We don't take sides
We have published our Ombudsman decisions here. These stories will give you a sense of what happens when a formal decision is needed to resolve a complaint. This collection of decisions will grow over time.
If you want to know more about the types of complaints we see, read more on our statistics page. Or if you want to know more about how we resolve complaints informally, click here to read our stories that show how we've been able to help people with different kinds of problems and complaints.
Hello - anybody there?
Area of law: Civil litigationComplaint reason(s):Failure to follow instructions;, failure to progress; costs information deficient
Remedy: Reduce fees by 50% to £200 plus VAT, and pay £200 compensation
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant
Mr B tried on numerous occasions to get his builders in to put right a long list of snagging problems with his new-build house. On paper, at least, the design was perfect – everything he and his family had hoped for. In practice, it was turning into a bit of a nightmare, with leaking pipes, doors that didn't close properly and kitchen tiles that just wouldn't stay put. In the end, Mr B gave up chasing the builder and decided to take him to court.
He assumed all was well, as his solicitor appeared to be getting on with the work, or so the legal fees Mr B was paying would suggest. But 14 months into the case, with no hearings fixed and almost no progress reported, Mr B decided he'd had enough and complained to his lawyer. This got him nowhere, as he received absolutely no response.
Our Investigator had the same experience as she tried to get the firm to respond to a string of complaints from Mr B about poor service. Mr B said the firm had failed to follow instructions, delayed progressing the case, and failed to provide adequate costs information. Repeated attempts by us to get the firm to provide the information we asked for failed as well. The firm did at one point say they'd sent Mr B's file to an 'after the event' (ATE) insurer to see if they could get the costs of the case covered. But they'd not told Mr B about this and we saw no evidence that they had actually done so.
In the end, and in the absence of information and documentary evidence from the firm, we concluded there had been poor service on every count. The Ombudsman ordered the firm to halve their fees and pay Mr B £200 compensation.
back to top
The cost of claims
Area of law: Civil litigationComplaint reason(s):Failure to keep the complainant informed; poor case management; inadequate costs information
Remedy: To apologise and pay £100 compensation for the worry and inconvenience caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant
Some weeks after a couple bought a house on a private estate managed by Mrs A's business, they came across a number of rather worrying discrepancies between what they'd been told about the estate and what they found when they moved in. Information on the enquiry form they'd received from Mrs A's people didn't stack up, and they feared this would have an adverse impact on the value of their property. So they decided to take Mrs A's company to court, claiming a substantial sum for negligence.
Mrs A contacted her insurers and confirmed that the company's policy would cover them for such claims. So the insurers went ahead and appointed solicitors to fight the case. However, as negotiations progressed through the initial mediation process, Mrs A and her board became increasingly dismayed by what looked like the ever-spiralling cost of settling out of court. The case was eventually resolved without going to trial, but it ended up costing around two-thirds more than Mrs A had initially offered.
She complained on behalf of her board that the solicitor had let them down in a number of ways. First, they had failed to inform Mrs A's company that the mediation process had got under way and that they'd effectively been left out of the negotiations once they started. At the same time, the firm had mismanaged the process by setting up a mediation meeting when they knew their barrister couldn't attend. Mrs A also felt she'd been pressured by her solicitors to increase her offer to settle before going to court. Finally, the firm was said to have failed to provide adequate cost information to Mrs A's board.
Our investigation - and the eventual Ombudsman decision - found that the firm's performance had been rather mixed. The firm should have told Mrs A's company that they'd got the mediation process going before suggesting this to her or to the other side's solicitors, but they hadn't. This was poor service, for which the firm apologised before Mrs A brought her complaint to us. We thought, nonetheless, that the delay in telling her about the mediation hadn't weakened the defence against the claim. We also concluded that there was plenty of documentary evidence to show that the firm had adequately involved Mrs A in the mediation process. And the firm could not be blamed for the barrister's diary clash, which was put right on the day anyway. But did the firm put Mrs A under pressure to settle at a higher figure than either she or her board would find acceptable? We thought not. The firm's advice about the cost implications of different settlement figures was, on the whole, reasonable. Finally, our view was that the firm should have advised Mrs A's company of the potential costs of going to court, but failed to do so. The fact that the company was insured, though, meant that they would not be required to meet any fees or settlement costs themselves, and so would suffer no detriment. An apology for the service failures identified and payment of £100 to compensate for the worry caused were accepted by Mrs A as final and binding.
