Background

Mr K instructed the service provider in respect of a personal injury.

Some years after the claim concluded Mr K received legal advice that alerted him to the fact that he did not receive a final statute bill at the conclusion of his claim. This left him unaware of the final amount awarded from the other side, or the money that was deducted from his damages in respect of the service provider’s costs.

Mr K instructed this new service provider to request the bill, and this became a complaint when the original service provider refused to reissue it.

Mr K was unhappy with the service provider’s response and so escalated it to the Legal Ombudsman.

Complaints

Mr K complained that the service provider:

  • Failed to issue the bill at the conclusion of the claim.
  • Failed to reissue the bill upon request, some years later.

Mr K was unable to establish what monies had been received and what the service provider had charged, without this breakdown.

The service provider stated that, if there was any argument over the final bill, due to the time that had lapsed, any claim was now statute barred. This meant Mr K could not make a claim against them if he believed their charges or calculations were incorrect. 

The service provider did not provide a copy of the bill, so Mr K escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach

The complaint was reviewed on receipt, however as more detail was required around the complaints raised, it was not suitable for early resolution. As a result, it was progressed to an in-depth investigation.

The first complaint regarding the service provider failing to issue a final bill at the conclusion of the claim was found to be out of time, as our scheme rule 4.5 states a complaint should be brought to us within one year of the incident or awareness of the incident. This complaint was brought to us outside of this time period.

The second complaint regarding the service provider not reissuing the bill upon request was brought to us within one year of being raised and was therefore within time.
 
The investigator was able to communicate with the service provider to arrange for a copy of the bill to be issued to Mr K. This simple action resulted in the complaint being resolved without investigation.

As the service provider’s complaint handling was poor, and they had not reissued the bill to resolve the complaint, a case fee of £400 was payable.

LeO Insights

  • This complaint could potentially have been avoided if the service provider had completed Mr K’s request to reissue the bill.
  • If the service provider had reissued the bill but Mr K still brought his complaint to us, the complaint would have been dismissed. This is because sending the copy would have counted as a reasonable offer. The case fee would also have been waived.
  • Due to poor complaint handling, the service provider incurred a £400 charge and lost fee earning hours, communicating with the Legal Ombudsman and their ex-client’s new service provider.