Mr D instructed Firm E to help him buy a house as a first-time buyer. Although the purchase completed on time and for the price agreed, Mr D was unhappy with the standard of Firm E’s communication with him during the conveyancing process.
Mr D complained about the speed with which Firm E had responded to questions, particularly with the process being unfamiliar to Mr D. He also raised concerns about the uploading of documents onto the firm’s portal for him to view, and about the quality of advice. His view was that, although he didn’t lose the purchase, he was lucky not to have done, and this would have caused him significant financial losses.
Under its complaint procedure, Firm E apologised for some communication issues, particularly early on. It recognised that Mr D had been caused some worry by not getting fast responses to his questions, but noted that there was a service level agreement for a two-day turnaround for contacts, and this had been part of the terms of business for the firm. Nevertheless, recognising some failings with its communication, Firm E offered Mr D £200 compensation, and increased this to £300, when he rejected the first offer.
On initial review, we didn’t identify any basis for a claim of financial loss. The work had been completed within a reasonable time and for the amount Mr D was expecting to pay. The effect of the communication issues seemed to us to be minor and relatively short-lived.
Noting that the firm had also apologised to Mr D, we considered that the £300 offered was very unlikely to be exceeded by us, reflecting compensation in our Significant category, where awards normally are for more serious effects than Mr D’s appeared to us to be. This seemed to us to be more appropriate for the Modest category below (up to £250), so £300 was likely at least fair.
We dismissed the complaint under our Scheme Rule 5.7c), on the grounds that a reasonable offer had been made and remained open for acceptance.
As we determined that a reasonable offer had been made, the case was closed by us without investigation, and our £400 case fee was waived.
LeO's Insights- We will only direct a remedy for detriment that did happen, and that can include any worry a consumer had at the time.- This is a case where there were some failings in the service, but not as many as the client argued. - The firm rightly recognised this and offered appropriate redress.- When the first offer was rejected, the firm made a business decision to increase its offer. - It is possible that the first offer would have been sufficient, for our purposes, but we support the efforts to resolve the complaint without our involvement. - The firm apologised for some of the shortcomings it identified, and we included that in our considerations.
