Stories from our annual report...
These cases reveal a mismatch between consumer expectations of what constitutes a 'legal service' - which consumers clearly assume implies access to a proper system of regulation and redress - and the reality of the diverse market providing such services. This confusion is not helped by the habit many unregulated companies have of presenting themselves as though they were traditional law firms, with websites and advertising material branded with the panoply of wigs, gowns and quill pens.- 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
We have seen evidence of similar consumer confusion in relation to claims management companies. Here there is a regulatory regime in place - the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, while many of the consumers who use these firms' services appear to believe that they are being provided with legal services, most of that work is carried out by non-authorised persons. So consumers are unable to get access to the sorts of protection provided by the Legal Ombudsman. Here's an example:
Mr H hired a claims management company to represent him in an unfair dismissal claim. Mr H told us that, after preparing paperwork, they failed to appear at the employment tribunal on three separate occasions.
Mr H complained to the company and received a response to the effect that, as some work had been done preparing the case, he would not be refunded any fees. Mr H took his complaint to the Ministry of Justice, who regulate both the claims management company and their parent company. The Ministry referred him to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, who in turn referred him on to the Legal Ombudsman.
But when we looked into it, the company's advisers where not qualified lawyers and not regulated by one of the legal Approved Regulators. We contacted the Ministry who then agreed to take on Mr H's complaint because of the number of complaints they had already received about the parent company.
In another case:
Following a car accident, Ms I thought she might be entitled to some compensation, so she decided to make a personal injury claim. She believed the solicitor acting for her (who had bought her case from a claims management company) was working on a 'no win, no fee' basis – also called a conditional fee agreement or a CFA. This was later denied by the firm, who said that no conditional fee agreement had been made (although a copy did turn up eventually, dated at about the same time the firm took over the claim).
Some months into the process, the firm decided the claim was 'flaky' and unlikely to succeed. They said they had tried to get in touch with Ms I to explain their position and to ask her to pay their costs. They received no response, the firm said, and no payments. So they went for a County Court judgement to recover costs, which was granted.
Various attempts were made by Ms I and her family to ask why this action was being taken. The firm had not kept her informed, she said, and had misled her about her chances of success. Naturally enough, she also wanted the bailiff collections where she used to live to stop (she had moved house in the meantime) and to see a full breakdown of the solicitor's costs – all to no avail.
Ms I made a formal complaint against the firm of solicitors. She said that the firm had misled her as to her prospects of success, wrote misleading and contradictory letters and carried out work she hadn't asked them to do. In addition, she said they hadn't sent correspondence to her new address after she moved and had failed to send her a breakdown of costs. Nor had they tried to resolve things with her properly.
We concluded that the firm's service did fall short of what Ms I could have reasonably expected when they refused to provide her with a breakdown of their costs. But we concluded that the firm had provided a reasonable service in all other respects. Our final decision required the firm to apologise to the complainant for their failings, which they did. Ms I told us that she was pleased with the thoroughness of our investigation and to be able to put the experience behind her.