Decisions made about CMCs

We publish data on all complaints that have been resolved by an ombudsman’s final decision.

On this page you can view case summaries and information relating to final decisions made. On occasion, we also highlight concerns to the public about service providers as a public interest case.

Ombudsman decision data

Our Board, (the Office for Legal Complaints) is empowered to publish information on ombudsman decisions by the Legal Services Act 2007. Our Board has instructed the Legal Ombudsman to do this on its website. The information we publish is a simple and transparent record of decisions made by the Legal Ombudsman.

This approach is consistent with government policy which requires organisations such as ours to publish information of this type. It is also consistent with the approach taken by other Ombudsman schemes.

The data is published in accordance with our Publishing Decisions policy.

This policy statement summarises how we approach the publication of decisions, how we will use this information to raise standards and how we will monitor and review the publishing decisions policy.

Publishing Decisions policy statement

This data displays details of claims management companies that have received an ombudsman’s decision made between 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017.

View datatable View decisions data file (.csv)

Public interest cases

This is where you’ll find detailed reports on cases where there has been a pattern of complaints or set of individual circumstances that have resulted in an ombudsman decision(s) that indicate it is in the public interest that the service provider should be named.

Our Board decided to publish the names of these service providers following extensive consultation.

Please note that this data is from the Legal ombudsman records only. To find out more about service providers you will need to approach them directly or contact the relevant approved regulator.

Our performance - KPIs 2016-17

Key performance indicators are quantifiable measures and targets that we use to demonstrate how effectively we are working, which ensure we are providing a high quality service to all our customers.

We publish our key performance indicators (KPI) on a quarterly basis. The four areas that our performance will be measured against are:

  • Timeliness
  • Cost
  • Reputation
  • Impact

Please click on the tabs below to view an overview of information about each of our KPIs.

Strategic objective: Resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality

We aim to resolve cases as quickly and fairly as possible. We measure the time taken from when we identify a case is within our jurisdiction to the point at which we resolve it.

The time it takes to resolve a case depends to a large extent on the parties to the complaint. If a case can be resolved informally, it tends to take less time than if a longer investigation or an ombudsman’s decision is required.

2016-17 2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2
 Cases resolved Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
90% of cases within 90 days 90% 43% 90% 62% 90% 71%
100% of cases within 180 days 100% 83% 100% 97% 100% 97%
100% cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 89%

 

We start counting the Timeliness KPI from the point at which we identify a case is within our jurisdiction. Due to the way we measure this KPI the data about our performance will only be available  90, 180 and 365 days after the end of the month in which the case was progressed for investigation.

The timeliness KPI is to achieve our target for every month, not just on average across the year, so we report on this on a monthly basis. We report the last available result by the month in which each measure is first complete. (for example: April’s 90 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in January – i.e. 90 days previously. April’s 180 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in September i.e. 180 days previously, and April’s 365 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted the previous April – i.e. 365 days previously.)

 Timeliness 2016-17 Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Resolve 90% of cases within 90 days 34% 35% 58% 46% 39% 24% 26% 36% 34% 62% 80% 47%
Resolve 100% of cases within 180 days 100% 96% 90% 85% 73% 85% 81% 78% 76% 82% 72% 79%
Resolve 100% of cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Strategic objective: Provide a value for money service that uses best practice from other ombudsman schemes

Our cost KPI includes two aspects: the unit cost is the annual cost of the whole organisation divided by the number of cases we resolve. Our target unit cost for the financial year 2016/17 was £1,033. We’re also committed to contain our overall expenditure levels within the agreed annual budget.

