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.
Fair shares
Area of law: Family law (divorce)Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise; failure to progress
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr D employed a firm of solicitors to represent him during his divorce. The court issued a provisional order dissolving the marriage, the decree nisi. Mr and Mrs D needed to agree how they would divide up their assets – their money and property – before the divorce could be finalised with a decree absolute. Mrs D challenged her husband's account of his assets because she believed he was trying to cheat her out of her fair share.
Mrs D's persistence in making claims against Mr D led to long delays: the legal costs kept increasing and a year passed and the divorce still hadn't been finalised. Mr D blamed his lawyers and complained that they hadn't kept him informed of progress, or lack of it, and hadn't dealt effectively with Mrs D's allegations. He wanted them to refund half of their fees (well over £5,000).
The investigator looked at all the evidence and found that the firm had kept Mr D informed about what was going on. We saw that Mr D had agreed with the firm's next steps at each stage and that the firm had made progress despite the delays caused by his wife's claims. We also saw evidence that the firm had responded to those claims early on. We concluded that Mr D's dissatisfaction was more to do with delays caused by the other side than with any poor service from the firm. No remedy was therefore justified. The Ombudsman agreed with these findings. Mr D didn't respond to the decision, so we treated it as rejected and closed the case.
back to top
Protracted divorce proceedings
Area of law: Family lawComplaint reason(s): Delay; failure to follow instructions; failure to keep informed; failure to
advise
Remedy: To pay compensation of £150 for inconvenience/distress caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Ms Y was embroiled in an especially contentious and protracted divorce. Her estranged husband was proving very difficult to pin down. Quite apart from being generally uncooperative, he was also going through bankruptcy proceedings, which complicated things no end. So Ms Y's solicitors had their work cut out keeping tabs on what the other side was up to. This wasn't much helped by the firm's rather tardy attention to a number of fairly important deadlines and details – filing the divorce petition on time, for example, and being very slow to keep Ms Y up to date with key developments.
Ms Y brought a host of complaints about the firm to us, including that they had delayed progressing her case, not sent certain documents to her on time, missed court deadlines, failed to respond to queries quickly enough, offered poor advice in certain key respects and delayed the transfer of papers to a new firm of solicitors later on in the case. She wanted them to hand over £500 by way of compensation – equal to the amount she'd paid them before getting legal aid.
We found there had been poor service in some respects, especially in relation to the various delays Ms Y had complained about (filing the divorce petition, keeping her informed of developments, and so on). Although the Ombudsman acknowledged that the divorce had dragged on for what seemed an age (18 months or more), this couldn't be attributed to Ms Y's solicitors alone. The progress of divorce proceedings depends ultimately on the willingness of the other side to cooperate, to respond to requests for information, and so on. Despite being slow to act in some respects, Ms Y's solicitors had been diligent in chasing her husband and his lawyers for the bits and pieces of information they needed to progress things at a reasonable rate.
The Ombudsman decided that compensation of £150 would be enough to cover the frustration and annoyance experienced by Ms Y. But they concluded that various other matters she'd raised in response to the report we wrote recommending this remedy were additional to and beyond the scope of our original investigation. Ms Y maintained nevertheless that she needed more money than this and rejected our decision. The case was therefore closed.
back to top
Paying the price of divorce
Area of law: Family lawComplaint reason(s): Costs excessive; delay; failure to advise; failure to follow instructions
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
When Miss T employed a solicitor to represent her in divorce proceedings, she wasn't really aware of all her options. She didn't realise, for example, that taking the initiative by being the petitioner in applying for the first stage 'decree nisi' would have given her certain advantages – not least, having some control over how quickly things could be taken to the final stage (to the 'decree absolute').
As things progressed – or rather didn't, in her view – she became increasingly frustrated and started to blame her solicitors for the various delays they'd encountered. The last straw for her was the bill she eventually got from the firm for their fees – far higher than she'd expected and in her opinion quite unjustified. What on earth had they being doing all this time to run up such an enormous bill? And why hadn't they done what she'd clearly told them to do, especially in negotiating a financial settlement with her ex?
Apart from being overcharged and the firm being unresponsive, Miss T's complaint to us was that they hadn't provided her with enough information early on about all her options. This had put her at a distinct disadvantaged and delayed things unnecessarily.
