Ms S was a passenger in a car accident. She instructed the service provider in respect of a personal injury claim. The claim initially moved quickly but, after eight months had passed, she became concerned about the progress being made on her claim.
Ms S complained to the service provider shortly after, and when she was unhappy with their response escalated the matter to the Legal Ombudsman.
She stated that she wanted the Legal Ombudsman to require the firm to conclude her claim quickly.
Ms S complained to the service provider about several issues, including:
A failure to keep her updated on what was happening with her claim; and
A lack of progress, as she wanted her compensation as soon as possible.
The service provider acknowledged the complaint and told Ms S they would review her file and provide a final response within 28 days of the acknowledgement. After 28 days had passed, Ms S contacted the firm, saying she had not had a final response. She received no response from the service provider until she chased them again a week later.
The service provider told Ms S that the reason for the delay in progressing her legal matter was that they were waiting for medical records from the hospital. However, they accepted they had not kept her informed about what was happening and apologised for their poor communication. The firm did not address their failure to meet their own deadlines in their complaints handling in their response, nor did they offer any remedy to resolve the matter.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt and passed to the Early Resolution Team because the service provider had accepted a service failing. It was decided to try a guided negotiation with a view to resolving matters for both parties.
Importantly, as part of the discussion with Ms S, it was explained to her that the Legal Ombudsman cannot require the firm to progress her claim more quickly. However, the Legal Ombudsman did recommend a remedy of £200 in compensation for the emotional effects, to reflect both the poor communication and the poor complaints handling.
The firm agreed to make the offer and Ms S accepted the remedy. The complaint was resolved and did not progress to in-depth investigation.
As the case was resolved by the Early Resolution Team, no case fee was payable.
This complaint could have been resolved at first tier, if the service provider had provided a response within their own timescales.
This case could also have been resolved with a lower remedy, had one been offered at first tier and had the service provider’s complaints handling been reasonable.
The complaint could potentially have been avoided, if the service provider had kept Ms S proactively informed about the third-party delay or had they managed her expectations in respect of the frequency of updates or communication.