Period 2016-17 Cost (000) Cases resolved Cost per Investigation
Year ending 31 March 2017 £1,794 6,839 £681
April – December 2016 £1,544 2,037 £758
April – September 2016 £1,093 1,310 £834
April – June 2016 £500 715 £700
Period 2017-18 Cost (000) Cases resolved Cost per Investigation
Year ending 31 March 2018
April – December 2017
April – September 2017 £837 676 £1,238
April – June 2017 £467 376 £1,242

Strategic objective: Build credibility and openly share best practice with stakeholders

During 2012 / 2013 we began receiving and publishing the results of an independent survey of satisfaction levels among our customers (consumers and service providers). This survey includes an indicator for how many of those who have had contact with us would recommend us to others. It also includes an indicator for how well we worked with our stakeholders.

We will publish the results of this survey on an annual basis.

We will provide two measures in relation to our reputation. These are derived from consumer and service provider satisfaction levels based on their responses to the following questions:

Advocacy: % of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked.

Source: As part of our customer satisfaction survey we ask:
Which of these statements comes closest to how you feel about the Legal Ombudsman?

  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
Reputation Indicator 2016-17
Percentage of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked. Complainants: 92%
Service Providers: 92%

Strategic objective: Seek to promote the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007 in such a way as is compatible with our primary role

Awareness: % of users of claims management services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

Source: As part of our annual awareness survey we ask:
‘Have you personally used and paid for a claims management service in the past 2 years?’
‘Before today, had you heard of the Legal Ombudsman?’

Reputation Indicator: Percentage of users of claims management services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

2016-17 56%

Complaints data 2016-17

In this section you will find some data about complaints we have handled from 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017. We collate and publish complaints data on an annual basis. The data is split into the categories listed below:

  • Who complained to us?
  • Which people or organisations made a complaint?
  • Volume of complaints by area of service?
  • What were the complaints about?
  • What was the resolution method?

Click on the tabs below to view some of the data as graphs.

Please note: Certain historic data will be updated for cases which may be reopened for further investigation and reclosed at a later date. We do not restate previous quarter’s data to reflect this as the effect of this is not significant. Where nets and other results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated.

Who complained to us?

Under the Equality Act 2010, we are required to collate data about those individuals who have made a complaint. The data we collect is analysed to ensure that we do not have a negative effect on the different equality groups. We will report on this data on an annual basis. This data (shown below) is only for those individuals who provide this information to us so the sample size is smaller. The blanks are for those who did not agree to provide their E+D data.

The graphs below show who has made a complaint by *ethnicity, *religion, *gender, *sexual orientation and *impairment.

*Figures based on those who agreed to provide their Equality and Diversity information.

 

 

 

 

 

Click here for the CSV version of this data, (document opens in a new window).

Which people or organisations made a complaint?

The table below shows who has made a complaint, for example a member of the public or executor.

 

Click here for the CSV version of this data, (document opens in a new window).

Volume of complaints by area of service?

The graph below shows what the complaints we received were about by area of service; for example, whether people complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a accident management issue, a financial products/services matter or about employment matters.

You can see a quarterly breakdown for each sector in the CSV file.

 

Click here for the CSV version of the data, (document opens in a new window).

What were the complaints about?

The table shows what the complaints were about by area of service, for example delay/failure to progress or failure to advise.

Costs excessive Costs information deficient Potential misconduct Delay/Failure to progress Failure to advise Failure to Cancel Agreement Failure to Comply With Agreed Remedy Failure to investigate complaint internally Failure to follow instructions Failure to Keep Papers Safe Failure to keep informed Failure to reply Failure to release files or papers Unable to Contact CMC Fee – Settlement – Contractually Disputed Fees Fee – Upfront – Failure to Refund Fees Fee – Upfront – Fee Taken Without Authority Misleading Advertising / Marketing Other Unsolicited Marketing – Telephone Grand Total
Accident management 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.55% 0.90% 0.05% 0.05% 0.30% 0.95% 0.05% 0.35% 0.25% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 3.94%
Criminal Injuries compensation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15%
Employment matters 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45%
Financial products/services 11.66% 2.79% 4.73% 14.95% 9.52% 1.25% 0.50% 2.49% 6.43% 0.30% 10.06% 2.74% 0.35% 8.22% 2.44% 13.65% 1.25% 0.20% 0.05% 0.20% 93.77%
Other-CMC 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.15% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.25% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.80%
Personal Injury 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.25% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.90%
Grand Total 11.86% 2.94% 5.03% 16.04% 10.66% 1.30% 0.55% 2.99% 7.87% 0.35% 10.71% 3.04% 0.40% 8.32% 2.44% 13.65% 1.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.25% 100.00%

 

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

What was the remedy type?

