We don't take sides

No space for error

Area of law: Residential property
Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant

Miss M found the flat of her dreams. The block it was in had limited parking but the Home Information Pack (HIP) said that it had its own designated space. She used a firm of solicitors to deal with the conveyancing for her. The purchase went smoothly but when she moved in Miss M realised that there was no space.

Miss M complained that the firm should have spotted this and told her about it. She wanted them to accept their mistake and arrange for one of the spaces to be allocated to her. The firm agreed that the HIP mentioned a parking space, but pointed out that the lease – the more important and legally binding document – didn't. The firm said that Miss M had had a copy of the lease in advance, hadn't mentioned that a parking space was particularly important to her or asked any questions when the solicitor went through the lease with her.

Based on the evidence, the Investigator concluded that what the firm had told us was right and decided that she had received a reasonable service. Miss M disagreed and so an Ombudsman was asked to make a decision. The Ombudsman agreed with the Investigator's conclusions. Miss M rejected the Ombudsman's decision.

back to top

Out of jurisdiction?

Area of law: Property
Complaint reason(s): Delay; failure to progress
Remedy: To pay £100 compensation
Outcome: Ombudsman decision accepted by the complainant

Many of us dream of having somewhere special to retire to or just chill out when the going gets tough at home. Mr C was no exception. His business had done reasonably well and he'd managed to save a fair bit of cash. At his time of life, a spot of luxury living overseas wouldn't come amiss. So he decided to put down a sizeable deposit – more than £100k – on an off-plan apartment being built as part of a new development in Egypt. A cautious man by nature, Mr C had done his homework and confirmed the credentials of the agent he was purchasing the property through. All was well. But negotiations got to a point where the builder in Egypt would not give a completion date for the development. They offered an alternative flat on a nearby development, which Mr C thought might fit the bill and was happy to investigate further. So the law firm appointed by Mr C's agent completed due diligence checks with the builder and Egyptian lawyers. This gave them enough confidence in the new plan to draw up a draft agreement.

When it came to it, though, the builder refused to sign. Mr C was by this time running out of patience and was increasingly worried about his money. He complained to the law firm, blaming them in part for the breakdown in negotiations and for failing to explore better options on his behalf. But the firm denied ever having acted directly for Mr C and that his agent – not Mr C – was their client. So, although they wrote back to say they would investigate Mr C's complaint, they did nothing more. Mr C brought his concerns to us. He said the firm had failed to act in his best interests and hadn't kept him informed of progress. Nor had they provided the service that was originally agreed. In addition, they'd failed to respond to his original complaint.

We investigated Mr C's case and found that in all respects except one the firm had acted reasonably. Although they argued that Mr C was not their client, we found documentary evidence to show the firm knew they were providing legal services in the form of advice and assistance to Mr C from the outset and were therefore ultimately acting on his behalf. The firm sought to distance themselves from his complaint, which the Ombudsman confirmed as poor service, causing a certain amount of distress and inconvenience for Mr C.

back to top

First time price hikes

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise; failure to keep informed; failure to progress
Remedy: To apologise and pay £50 compensation
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant

Miss F was a first-time buyer. She'd been in rented accommodation for some years after leaving college, mostly close to where she'd grown up. But her new job on the other side of the country presented an exciting new challenge – the prospect of actually owning her own home. With modest savings and quite a lot of help from her parents, she could raise enough to put down a decent deposit on something in a slightly cheaper area. At last, she'd have a first foot on the property ladder.

Once she found somewhere that suited her, Miss F employed a local firm of solicitors to handle the purchase. She put in an offer which was accepted, agreed a date for the exchange of contracts and waited with baited breath for completion. But something went horribly wrong at the last minute and they missed the deadline for exchanging. So the people selling the property promptly pulled out. It looked like all that worry and excitement had been for nothing.

Parents to the rescue - a quick phone call home, another £5,000 in the kitty and Miss F was able to up her offer and secure the deal. Better late than never, she thought. Despite her great sense of relief, though, Miss F felt her solicitors were to blame for the original delay and for missing the deadline. This, she claimed, had forced her to increase the offer price and pay the extra stamp duty that went with it. She complained to the firm. According to her, they'd not worked on the purchase when one of them was on holiday, had failed to chase for a new HIP, didn't keep her updated with important information, including a contract deadline, and failed to provide full details of their own complaints procedure. She wanted them to pay her the extra £5,000 plus the additional stamp duty.

