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.
An expensive night out
Area of law: Criminal lawComplaint reason(s): Failure to advise
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
After a raucous night in a pub, Mr F found himself being arrested and charged with criminal damage and affray.
Mr F's solicitor explained that the evidence against him was strong. But even though his solicitors said his case was hopeless, Mr F insisted on pleading not guilty because he wanted to prove his innocence in court. Shortly before the trial, Mr F met with the solicitor who was going to represent him. Together, they went over the evidence again and Mr F decided to change his plea to guilty. At the next hearing, the solicitor provided character references to the judge, who gave Mr F a suspended sentence and ordered him to pay a couple of thousand pounds in compensation and costs.
Mr F complained that the solicitors hadn't acted in his best interests because they hadn't properly explained the strength of the case against him. If they had, he could have pleaded guilty earlier, which might mean he'd get a lighter sentence. Mr F wanted an apology and compensation for the costs and compensation he'd had to pay. He also complained that the character references had arrived at the last minute, which irritated the judge. The firm said that their advice had been clear from the start, that it was normal to hand up character references on the day and that the sentence wasn't excessively harsh. It would almost certainly have been worse if Mr F had been convicted after a trial.
The investigator decided that the firm had acted reasonably because the evidence showed that the advice about the strength of the case against Mr F had been the same throughout. We also found that it wasn't unusual to give judges character references on the day of sentencing. Mr F disagreed with our recommendation, but the Ombudsman thought it was right. Mr F didn't respond to the Ombudsman's decision so we treated it as rejected and closed the case.
back to top
Offender seeks apology
Area of law: Criminal lawComplaint reason(s): Failure to advise; failure to follow instructions
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr B took on a firm of solicitors to represent him in a criminal case in which he was accused of an assault. He maintained at first that it had all been a terrible misunderstanding and that he'd not intended any harm to the alleged victim.
The offence he was accused of could be heard either by local Magistrates or go to trial in the Crown Court. It was up to Mr B to choose. On the advice of his solicitors, he elected to go to the Crown Court. But waiting for the case to be heard took its toll and, according to Mr B, prompted an episode of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He asked his solicitors to get the trial date put back so that he could recover his mental state, but they said this wouldn't help and advised against it. On the day of the trial, again on the advice of his lawyers, Mr B pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly.
He later argued that he'd been pushed into pleading guilty because he'd not fully understood all the evidence available. This included what he claimed were discrepancies that his solicitors had missed in two statements made by the alleged victim. In addition, the firm had been asked to delay the case because of his mental health, but went ahead with it anyway. They had been hopeless in court, he said - unprepared for hearings, arriving late and instructing different barristers for each hearing. If he'd been properly advised, he added, he would have chosen to appear before Magistrates rather than going to the Crown Court. Finally, he complained to us that the firm hadn't responded to his initial complaint to them about these issues. He didn't want compensation for any of this, and he understood that his sentence couldn't be set aside, but he did want a written apology from the firm.
Following our investigation, we found no poor service and the Ombudsman agreed. Although Mr B said the firm hadn't picked up on certain discrepancies in statements provided by the victim, the Ombudsman was satisfied that they had spotted these and considered their implications. The main problem was that Mr B had admitted the assault under police interview. Mr B's representative also asserted that, although he'd not kept any notes of meetings with his solicitors himself, the times of meetings recorded by them had been falsified. The Ombudsman had not seen any evidence of this. The file also showed that all the necessary advice and guidance had been given and accepted by Mr B at the time, including the decision to get the case heard at the Crown Court without delay.
back to top
Clarity around instructions
Area of law: Criminal lawComplaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions; failure to progress
Remedy: An apology and £50 compensation
Outcome: Decision rejected by the complainant
Mr Z employed a firm of lawyers to help with an appeal against his criminal conviction. He felt they didn't follow his instructions to get new evidence to support an appeal and that he'd been misled about how his case was progressing. Mr Z also claimed the firm ignored his request for them to stop working on the case and didn't refund fees for work they hadn't done. He came to us because he wanted the firm to refund the fees of £4,112.50.
He had hoped that the firm would mount a new investigation into his conviction, but our investigation found that he hadn't been clear with the firm that this was what he'd wanted from them. On their side, they had been quite explicit about what they intended to do for him. As Mr Z didn't question the firm, or tell them that what they were planning to do wasn't what he wanted, the Ombudsman couldn't conclude that the firm had failed to follow Mr Z's instructions.
Although Mr Z thought the firm hadn't carried out the work for him in a timely and complete manner, information on the appeal documents showed the firm had in fact been working for Mr Z. We therefore concluded that the fee charged was not unreasonable.
At one point the firm did tell Mr Z they hadn't received his papers, which wasn't the case. So in recognition of the poor service provided in this respect, and the anxiety this had caused Mr Z, the Ombudsman decided that the firm should offer an apology and £50 compensation.
back to top
Delays not down to barrister
Area of law: Criminal lawComplaint reason(s): Delay; failure to follow instructions; conduct
Remedy: No remedy awarded
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr Q was unhappy with the service provided by a barrister. He claimed that the barrister hadn't arranged a visit to see him alongside his solicitor, failed to respond to two of his letters and didn't attend a planned meeting. Mr Q believed he should be awarded compensation for what he saw as an inadequate service.
Our investigation found that the barrister had asked the solicitor to arrange a meeting for them both to see Mr Q. The solicitor duly went ahead and arranged the meeting, but it was for a date several months later. So the barrister couldn't be held responsible for that delay.
When the barrister turned up for the meeting, Mr Q didn't come out of his cell. The barrister took the opportunity to discuss the case with the solicitor anyway and to prepare an advice note. Mr Q claimed the meeting was arranged for the afternoon and not the morning, which is why he hadn't shown up. But we saw instructions that had been sent to the barrister clearly stating the meeting was planned for the morning.
The first letter that Mr Q said the barrister had not responded to was sent a couple of weeks before the planned meeting. The barrister explained that he'd taken the letter along to the meeting to discuss its contents and that was why he'd not sent a reply. The barrister was able to prove that a second letter from Mr Q was replied to on the same day.
The Ombudsman found that the service provided to Mr Q was reasonable and that no remedy was required.
back to top