The table shows how we resolved complaints; for example, if they were resolved informally or went through to an ombudsman decision.

Ombudsman Informal Grand Total
Total % Total % Total %
No remedy 99 19.19% 236 34.50% 335 27.92%
To apologise 10 1.94% 19 2.78% 29 2.42%
To complete work for the complainant 1 0.19% 6 0.88% 7 0.58%
To improve procedures to prevent the problem happening again 0 0.00% 4 0.58% 4 0.33%
To limit fees to a specified amount 2 0.39% 20 2.92% 22 1.83%
To pay a specified amount for expenses the complainant incurred in pursuing the complaint. 0 0.00% 2 0.29% 2 0.17%
To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused 74 14.34% 120 17.54% 194 16.17%
To pay compensation of a specified amount for loss suffered 5 0.97% 29 4.24% 34 2.83%
To pay interest on monies held 0 0.00% 1 0.15% 1 0.08%
To refund fees already paid 297 57.56% 79 11.55% 376 31.33%
To return papers 2 0.39% 0 0.00% 2 0.17%
To take (and pay for) any specified action in the interests of the complainant 3 0.50% 3 0.44% 6 0.50%
To waive unpaid fees 23 4.46% 165 24.12% 188 15.67%
Grand Total 516 100% 684 100.00% 1200 100.00%

These are remedies applied to cases that were resolved informally or by an ombudsman decision

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

What was the resolution method?

The table shows the resolution methos by area of service. It shows how we resolved complaints; for example, if complaints were closed*, if they were resolved informally or went through to an ombudsman decision.

Closed Informal Ombudsman % Total
% Total % Total % Total
Accident management 27.16% 22 53.09% 43 19.75% 16 100.00% 81
Criminal injuries compensation 50.00% 1 0.00% 50.00% 1 100.00% 2
Employment matters 0.00% 16.67% 1 83.33% 5 100.00% 6
Financial products/services 60.05% 1494 22.71% 565 17.24% 429 100.00% 2488
Other-CMC 16.67% 3 44.44% 8 38.89% 7 100.00% 18
Personal Injury 52.38% 11 33.33% 7 14.29% 3 100.00% 21
Grand Total 58.52% 1531 23.85% 624 17.62% 461 100.00% 2616

*Closed case include:

  • Section 75 Closure
  • Complaints that were withdrawn by the person who complained
  • The person that complained did not make any further contact despite our follow up
  • Complaints which are closed under our scheme rules. Our scheme rules set out the framework for how we resolve complaints about legal services and claims management companies.

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

How do we put things right?

We prefer to resolve complaints by brokering an agreement between the CMC and the complainant, while bringing both parties to a swift and mutually beneficial resolution. We call this ‘informal resolution’.

Therefore, our investigators attempt to settle complaints as amicably as they can, Where an informal resolution cannot be reached, either party may ask an ombudsman to make a final decision.

At this stage a resolution will be based less on resolving the complaint amicably, and instead on what is considered fair and reasonable.

In 2016-17 we resolved 24% of complaints informally and the number of resolutions reached by an ombudsman decision is 18%.

This year:

  • 21% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of up to £299.
  • 74.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of between £300 and £999.
  • 2.4% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of between £1000 and £4,999.
  • 2.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial resulted in a remedy between £5,000 and £19,999.
  • 0.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial resulted in a remedy  £20,000 or more.

Please note: Certain historic data will be updated for cases which maybe reopened for further investigation and reclosed at a later date. As a result the total of each quarter may not match the total.