Following our investigation, we concluded that there was no evidence of poor service in managing the house purchase, but that the firm had let Miss F down when dealing with her complaint. We said they should apologise to Miss F for failing to provide her with a copy of their internal complaint procedure and for not making her aware that she could refer her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. Any delay in meeting the original deadline was not their fault. They had done all they could and should have done to complete the deal within a reasonable timescale, including by trying to persuade the vendor's solicitor to offer an extension. The Ombudsman agreed. The firm should apologise to Miss F, pay £50 in recognition of their failure to deal with her complaint properly and return her file if requested to do so.

back to top

Planning on a move

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase (leasehold)
Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise
Remedy: To pay compensation of £100 for the stress caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Ten or more years after Mrs Y bought the leasehold on her home she decided to sell the place and move on. It was too big for her now and in any case she fancied a change. The idea of moving further out of town, closer to the country perhaps, certainly appealed. She should get a decent return on the property, as well, not least because she'd invested in some major improvements, like double glazing throughout and the latest central heating boiler. When she came to sell, however, she discovered that she should have got planning permission from the freeholder to install the double glazing. This had never been done. Imagine the look on any prospective purchaser's face when they too discovered they were buying into a dispute over planning permission with the freeholder – not much of an incentive. Mrs Y was furious and went straight back to the firm who'd handled the deal all those years before.

She complained that the firm had let her down by not getting the necessary permission from the freeholder to install double glazing. This had put some prospective purchasers off buying, she was sure, and so she wanted compensation in the region of £50-£100 from them as well an apology. Mrs Y also said she wanted a deposit she'd had to pay on a rented property while waiting for certain permissions (totalling £650) to be reimbursed too.

Our investigator agreed that Mrs Y had received a poor service from the firm and recommended that she should be awarded £100 to compensate for the nuisance and worry caused. Our recommendation wasn't accepted and so the case went to an Ombudsman for a decision. The Ombudsman concluded that the original report was right, so Mrs Y was awarded the cash and the firm had to apologise. Mrs Y accepted this decision. This was despite the fact that the Ombudsman thought the loss she had incurred on the rental property involved was 'too remote' from the firm's poor service to be included in the proposed remedy.

back to top

Closed firm has to pay out

Area of law: Residential property – house sale
Complaint reason(s): Failure to complete transactions and return a deposit
Remedy: To pay £750 compensation for inconvenience and worry caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Mr I decided to sell the family home to buy somewhere smaller and cheaper. This would allow him to pay off his existing mortgage, leaving him with enough to buy the new place outright. At his time of life, with the kids moved out and the prospect of retirement not too far off, Mr I and his wife thought this would secure a debt-free future.

His solicitors got on with the work, handling the sale quite efficiently as far as Mr I could tell and doing all the right things in the right order. This included banking a £300 deposit and the net proceeds of the sale in a client account. Then they went bust. Desperately worried, Mr I tried to get his money back. But there seemed to be no one to turn to because the firm had closed down. In the meantime, the mortgage company were demanding that their outstanding loan be repaid in full.

What was he to do? First of all, he got in touch with the Solicitors Compensation Fund (SCF) to see if they could help. Surely the Fund would cover Mr I's losses? Happily they did. On top of this, in the end Mr I also managed to recover £1,000 from his original solicitors towards the cost of redeeming his mortgage, plus his £300 deposit.

He felt nevertheless that the closed firm still owed him something, which is why he complained about their behaviour to us. Although he was no longer out of pocket, he and his family had been to hell and back with worry because of what the firm had done with his money. So he wanted them to compensate him financially in recognition of this very troubling experience.

Our investigation found that the firm had been seriously at fault. Despite being rescued in the end by the CSF, Mr I had suffered tremendous anxiety over the whole affair and deserved to be compensated. Taking into account what the SCF and the firm had paid out, we concluded that the solicitors should pay Mr I £750 in compensation. The Ombudsman agreed, as did Mr I. The case was closed.

back to top

The limits of legal services

Area of law: Residential property – house sale and purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to inform
Remedy: No poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant

After the purchase of her new home had been completed, Mrs T discovered something that left her feeling short-changed by the firm she'd hired to handle the deal on her behalf. She claimed they'd not acted in her best interests or with due care because they'd failed to tell her about the gap between what she'd paid for the house and the price it had fetched just nine months before – some £25,000 less. Why hadn't she been told? How could she be left to exchange contracts by her lawyers when they knew full well that she might have negotiated a better deal? This was key information that the firm should have shared with Mrs T. Although she wasn't expecting the firm to advise her on a fair price for the house, she said she should have been made aware of the discrepancy before she exchanged contracts. This would have helped her take what she described as "informed action".

The firm stated that it this was not their job. Valuations are a matter for surveyors and estate agents, not lawyers. The transaction had been perfectly normal and in order, they argued. In any case, their view was that the price differential of £25,000 over a nine period couldn't be seen as significant in the context of buying and selling property in that location at that time.

