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.
No truck with a personal injury claim
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Delay; failure to advise
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman decision rejected by complainant
Mr T worked as an order picker. His job was to drive a special forklift truck along narrow aisles between mountainous stacks of goods. A vast computer system told his truck where to go and exactly what to pick. The only thing to think about was avoiding crashing into things. And staying safe was regularly drummed into employees at the warehouse. But this didn't count for much when Mr T's truck collided with a pile of crates that had toppled into his aisle one morning. His truck mounted the pile, keeled over and tossed Mr T to the floor, landing him awkwardly on his left shoulder. Although he was soon back at work on light duties, his upper left arm was, if anything, more painful and he could no longer reach up above his head. He blamed his employer, and in particular the section supervisor where the incident occurred. This sort of injury would be worth a lot in a compensation pay-out, he thought.
The claims management company he contacted put him in touch with a firm of 'no win, no fee' solicitors with a lot of experience in personal injury cases. Their first step, after gathering all the basic details, was to approach the defendants (the employer and supervisor) with an offer. If this was accepted, there'd be no need to go to court. In the meantime, a file of medical evidence was being put together to back the claim. But the firm began to have doubts. They couldn't be sure the injuries Mr T had sustained could be blamed directly on either one or both of the defendants, and the exact circumstances of the accident couldn't be confirmed with any certainty. Added to this, Mr T's 'after the event' (ATE) insurers withdrew their funding following counsel's written advice on the merits of the claim. All in all, the claim looked increasingly unlikely to succeed.
Mr T wasn't happy and blamed his solicitors for not doing their job properly. Things got so bad that the firm withdrew from the case after Mr T posted defamatory comments about them on the 'Solicitors From Hell' website and refused to take them down. He eventually complained to us about a whole host of supposed failings by the firm: not keeping him informed on progress; ignoring all of his instructions; being obliged to do some of the work himself by getting additional medical evidence; long delays in obtaining a medical report and failing to include the necessary amendments; not following the required 'pre-action protocol' and, as a result, having to pay the defendants' costs, and finally, the firm deciding they could no longer act on his claim. Mr T wanted maximum compensation for his losses and his file returned to him.
Following our investigation of these multiple complaints, we recommended to the Ombudsman that the service provided by the firm had been of a reasonable standard and that no remedy was appropriate. The Ombudsman agreed. There was no evidence of the firm's failure to progress the case or to follow Mr T's instructions. They had acted reasonably throughout a long drawn-out case which suffered various delays beyond the firm's control. They couldn't have issued a meaningful 'letter of claim' to the defendants until the correct medical evidence was obtained. This took two reports over a 12 month period to compile, again for reasons beyond the firm's control. Nor was Mr T ever liable for costs, as the claim was mounted on a 'no win, no fee' basis. However, he was told that he would face this risk if he continued to fight his claim after his ATE insurers withdrew funding. Finally, we concluded that the firm was entitled to pull out once Mr T refused to remove his offensive website remarks. Mr T rejected this decision.
back to top
Slip up by solicitors
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions; failure to keep informed; failure to progress
Remedy: To pay £100 compensation for the worry and stress caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mrs D always walked to work along the same route – at most a ten minute walk, even at rush hour. But one day in late February it had been snowing overnight and by morning had frozen over. So she took special care on the icy pavements and gave herself extra time to get to work. She needed it, because she didn't actually get to work again for another 10 days. As she approached the shop where she worked – not three metres from the front door – she was knocked flying by a young man who'd slipped on the ice outside the hairdressers next door. Every other shop had cleared a channel for people to walk along, but the hair salon hadn't bothered. Mrs D broke her wrist and was off work for almost two weeks. She wanted compensation for what she saw as wilful negligence by the adjacent shop owners and so went to a firm of solicitors to make a personal injury claim. A policeman had seen what happened, as had several of Mr D's customers. She thought she was in with a good chance.
But the case didn't go well for Mrs D and she lost her claim. She blamed her solicitors for messing up the whole thing. She complained that they'd sent her various documents full of mistakes. They'd not done as she'd asked and got statements from a number of witnesses (and those they did get were very thin), progress with the case had been needlessly slow and the firm had been tardy in keeping her up to date. She was unhappy, as well, with the advice she'd been given when she first took her case to them. They'd not adequately outlined her chances of success, so she felt she'd gone ahead with the case on pretty thin ice, so to speak And when she complained to them, they simply failed to deal with her complaint internally. Mrs D wanted the firm to pay her compensation.
Before bringing her complaint to us, Mrs D's solicitors did admit to some failings on their part and offered her £75 to make up for her disappointment, which she accepted. She nevertheless asked us to look into her case because she argued the firm hadn't responded to her complaint properly. Following our investigation, we concluded that the firm had dealt with the bulk of Mrs D's complaints fairly, although they had caused her a degree of stress. This warranted a top-up payment of £25, bringing the total payable to £100. The Ombudsman backed up this view, pointing out that some new elements had been added to Mrs D's complaint since the investigation began and that we couldn't now consider these. These concerns could, of course, be put to the firm in a separate complaint but were not relevant to this case.
back to top
Car crash clash
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions; failure to progress
Remedy: To apologise
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
The car accident Mr T was involved in clearly wasn't his fault and he couldn't see why the idiot who'd forced him off the road should get away with it. The bump and bruising on his forehead were quite painful and, at first, pretty frightening. Happily, though, had Mr T had at no point lost consciousness. But his confidence on the road had taken a knock. Surely all this deserved some sort of compensation from the driver of the other vehicle.
