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.
Poor service put right
Area of law: Wills and probateComplaint reason(s): Failure to inform; negligence
Remedy: None – no poor service
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr R was living in Australia at the time of his mother's death in May 2009. Her will named him and other family members as beneficiaries. The will had been drawn up by a firm of solicitors acting for Mrs R senior, with her daughter in the UK - Mr R's sister - signing it as her mother's 'receiver'. But the firm had somehow messed up the instructions they'd given the daughter on how to complete the paperwork. They'd simply got it wrong, and this meant the will turned out to be invalid. So when it came to confirming and sorting out who should get what from the estate, the whole thing got stalled.
Understandably enough, Mr R was frustrated and angry, blaming his mother's solicitors for screwing up in the first place. They were quick to admit their mistake, apologised to everyone concerned and passed the matter over to their insurers to pick up the tab.
Mr R nevertheless complained to us. He obviously wanted the will put right as soon as possible so that the money he was due from the estate could be paid out. Our investigation found that the firm had indeed made some serious errors in drafting the will. But when these came to light, they readily admitted their mistakes. And it wasn't thought unreasonable for the firm to have liaised primarily with Mr R's sister, given that he was living on the other side of the world at the time. Once he did get involved, though, it was clear that the firm had tried to keep him in the loop.
We did agree that the firm's negligence had been very trying for everyone. However, they'd taken immediate steps to try to put things right by apologising, first of all, and by getting their insurers involved.
The Ombudsman decided that, despite their initials failings, the firm had provided a reasonable level of service to Mr R as a beneficiary of the estate. This meant that no remedy beyond the apology the firm had already offered was required.
back to top
Lost in transition
Area of law: Wills and probateComplaint reason(s): Costs information deficient; costs excessive; failure to follow instructions; failure to keep informed; failure to progress; delay
Remedy: To pay compensation of £300 for inconvenience caused, to limit fees and complete the work at the firm's own expense.
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision rejected by the complainant
Mr C's aunt died, leaving him her house and naming a number of other beneficiaries in her will. Naturally enough, he wanted the firm appointed as executors to get on with it. They needed to make sure the house was sold as quickly as possible and transfer the proceeds to Mr C without delay.
Mr C waited, but saw no apparent progress. He couldn't understand why things were taking so long: what was the problem with the sale of the property, and why were the solicitor's bills so high?
In the midst of all this, the lawyer named as the executor retired, but no one else had taken on the job after he left. The firm itself was still functioning perfectly normally, but everything seemed to have got stalled. Frustrated by the lack of any progress and poor communications with the firm, Mr C came to the Legal Ombudsman for help.
Our Ombudsman looked into this aspect of the complaint and concluded that there had indeed been some problems with the way the firm had handled the administration of the will. But that wasn't the only issue for Mr C. He'd also complained that the work done to sell the house was of a poor standard. Although there was some disagreement between Mr C and the firm about how the work had been done, the Ombudsman decided that the firm had tried to explain all the whys and wherefores to Mr C in a letter that he'd signed. But they also accepted that the firm could have been clearer in how it explained the process to Mr C - the risks and benefits of the different options available to him, and so on. The way the firm approached the case was confusing and resulted in delays and inconvenience to Mr C. We decided that the firm should reduce their overall bill.
Another part of the problem as it turned out was poor office admin by the firm. They hadn't separated their charges for sorting out the estate as a whole from any costs associated specifically with the house sale, which would be down to Mr C alone to cover. This meant that their bills got muddled up, so it was harder to work out who was being charged for what.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that there was an ongoing debate about whether a lease extension to do with the property itself was valid. But this wasn't something we could resolve. This was a legal matter and nothing to do with the standard of service provided by the firm.
We were also asked to consider whether the way the work was done acted as a barrier to selling the house in the future. We couldn't say one way or the other – it would all depend on what any future buyer might want.
Mr C said the firm had been slow to pay some fees owing to a nursing home, and that the outstanding work needed to finish the administration of the estate still hadn't been done. The Ombudsman agreed and decided the firm should take immediate practical steps to manage the handover properly, all at their own expense, and get on with bringing the administration to a swift conclusion.
Finally, the Ombudsman decided there was no evidence that Mr C had suffered any financial loss. There had been a few problems, but nothing to suggest that he had lost any money as a result.
Nevertheless, because of the delays and confusion, the Ombudsman awarded Mr C £300 as a good will payment. If the Ombudsman's decision was accepted by Mr C, the firm would also be told to reduce their final bill and complete the work at their own expense.
back to top
Lack of trust
Area of law: Wills and probateComplaint reason(s): Delay; failure to keep informed
Remedy: Lawyer to refund an amount for incomplete work (£255.63) and pay additional legal fees incurred (£776.37), plus £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience and the return of all documents and papers.
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant
Mr F complained to us as he was unhappy with the way his lawyer had handled drawing up a will and Trust Deed for him. He had signed his will after it had been drawn up, but didn't receive the approved draft Trust Deed. After paying the lawyer's bill for the will writing, Mr F waited for another two months before chasing the Trust Deed. He eventually received an email from the lawyer to say his documents were ready to sign, followed swiftly by a second bill, for the trust declaration, which included a Land Registry fee.
Mr F took the signed documents into the lawyer's office and paid the latest bill. But he later received another bill for the same work. Although the firm confirmed that this had been sent in error, Mr F's confidence in the firm was beginning to fade fast.
When Mr F hadn't received some of the paperwork he still needed, he tried to contact his lawyer. Having got no response to his numerous phone calls and emails, he decided to visit the office in person. His lawyer came to the door and assured Mr F that everything was in hand. But he failed to mention that he'd actually ceased trading two months earlier.
Mr F thought it would be wise to contact the Land Registry himself to chase progress and was told that no application had been made. He decided at that point to write a letter of complaint to the firm, but again got no response.
In the end, Mr F had to employ another lawyer to complete the work. This firm told him that the draft trust declaration drawn up by the original lawyer was unusable, which meant the work had to be started again.
Mr F came to us with a string of complaints – the delay, the fact that the work hadn't been completed, that he'd had to pay for it to be done again, and that his first lawyer hadn't bothered to tell him he'd ceased trading.
Our investigation found that, although the original lawyer had done some of the work required, this hadn't been completed. And it was clear that Mr F had spent a lot of time chasing progress. We agreed as well that Mr F had been obliged to employ another lawyer to complete the work, leaving him to pay all over again.
back to top
Lost file
Area of law: Wills and probateComplaint reason(s): Failure to progress
Remedy: £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant
Mr G was unhappy with how the law firm he'd employed had dealt with his father's will following his death. He'd already complained to the Legal Complaints Service about the poor service, but the firm hadn't complied with their agreed remedy back in 2009. The firm closed in 2010 and Mr G's father's case had still not been resolved. Mr G couldn't get hold of the case file as it had been archived incorrectly.
We managed to recover the file and get it to Mr G. Our investigation found that the firm hadn't completed the administration of his father's estate, which meant that Mr G had to transfer the shares involved himself – something the firm should have done. The issue he'd reported to the former complaint handling body was out of our time limits, so we couldn't do anything about that. But we were satisfied that the firm had provided poor service.
The Ombudsman decided that the firm should pay Mr G £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
back to top