Ms C instructed the service provider to represent her in a personal injury claim following a road traffic accident. The service provider stopped acting three years later, stating they were unable to obtain instructions from Ms C to allow them to proceed with the claim.
Ms C raised a number of complaints with the service provider after they ended the retainer. The service provider provided a lengthy and substantive response, which included a chronology and an offer of £50 for one upheld issue of complaint.
Ms C was unhappy with the service provider’s final response and escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman later that same year. Ms C was unhappy that the service provider had stopped acting for her, and that she had lost the chance to pursue her personal injury claim.
Ms C’s complaints covered a large number of issues, including:
The service provider’s communication;
The lack of information, as well as errors in some document;
The service provider’s approach to seeking medical input into her claim;
Their approach to case management; and
The fact that the service provider stopped acting for her.
The service provider gave Ms C a detailed and substantive response to these complaints, but in the main did not uphold the issues being raised. They did, however, accept that there were errors in one document, which led to the offered remedy of £50.
The service provider’s complaint response was issued in line with the timescales in their complaints procedure and correctly signposted to the Legal Ombudsman.
This complaint was reviewed on receipt but was not considered suitable for early resolution. This was because of the number of complaints raised and the fact that, if all of the issues were upheld, it was likely that any remedy would be higher than that already offered by the service provider.
Following an in-depth investigation by the Legal Ombudsman some complaints were upheld, and the investigator recommended a remedy of compensation for the emotional effects of £250. The service provider accepted this remedy, but Ms C did not.
The matter therefore progressed to a final decision, in which the Ombudsman endorsed the investigator’s findings and directed a final remedy of £250.
As the complaint was not determined in favour of the service provider a case fee of £400 was payable.
The higher remedy directed by the Ombudsman was because of additional service failings which were not identified by the service provider.
Whilst the service provider did issue a substantive response, more time spent reviewing the complaint could have helped identify issues the Legal Ombudsman upheld, potentially resulting in a higher remedy being offered. Even if this offer was declined, the complaint would have been suitable for Early Resolution. This would have avoided a full investigation, and the case fee.
Our Guidance on Remedies is a helpful tool for service providers to use when deciding upon an appropriate remedy.
