour required by the Senior President's practice direction issued in November 2024, compliance by representatives and the AiPs remains a frustration for the HO.

The practice direction has been very helpful in specifying and clarifying the procedure within the digital system, as well as the format of evidence presentation and bundles. Regrettably, the internal HO guidelines do not reflect the detail of the practice direction, only the procedural rules.

As the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report highlighted, a significant difficulty is the number of cases that have to be taken offline because the system does not enable errors made, usually by AiPs in their initial application. If a case is taken offline, the end-to-end digital process is interrupted, requiring manual interventions for the parties and the tribunal. This can also be the case when there is a change of representative. The Working Group was informed by a representative that the change of the representation process causes significant delays, and they don't have access to the case in the meantime or receive updates and directions. As a result, deadlines can lapse, or hearings are scheduled without the appellant or new representative being notified in time.

There is a helpful and positive liaison between the HO and the tribunal, especially meetings chaired by a Regional Judge. There used to be an effective user feedback arrangement when developing the new systems – this has now lapsed but could usefully be revived. There is also a need for better data to monitor trends and outcomes.

It remains a frustration that the Upper Tribunal was not included in the Reform Programme and the development of CCD/My HMCTS.

Ongoing challenges

There are several modifications and enhancements that would improve efficiency and the throughput of cases:

● More APIs could be developed to deal with communications and notifications from the tribunal to avoid manual processing.

● There should be more guidance and nudging in the MyHMCTS appeal application to mitigate errors and the need for corrections.

● The system should be fixed so that corrections can be made without taking the case offline.

● A digital solution should be identified for the bundles to be checked, significantly speeding up the process and freeing up legal officers to undertake delegated functions.

● Fee payment and notification processes should be streamlined.

● There should be increased learning from the tribunal decisions to improve the initial decision HO making.

F) Insights from HMCTS

An HMCTS technology service lead provided insights into the benefits and challenges from their perspective on reform in FTTIAC. Although the reform programme had concluded, a list of ongoing improvements remained, with HMCTS working closely with the judiciary to prioritise areas that still required refinement. Engagement had taken place with legal officers and Home Office staff, and a workshop was planned to discuss pressure points. Workshops had already been held to examine transferring administrative tasks from legal officers to better utilise their time; however, technological changes to the system would be necessary. It was reported that the FTTIAC satisfaction rate is 98%, leading HMCTS to consider the reform effective, though they recognise that the system still needs improvements. HMCTS is collaborating with the judiciary to implement enhancements – a priority list has been developed in consultation with the judiciary for ongoing improvements. These include the introduction of a short-term business architect, who will resolve technical glitches and work collaboratively with the Home Office on their system.

There were positive developments regarding the use of AI. Two pilots were underway: the first involved a transcription service and the second a summarisation service. The transcription pilot provided judges with a transcription service for decisions, which has been reported as having low error rates. A transcript at the hearing offers a summary of relevant issues from evidence bundles. It was hoped that the pilot would be expanded to FTTIAC. There is significant potential for AI in tribunals, but deployment depends on funding. Further work included data insight activities to record information such as the duration of hearings. A proof of concept was underway by HMCTS.

Initiatives by HMCTS in FTTIAC are positive, and the recognition that the reform programme could have been better designed from the start is appreciated. This all occurs against a backdrop of a changing landscape, with a significant increase in cases and backlog. The working group welcomed HMCTS's efforts and acknowledged that FTTIAC received relatively positive feedback regarding the reformed products. However, concerns persisted that improvements were too little, too late, and that the design had been implemented before issues were identified. The potential use of AI was seen as important for speeding up the process and reducing the backlog, especially in summarising lengthy bundles.

Reflections and Further Work

The Working Group welcomed the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report as a thorough and systematic effort to review the implementation and early impacts of reform. However, some participants expressed concerns that the report might overestimate how accessible the digital appeal system is for appellants appearing in person, possibly due to a sample of respondents who are more digitally proficient. Particular concern was raised about the use of unstructured text fields in appeal forms, which, although seemingly user-friendly, may encourage submissions lacking the legal relevance necessary for a successful appeal. The working group also considered the absence of a strong mechanism to guide appellants towards criteria-based evidence and noted that clearer links to expert advice services would help address this gap.

More broadly, Working Group members observed a mismatch between the report's generally optimistic tone and some of the realities seen in tribunal practice. In particular, ongoing technical difficulties and the challenge of low-quality or late-stage engagement by parties echoed the findings of the Working Group's own fieldwork. The group also welcomed signs that actions were being taken to review appellant-facing content and to improve case management functions, although there was some scepticism about whether these issues had been given sufficient priority early in the reform process.

There has been a sharp and sustained increase in demand. The digital reforms have created a stable platform for managing cases, but this platform requires further support through continuous investment in legal officer capacity, procedural guidance, and improved user-facing clarity.

The issues with bundle quality and procedural navigation for AiPs reflect key concerns from the evaluation report and remain highly relevant. Most of the cases removed from the online process were those initiated by AiPs – often due to confusion or procedural errors. This highlights the importance of exploring ways to ensure that online routes are not only accessible, but also better supported to promote fair engagement.

While efforts to enhance the AiP journey for unrepresented appellants are welcome, they cannot replace the necessity for representation in more complex cases. Future initiatives could focus not only on digital efficiency but also on ensuring procedural fairness for unrepresented users through improved signposting, guidance, and support with document preparation.

The legal officer focus group provided an honest view of frontline users of the reformed digital system. While there is widespread support for its intended functionality, the current system still falls short in key areas, particularly in supporting unrepresented appellants, handling cases with complex procedural requirements, and enabling real-time judicial oversight.

The issues highlighted reflect many of those identified in both the HMCTS 2025 Evaluation Report and by the judicial leadership: poor bundle preparation; the challenge of procedural engagement for AiPs, and the gap between formal digital capability and practical implementation. It is notable that, despite the long period since rollout, the system does not provide legal officers with clear insight into how the system appears to other users.

Looking ahead, enhancements to user interface design, procedural transparency, and internal editability may be prioritised when suitable. There is also a case for revisiting communication between HMCTS service teams and operational tribunal staff to ensure system developments respond to those most familiar with daily operations. Without these changes, the goal of a fully functional digital tribunal environment will remain only partly realised. The Working Group was informed that both HMCTS and the Home Office are considering AI solutions; for example, the contents of bundles could be checked quickly using AI, thereby allowing legal officers to focus on delegated judicial duties.

[19] HMCTS, Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services (2024) - Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services - December 2024 - GOV.UK