Stories from our annual report...
The overwhelming learning which emerges from our first six months of operation, then, is that the edges of the jurisdiction of the new scheme, boundaries laid down in the Legal Services Act itself and directly embodied in our Scheme Rules, are not yet clearly drawn. Some of this lack of clarity is temporary - the inevitable result of the introduction of a new piece of legislation and the absence of case law. As the scheme beds in, experience will begin to provide that clarity.- 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
Take, for example, our first Ombudsman decision. This case tested the geographical reach of our jurisdiction. While we are technically the Ombudsman for England and Wales, in this case our jurisdiction touched on a lawyer practising in England helping an English consumer purchase property in Eastern Europe.
Ms E bought some property overseas 'off plan' but ran into trouble when she found the developers had breached their contract. So she employed a firm of solicitors to negotiate a settlement with the developers.
She agreed to pay £1,000 for the negotiations and another £5,000 for any subsequent case brought to court. Ms E was later told that, if she wanted the firm to negotiate further on her behalf, it would cost £7,500 - some £1,500 more than she had originally agreed. Added to this, Ms E was not happy about the firm asking for power of attorney. This would allow them to accept a settlement on her behalf without her agreement. She complained (first to them and then to us) that she hadn't been kept up to date, nor was she sure what her solicitors had actually done for the money.
When we came to look into Ms E's complaint, we found that, for the most part, the solicitor had provided a satisfactory service. However, they hadn't told Ms E that her costs might increase. Nor had they sent her a client care letter setting out what they thought the costs might be, nor that these might change if certain things happened. We recommended to both parties that the firm should pay Ms E £150 in compensation
Ms E was initially unhappy with our suggested resolution and asked for an Ombudsman's decision. The Ombudsman agreed with our investigator's original conclusions. They decided that the solicitor should pay Ms E £150 in recognition of the firm's failure to provide sufficient cost information from the outset. Ms E accepted this decision.