The Ombudsman agreed with the firm. In the circumstances, they were not required specifically to draw Mrs T's attention to previous sale prices, so no remedy should be recommended.

Mrs T didn't accept this decision, so the case was closed.

back to top

Intervened and out of reach

Area of law: Residential property – house sale and purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions; failure to progress; failure to keep the complainant informed
Remedy: To pay £914 to cover the amount lost by the complainant and compensation of £250 for distress and inconvenience
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Mr and Mrs F used a firm of solicitors to handle the sale of their existing home and the purchase of a new one. Excited and buoyed up by a successful, trouble-free move, the couple were sorry some months later to hear that their solicitors had got into some sort of trouble and been 'intervened' by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). In effect this meant they'd been closed down. Mr and Mrs F wouldn't have given this a second thought had they not discovered soon after that their new home hadn't been registered with the Land Registry, leaving them with a bill for unpaid stamp duty and other costs.

The couple duly paid up, albeit with some considerable resentment. But could the Solicitor's Compensation Fund help cover their costs? Unfortunately they found the stamp duty fee wasn't covered, so they complained to the Legal Ombudsman to see if there was a chance of getting some kind of redress that way.

Following our investigation, we found that there had indeed been poor service. The problem was that only one of the five former partners in the firm was still in practice. He was the only one left working (and traceable) with whom a resolution might be agreed.

When the Ombudsman looked in to it, he agreed that there had been poor service and that our investigator's original suggested remedy was appropriate – that was to pay Mr and Mrs F £914 to cover the stamp duty, other associated costs and penalties, plus £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience they'd been caused.

However, the couple were also told that, because the firm had been intervened, it might be difficult to enforce the decision and that there would be no ultimate guarantee of success. The Legal Ombudsman is working with the SRA right now to establish what, if anything, can be done to assist people, not just the Fs, who find themselves in this position.

Mr and Mrs F accepted the Ombudsman's decision, fully aware of the problematic nature of the circumstances surrounding the resolution of their case.

back to top

Fault with the fees

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions; potential misconduct
Remedy: Refund of £1,974.00 paid plus £200 compensation
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

After Mr N sold his house, the estate agent got in touch to tell him that their fees hadn't been paid. Mr N was a bit confused by this as he'd received a statement on completion from his solicitor that said that the fees had been deducted from the proceeds of sale.

Mr N raised his concerns with the firm and then came to us when he hadn't had a response. He told us he would like a refund of the £1,974.00 which was deducted by the firm so that he could pay the estate agent.

Our Ombudsman agreed that the firm hadn't paid the fees, despite saying they had. The Ombudsman awarded the refund, as well as a compensatory payment of £200 for the upset and the inconvenience caused.

back to top

Waiting for a response

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to investigate complaint internally; delay
Remedy: To apologise
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by complainant

Mr D employed a firm of lawyers to help him buy his new home, but soon became quite worried about the length of time it was taking to complete the purchase. After a while he decided to complain. Although the firm did eventually look into his complaint and resolved the issue with Mr D, he was left feeling that they hadn't followed their own internal complaints procedure properly. He reckoned in his job he wouldn't get away with providing customers with such a shoddy service, so why should lawyers? That's why he came to the Legal Ombudsman.

When we looked into the complaint, the firm questioned whether Mr D had ever actually made a formal complaint to them. It was clear Mr D had voiced his concerns with them and that the firm had agreed to look into things, but only after the Legal Ombudsman became involved some five months later.

The Ombudsman decided that the firm's response did add up to poor service and that they should apologise to Mr D for their failure to respond to his concerns. Although this was a serious delay, the impact on Mr D had not been financial. Mr D agreed that he'd not got round to raising his concerns until quite a long time had passed, and he accepted that that the firm had put right the initial problem with the delayed house purchase. He nevertheless rejected our decision and so the case was closed.

back to top

House insurance policy gets lost

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to progress
Remedy: None (apart from an apology suggested for failing to respond to an email)
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant

When Mr A used a firm of solicitors to deal with his purchase of a house back in 1999, he assumed the new build insurance policy that went with it was all in order and had been registered by them. But when he came to making a claim on the policy some years later, he couldn't find a copy, so he asked the firm to get hold of one for him. Eventually it turned out they couldn't track it down either and, indeed, hadn't registered the original. In the meantime, they also failed to reply to Mr A's email asking them for a copy of the policy. All this meant that there was no paperwork to justify the claim, so Mr A was left feeling seriously out of pocket and out of sorts.

Mr A thought the firm had let him down badly and so complained to us. We concluded that there simply wasn't enough evidence – especially after the passage of more than ten years – to prove that the firm had acted unreasonably in not registering the policy. In addition, Mr A undoubtedly knew of its existence back when he bought the house and so could (and should) have taken responsibility for its whereabouts himself.