back to top
Banking on a payback
Area of law: Civil (private) litigation – administration chargesComplaint reason(s):Delay; failure to follow instructions; failure to progress; failure to
respond to initial complaint
Remedy: A small amount of compensation to be paid for an element of poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr S's building society imposed an admin charge on one of their services that seemed totally over the top to him. There'd been lots of talk in the press about financial institutions being hauled over the coals for this sort of thing and he thought he stood a reasonable chance of getting something back. So he approached a firm of solicitors to write to his building society, arguing that their administration charges were excessive. This, he thought, would be the first step in a longer process of suing them in the Small Claims Court.
The problem for Mr S was that the firm thought the cost of the court case would far outweigh any payback he might reasonably expect to win if his case succeeded (which of course couldn't be guaranteed). It just wasn't worth it for the relatively small amounts involved. Mr S wasn't convinced and thought the firm should just get on with it. He believed he could prove that the charges were excessive, punitive and unlawful. But his solicitors stood their ground and, in view of the risk of escalating legal costs, decided not to act for Mr S beyond writing an initial letter of complaint on his behalf. They also said they had never agreed to retrieve Mr S's house deeds from his building society, despite his clear recollection that they had.
Mr S disagreed with the firm's claims and complained to us about their poor service: they had failed to follow his instructions, delayed sending the initial letter to his building society, failed to progress the matter, failed to respond to his letter of complaint to them, and ended up charging him far too much.
The Ombudsman could find no evidence that the firm had agreed to get Mr S's deeds back. They had, though, agreed to send a letter to his building society complaining specifically about the level of their administration charges (and not bank charges, which the firm thought stood less of a chance of succeeding). And despite Mr S's understanding, at no point did the firm commit to issuing court proceedings or to representing him for an all-in fee of just £500. The firm told him fairly and squarely that his case would cost a lot to bring to court and that he would be unlikely to recover his costs. Mr S clearly couldn't afford to cover these costs, so the Ombudsman accepted that the firm had no choice but to stop acting for him. The reason for Mr S incurring even higher administration and interest charges over time was nothing to do with poor service by the firm. The slight element of poor service that was accepted did, however, warrant a correspondingly small amount of compensation.
back to top
A highly charged matter
Area of law: Civil litigation (private law suit)Complaint reason(s): Costs information deficient; delay; failure to advise
Remedy: To waive outstanding fees worth over £1,300
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by complainant
In 2008, Miss M made a complaint against her university for bullying, harassment and racial discrimination. She decided she needed help from a lawyer to pursue her case against the institution. The solicitors she chose seemed willing enough and perfectly able to pick up the claim, which was fine. But not everything went according to plan. As time went by, Miss M became increasingly worried about the conduct of her case: the fees were higher than she'd expected, the firm hadn't been terribly effective, she thought, in representing her complaints, and she claimed their advice was often weak and unclear. Worse than this, perhaps, she thought the tone of letters they'd written to the university had been rather too forceful and that this had back-fired on her while she was still attending courses there.
A lot of what Miss M talked to us about during our investigation was really to do with her complaint against the university. She was obviously very distressed by her experiences there, by what she saw as inappropriate and unacceptable treatment by her college. Our job, though, was to stay focused on whether or not her solicitors had provided a reasonable service.
The complaints made by Miss M against her lawyers were detailed and specific. At the heart of her concerns was the question of whether she'd been told clearly enough about alternative funding options to help pay for her case. The possibility of Legal Aid funding had been mentioned, although a little late in the day. And the conversation they'd all had about her options should have really been set out in writing. On the other hand, there was evidence to show that the firm had told Miss M about the escalating costs of the case and that she'd indicated she was prepared to carry on with it.
Our investigation showed that the university had made Miss M an offer and that this had been refused. It was at that point, and not before, that she started to say she was worried about the costs.
The Ombudsman decided that, for most of the time, Miss M appeared to be quite content to continue employing the firm, despite mounting costs. There were, however, a number of shortcomings in elements of the service provided by the firm, which prompted the Ombudsman to order them to waive outstanding fees worth £1,304.88. We decided that the service provided by the firm in all other respects had been reasonable.
back to top