The firm of solicitors he employed to chase his personal injury claim turned out to be a major disappointment and Mr T lost his case. So he complained about them to us. He was clearly very upset by a litany of what he saw as serious shortcomings: rudeness and unprofessional behaviour on several occasions, calls not returned, mistakes made and delay caused by writing to the wrong police authority. And to add insult to injury, when Mr T complained about all this to the firm, they got the very solicitor who'd been responsible for (mis)handling Mr T's case in the first place to respond – not exactly guaranteed to yield an impartial outcome.
Our investigation found that the only element of poor service that could be proved was an administrative error on the part of the firm, who'd not signed off their complaint response with the right person's name. Other than that, they had acted entirely reasonably. Not surprisingly, Mr T challenged our recommendation and asked an Ombudsman to look into it. The Ombudsman concluded that the original investigation had been fair and that its conclusions and remedy – an apology – were reasonable. Mr T rejected this decision.
back to top
Shopping sprawl
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions
Remedy: To pay compensation of £250 for the inconvenience and stress caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
A trip to the shops should mean just that – spending some of your hard-earned cash and enjoying a bit of retail therapy – not tripping over goods someone had left strewn across the shop floor. Ms Q found herself in exactly this position on a visit to a her local shopping centre, badly injuring her knee when she took a tumble in a shoe shop. This left her unable to stand unaided and struggling to walk without a stick. Her emergency ride to A&E confirmed she'd damaged a ligament, which would require plenty of rest, ice and compression. In other words, Ms Q would be out of circulation for a while. Clearly, the shop was responsible and should compensate her for the injury, distress and loss of mobility. At least that's what Ms Q thought, so she hired a lawyer.
When it came to the hearing, Ms Q could see it wasn't going her way. She lost the claim and so decided to complain to the solicitors she'd used to present her case. They'd not obtained a medical examination or notified the change they'd made in their case handler. The firm agreed that they'd let her down on these counts and offered to pay £250 in compensation. But this wasn't the end of the story for Ms Q. She also wanted the Legal Ombudsman to investigate why the firm had failed to obtain a knee specialist report, as instructed, and hadn't asked the NHS consultant some specific questions. And why had they bothered her with so many unnecessary emails asking for additional information?
Ms Q wanted the firm to pay compensation for the loss of damages she felt she would have been awarded if she'd had the benefit of a second expert opinion on her knee injury. She also wanted a payment in recognition of her poor treatment by the firm during the claim.
Our investigation found that the firm's offer in response to Ms Q's original complaint had been fair and reasonable and that this should be the end of the matter. No other poor service was found. The Ombudsman agreed.
back to top
No win, no glee
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Delay; failure to follow instructions
Remedy: None - no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr N's son was involved in a car accident. The car he was driving (his Dad's, of course) wasn't too badly damaged and was in any case covered by a fully comprehensive insurance policy. More worrying, though, were the injuries sustained by the young man at the time. Although fairly minor in themselves – some whiplash and bruising to his arms – they effectively put him out of circulation for a couple of weeks. Adamant that the collision wasn't his son's fault, Mr N decided to go for a personal injury claim against the other driver on his behalf. Luckily he'd ticked the box on his insurance policy to get legal cover – well worth the extra few pounds on the premium. So he employed a firm of solicitors to pursue the claim in court.
The judge who heard the case decided that, on the balance of probabilities and in light of the events and circumstances prevailing at the time, the collision could not be blamed solely on the other driver. This meant that the personal injury claim would be rejected and the case lost. Not unnaturally, Mr N was disappointed and thought the solicitors hadn't done their job properly. They hadn't respond to some emails he'd sent, for example, and for some reason not used certain photos and a video of the accident scene when it came to the hearing. So vital evidence hadn't been presented, he argued, which cost them the case. To top it all, when Mr N complained about these errors, the firm hadn't even bothered to handle his complaint correctly. He wanted them to compensate him for the worry and frustration caused.
Our investigation could find no fault with the firm's service. We thought they had acted reasonably throughout, but of course Mr N rejected our recommendation and asked for an Ombudsman's decision. As Mr N's son was present at the hearing, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the judge had been given every opportunity to clarify the events and circumstances that led to the collision. There was no 'missing evidence'. The judge was able to take into account the photographs that did make it to court, plus what Mr N's son and the other driver had to say about what had happened. The result of the hearing couldn't be attributed to any failings in the service provided by the firm - a result which was acknowledged at the time to have been 'finely balanced'. Overall, the firm's service had been reasonable, so no remedy was required.
back to top
Slander on the record?
