Summary 6

Summary 6

Area of law: Employment

Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise, failure to keep informed, delay

Remedy: No remedy

Outcome: Ombudsman decision rejected by complainant

Mr K went to his legal expenses insurers because he was having some problems with his employer. The insurers instructed the firm to see if Mr K had a claim. The firm sent out a client care letter to Mr K, saying that they were obliged to inform his insurers if the claim was not likely to succeed. They carried out some work, which took a few months, and then told Mr K that they did not think his claim would be successful.

Mr K raised a complaint about the firm’s decision. In a later email, he said that he thought that the firm had some dodgy connections with the liquidators who had carried out the liquidation of his previous employer. He also did some further digging, and found that his employers had banked with the bank who had instructed the liquidators. He went back to the firm and asked them to take on his trade union about all of this, but the firm did not think this would be a successful claim either.

Mr K believed that the firm was a member of a business club, involving all of the parties he was unhappy with, and that there was a conflict of interest. He was convinced that there was some sort of conspiracy against him. When we investigated, we could see that there may have been some tenuous links between some of the parties and the firm, but there was no conflict of interest that could have affected Mr K’s case. We didn’t find any poor service on the part of the firm. Mr K rejected the decision.