The Ombudsman decided that the firm should apologise for their failure to respond to Mr A's email and nothing more.

back to top

Lawyers blamed for loss

Area of law: Commercial property – landlord/ tenant
Complaint reason(s): Delay and failure to progress
Remedy: Write off £559.89 as offered by the firm
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant

Mr W had run a reasonably successful shop for some years from leased premises in a traditional high street. But the area was beginning to show signs of planning blight. A long running but contentious redevelopment proposal to demolish the street and build a huge new commercial centre put Mr W's business at risk. He was getting on a bit and couldn't face the upheaval, so decided to get out while the going was good, shut up shop and not renew his lease. But the landlord claimed he owed back rent, which he disputed.

According to Mr W, he tried a couple of times to gain access to the premises after he'd stopped trading, but on at least one occasion was denied access. Mr W found himself locked out of the shop with all his equipment still inside. So he hired a lawyer in the hope of forcing the landlord to allow him in to recover his goods.

Things didn't go well and he failed to win the argument, which he blamed on his lawyer. His complaint was that the firm hadn't kept him updated, had caused delays in progressing the work, failed to follow instructions in issuing a power of attorney and, ultimately, failed to get his equipment back. Mr W wanted all of the £2,200 he'd paid the firm refunded because he said they'd not done any of the work he'd asked for.

The firm offered to write off the remaining £559.89 that was still owed to them, acknowledging that they had caused some delay. But they refused to take responsibility for losing the case. Mr W rejected their offer and brought his complaint to us.

The Ombudsman decided that the firm's original offer was reasonable, given the delay they had caused by their own admission. The remaining issues, however, were not accepted as grounds for a complaint of poor service.

back to top

Holiday home let down

Area of law: Commercial property – sales/purchases
Complaint reason(s): Failure to advise
Remedy: Pay a refund of £172.50 in legal fees, £100 for failing to keep a file safe and £500.00 for distress and inconvenience – a total of £772.50
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Mr and Mrs H employed a law firm to help them buy a property they planned to use for holiday lettings. They complained to us when, after the deal went through, they realised the title deeds meant they couldn't use the house for that purpose. The couple were also unhappy that the firm had provided HM Revenue & Customs with the wrong information. In addition, they'd failed to deal properly with the post-completion stamping and registration formalities.

Our investigation found that the firm had made mistakes with the tax and registration paperwork. But the main issue for Mr and Mrs H was the substantial compensation they were looking for to cover losses they said resulted from buying a property solely for holiday lets, only to find they couldn't actually do this.

We found that there wasn't enough evidence to support their claim for loss of potential income. The Ombudsman told the couple that they would have needed to provide additional proof – such as evidence from the estate agents, a business plan, or information from specialist agents about the income they could have expected to achieve. Without this, the potential loss of income could not be considered. The Ombudsman also felt that Mr and Mrs H should have made their intentions explicit when they first employed the law firm.

Nevertheless, the Ombudsman decided that the law firm should refund £172.50 for failing to advise Mr and Mrs H fully, in writing, of the restrictions contained in the title deeds and for failing to deal with post-completion stamping and registration formalities. The Ombudsman also told the firm to pay £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and another £100 for failing to keep their file safe.

back to top

Duty of care

Area of law: Residential property – house purchase
Complaint reason(s): Failure to follow instructions
Remedy: To refund £200 plus penalty charges, and pay £150 in compensation for stress caused Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Mr J was buying a new house and employed a firm of solicitors to handle the purchase for him. Everything appeared to have gone according to plan when, some time after moving in, Mr J received a notice out of the blue saying there was a problem with the stamp duty. The full amount hadn't been paid for some reason, so he contacted his solicitors to find out why. After talking to them, he realised they'd not forwarded the right money to HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC) and so lodged a formal complaint.

A few weeks later Mr J came to us and explained his problem: because his solicitors hadn't paid enough stamp duty, Mr J had received a demand from HMRC for more than £200 in interest charges and other penalties that had accrued on the shortfall. He'd paid up straight away to prevent mounting interest charges. So he wanted the firm to refund this money and offer some compensation on top of this for the anxiety this situation had caused him.

Our investigation confirmed that the solicitors had indeed failed to pay the correct stamp duty on Mr J's new house, despite the fact that he'd sent them the right money in the first place. The solicitors simply hadn't passed this on to HMRC.

Our Ombudsman decided that the firm should reimburse Mr J the £200 and outstanding HMRC penalties, and pay Mr J an additional £150 in recognition of the stress this situation had caused him.

Mr J accepted the Ombudsman's decision and has now received all the payments specified.

back to top