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s):Potential misconduct
Remedy: None – no poor service/misconduct
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr I's son was involved in an accident at the local swimming pool. He decided he wanted compensation and so mounted a personal injury claim against the council. Solicitors were duly appointed and work began on piecing together the claim. As things progressed, Mr I's father took over to represent his son in the family's dealings with the firm.
The word 'progress' here might be a bit of an exaggeration because the firm fell out with Mr I at quite an early stage and decided not to continue with the case. This prompted at least one very irate phone call from Mr I senior. A heated exchange apparently ensued. During this one particular call, Mr I's father claimed the solicitor was so rude to him - with other staff from the firm obviously within earshot - that this amounted to slander. He eventually brought a complaint to us, arguing that his solicitor's behaviour over the phone was tantamount to misconduct. We investigated.
There had clearly been a number of calls during which the firm claimed Mr I senior had been aggressive towards staff. It transpired that the call in question was recorded by the firm – a routine practice in such circumstances, it seems. They maintained that, for their part, they had at no time 'slandered' Mr I and that, quite apart from being misplaced in legal terms, his accusations were unfounded. They even produced the recording of the conversation that had prompted Mr I's angry complaint. This contained no evidence of any slanderous remarks. However, Mr I insisted the firm had 'doctored' the tape to cover their tracks. We could find no evidence of such tampering.
The Ombudsman decided that there was no evidence to back Mr I's complaint and that the firm had been justified in concluding that their relationship with Mr I had irretrievably broken down. Pulling out of the case when they did was therefore reasonable.
back to top
A step in the wrong direction
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions
Remedy: None - no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr N arranged to view a house that he'd seen advertised locally. It was in the right part of town, close to the shops and priced just within budget. There might even be a bit left over if he could negotiate a deal. And it was smaller than the current family home – a perfect fit on the face of it. One of the kids had just left home and got himself a job, so they needed less space.
The viewing didn't go well. Although the house was almost perfect, on the way out Mr N tripped on some uneven tiles in the hallway, landing awkwardly, and heavily, on his right side. Luckily nothing was broken, but Mr N went to casualty to have his arm put in a sling while it healed. The nurse thought he'd be unable to use a PC for a couple of weeks: not good news for a self-employed man who depended on IT for his work. This looked to Mr N like a prime case for a personal injury claim, so he took it to a firm of solicitors.
The firm were interested at first but, once they'd looked in to all the circumstances, weren't at all convinced that Mr N had much chance of winning any compensation. For one thing, Mr N had insisted that photographs should be taken of the floor in question as evidence, but it proved impossible to gain access. The new owner was not keen to cooperate and it had not been possible to get in to take any photos before the house was sold. In the end, the claim failed and Mr N blamed his solicitors. He complained that the firm had failed to take photographs of the property before it was sold, delayed proceeding with his case and, as a consequence, didn't provide the best possible service.
Our recommendation report and, when it came to it, the Ombudsman, disagreed. We could find no fault with the way the firm had handled Mr N's case. Any delays there might have been in getting photographic evidence had not been detrimental to the case. Having refused to accept the advice of his solicitor that his claim was unlikely to succeed, Mr N had the option of going elsewhere for a second opinion. But he didn't. Other issues raised by Mr N after our report was released hadn't been raised at the time of the original complaint and so couldn't be considered by us retrospectively. Mr N was at liberty, though, to make a separate complaint to the firm about these matters. He rejected the Ombudsman's decision and so the case was closed.
back to top
Some pain but no gain
Area of law: Personal injuryComplaint reason(s): Delay
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Ms D had been worrying about how her teeth looked for some years and feared the problem was getting worse, so she decided to get some cosmetic dental work done – a new lease of life. She checked with a local dentist she already knew and found that they could do the work needed at what looked like a pretty competitive rate. Nervous and excited at the same time, she went ahead with the procedure. But things went badly wrong, leaving her in some considerable discomfort and with what she thought was a job only half done. The case for a personal injury claim seemed crystal clear to her, so she went to a firm of solicitors to take it on for her.
Ms D was disappointed with their progress so switched law firms half-way through the case. This meant her files had to be handed back and sent over to the new firm, which apparently took ages. And this is why she complained about her original solicitors - for failing to release her files quickly enough, causing a delay that she thought made it too late to pursue her claim.
In view of this, Ms D said she wanted compensation from the first firm to pay for the restorative work that was needed on her teeth.
Our investigation did not find any poor service provided by the firm. Ms D challenged this conclusion, so the case went to an Ombudsman for a decision. One of the problems for Ms D was that, in rejecting our recommendation report, she raised a whole host of new complaints against her first firm of lawyers. These included issues that hadn't been part of the original investigation and so couldn't be considered by the Ombudsman. That aside, the Ombudsman decided there was really no case to answer and that the firm had provided a reasonable service. In particular, Ms D couldn't prove conclusively that she'd asked for her file when she said she had (having referred to various phone calls whose times and dates might be on record somewhere but whose contents were a matter of speculation). It wasn't clear, either, one way or the other, that the delay in getting her file transferred had actually put her claim in jeopardy.
She rejected this decision and the case was closed.
back to top