Stories from our annual report...
There have been cases which have begun to clarify some of the jurisdictional tests which we will apply to complaints raised with us. These include whether the person making the complaint has been provided with legal services (a test which is significantly wider than whether the complainant was a "client" of a lawyer); whether the complaint was within the timescales laid down by our Scheme Rules (normally within a year of the complainant having knowledge that there was reason to complain); whether the complaint was from an individual, small charity or micro-enterprise (rather than a larger, corporate entity), and so on. We believe that, although we will need to keep these aspects of our jurisdiction under review, there is nothing inherently so opaque about these tests that cannot be clarified over time.- Contact us
- Our publications
- Stories from our annual report
- - Introduction
- - Geographical boundaries
- - The blurred edges of regulation
- - A new regulatory maze?
- - Mixing, matching and confusing
- - Alternative Business Structures
- - A positive response
- - Routes to redress
- Our vision and values
- Our scheme rules
- Our board and committees
- Our team
- Our official documents
- Our policies
- Our work with other official bodies
- Our consultations
- Our response to external consultations
- Measuring our performance
- Research and statistics
- Information for suppliers
- Useful links
However, there are aspects of our jurisdiction which remain problematic to us, to consumers and to those providing legal services. These centre on the issues raised above: the gap between consumer expectations of what sort of legal services are protected by access to the Legal Ombudsman and the equally vexed question of the circumstances in which those providing such legal services fall within the ambit of regulation by one or other of the Approved Regulators. Much of this revolves around difficulties in understanding the regulatory status of the entity providing the service.
One of the clearest examples of these issues commonly arising is in will writing. This is not a 'reserved activity' – the thing that makes lawyers unique and what they need to be regulated to do. So, although such work is often carried out by lawyers, it is also done by will writing firms who are not regulated and who don't have to abide by the same standards. This creates a potential confusion about whether or not the service being bought is regulated – and therefore whether the consumer has access to the sorts of redress the Legal Ombudsman can offer. Take the case of Mr F:
One of the clearest examples of these issues commonly arising is in will writing. This is not a 'reserved activity' – the thing that makes lawyers unique and what they need to be regulated to do. So, although such work is often carried out by lawyers, it is also done by will writing firms who are not regulated and who don't have to abide by the same standards. This creates a potential confusion about whether or not the service being bought is regulated – and therefore whether the consumer has access to the sorts of redress the Legal Ombudsman can offer. Take the case of Mr F:
Mr F complained to us that he had gone to a high street solicitor to write a will. He was then introduced to an individual in an adjoining office whom he was told would provide the service. In the event, the will proved defective. However, when he complained, Mr F was told by the firm's senior partner that the will writer concerned had been working for a linked, but unregulated, company offering legal services, including will writing.
This was the first of a number of similar matters raised with us about the same company. Although the company claimed to be out of jurisdiction and the service – will writing – is not a reserved activity, we considered that the connection between the solicitors firm and the company complained about was umbilical: the firm had made the introduction, the complaint was answered by the senior partner on behalf of both entities, and the senior partner was the owner of both. Since the senior partner was a regulated individual, we judged that the company fell within our jurisdiction.
In the event, and to complicate matters further, while our investigation was nearing its end, the senior partner died. The company was then taken over by another, similar company which appears to have even less connection with a regulated individual. Nevertheless, we believe that the remedy we ordered in this case will be enforceable, either against the successor company or the legal insurers.
In other cases, however, consumers who have purchased very similar services and suffered very similar difficulties have been left without any access to our services. For example:
Mr and Mrs G had a home visit from a will writing company following an initial telephone enquiry. They agreed to pay the company to prepare a lasting power of attorney and some protective property trusts for them.
A number of months passed and the couple had not received anything from the firm. Mr G rang and was told that more information was needed, but that work was nevertheless being carried out. Another month went by. Mr and Mrs G still hadn't heard anything, so they decided to write a letter of complaint to the firm. They heard nothing back, but a month later some documentation did arrive.
Mr and Mrs G thought the quality of the work was very poor. All they received was a standard document with a few personal details inserted. Mr and Mrs G felt that this was something they could have done themselves, using a pack from a stationer. In their view, it was certainly not worth the £1,500 they had paid the company.
Mr and Mrs G sent another formal letter of complaint to the firm - again with no response. When they complained to us, we reviewed the status of the company to see whether it fell within our jurisdiction. However, it quickly became apparent that the company was not regulated and that there were no regulated individuals sufficiently closely connected with the service provided that we could accept for the complaint to be investigated. There appears to be little prospect of Mr and Mrs G getting access to effective redress for the loss they consider they have suffered.