Mr C instructed the service provider in a discrimination claim against his employer.
The service provider assessed his claim and advised that they were of the view that it did not have reasonable prospects of success so they could not help him.
He was of the view that service provider did not consider all of the relevant evidence when advising on his prospects and he raised a complaint about their advice that his claim did not have prospects of success.
Mr C told the service provider he wanted compensation for the impact of their advice on him.
Mr C complained to the service provider about a number of things including:
The service provider’s advice; and
The communication of that advice.
The service provider gave Mr C a full and detailed response to his concerns, concluding that they did not uphold his complaints.
As Mr C was unhappy with the service provider’s response, he escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt and passed to the Early Resolution Team. This was because there was no reason to believe the advice provided by the service provider was wrong, and there was no evidence that their communication was unreasonable.
The Early Resolution Team asked an Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint under Scheme Rule 5.7a), on the basis that it had no prospect of success.
The Ombudsman reviewed the matter and agreed the complaint should be dismissed because there was nothing to suggest that the firm’s advice on Mr C’s claim was wrong, and, as a result, he would not get the outcome he wanted from the Legal Ombudsman.
As the case was dismissed at Early Resolution, no case fee was payable.
The Legal Ombudsman will only uphold a complaint about the quality of legal advice, where it is obvious to us that the advice given was wrong.
Just because two service providers have different opinions, it does not automatically mean that one of them is wrong.