We looked into the case and could find nothing in what the solicitor had done that would justify Mss T's complaint. Their service had been reasonable, as were their costs. In common with so many other people's fraught experience of divorce proceedings, delays are more often than not down to circumstances beyond the control of the lawyers involved. This frequently reflects difficulties the other side has in getting its act and facts together. In addition, there was a long trail of correspondence to show that Miss T's solicitors had asked repeatedly for further guidance on what to do next, especially about the financial settlement, but she hadn't given any that they could act on with confidence.
On this basis, the Ombudsman decided that no remedy was warranted and that the case should be closed.
back to top
Divorce settlement order not policed
Area of law: Family lawComplaint reason(s): Failure to keep the complainant informed; failure to follow instructions
Remedy: Compensation payment (£500) for stress and inconvenience
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Ms K employed a law firm in 2001 to help sort out her divorce. As part of the settlement, her ex-husband was ordered to sign over a French property that belonged to both of them. This should have been done within eight weeks of the order. But seven years later, the transfer still hadn't been completed.
Mrs K blamed her lawyer. She complained that the firm hadn't advised her properly about how and when the transfer of the French property should have been completed, didn't pursue her ex in court as instructed, was rude about her in an email, and failed to respond properly to her various queries and letters of complaint. Nothing less than a hefty compensation payment would assuage her feelings of frustration, loss of dignity and hurt pride.
The problem was that she'd used Legal Aid when she hired the law firm, which they said limited what they were being paid to do for her. Chasing down French documentation relating to the property and applying to an English court to get a judge to sign these on behalf of an uncooperative ex-husband were not on their to-do list. These things, they told her repeatedly, were up to her and her estranged partner to sort out between them. In other words, they said they had done all they reasonably could and should in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman didn't think the first two elements of the complaint were justified. The firm, having helped secure the original order, did not have a continuing duty to police its implementation. But the Ombudsman did decide that the firm should write a letter of apology to Ms K for their failure to respond adequately to her correspondence, and pay her £500 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.
Mrs K didn't accept this decision, so the case was closed.
back to top
Failure to use in-house procedure
Area of law: Family lawCompliant reason(s): Failure to investigate complaint internally; failure to advise; failure to follow instructions
Remedy: Pay compensation of £100
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Ms M employed a firm of solicitors to help her sort out contact arrangements so she could see her children. Her kids were living with a guardian.
Ms M told us she wasn't happy with how the case was progressing and that the firm hadn't looked into her concerns when she complained to them. In particular, she said the firm hadn't kept her updated or told her when her solicitor would be away on holiday. They also stopped working for her after she complained. She told us she felt very anxious about the whole case.
When we looked into it, we found that most of her complaints were about the solicitor representing her and his approach to her case rather than the actual work done. The Ombudsman agreed that it was not unreasonable for the firm to conclude that Ms M had lost confidence in them and that she wanted to find another firm to act for her. They did tell Ms M that they wouldn't continue to represent her – and this was clearly documented – so it was reasonable of them not to continue to write letters about Ms M's case.
The Ombudsman thought, nevertheless, that the firm should have dealt with Ms M's concerns when she first complained to them to see if they could resolve things with her before they stopped working for her. That is why a remedy of £100 was awarded in recognition of their failure to respond to Ms M's complaints.
back to top
'Prohibited steps' order application
Area of law: Family lawComplaint reason(s): Costs information inadequate
Remedy: No remedy awarded
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Ms N employed a firm of lawyers to get a 'prohibited steps' order. These prevent one parent organising certain events or making specific trips with their children without the express permission of the other parent. Ms N complained that she wasn't given sufficient information about costs and that the firm hadn't arranged meetings with the court's advisory and support service. She also complained that the firm hadn't followed her instructions to arrange other meetings she'd asked for. And she thought the firm's costs were excessive for the work that was carried out.
Our investigation found that the firm has acted reasonably in the way they had set about obtaining the prohibited steps order. Ms N didn't provide sufficient evidence to show there had been any delay in how the case progressed, and our investigation found that costs had been clearly explained to her. The issue of applying for Legal Aid had been discussed, but Ms N asked the firm to work for her on a private fee basis. The firm explained to Ms N that costs would increase if the case was contested and, as several court appearances followed, their charges were justified.
The Ombudsman concluded that there was no poor service and no remedy was offered.
back to top