Mr R instructed the service provider in a housing disrepair matter.
The service provider explained to Mr R what information they would need in order to consider and progress his matter. However, when the information was provided, it became clear that, due to the nature of the claim and its value, the service provider could not help Mr R under a ‘no win no fee’ agreement.
The service provider then told Mr R they would not be able to act for him.
Mr R referred his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman, as he wanted the money he would have received from his claim had it been successful.
Mr R complained that the service provider had stopped acting for him and had not achieved any compensation for his claim.
The service provider gave Mr R a detailed response. They outlined what was required to establish a valid claim and explained the reasons they could not continue working for Mr R. They also explained the steps taken to inform him of their professional view.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt and passed to the Early Resolution Team. This was because the service provider had appeared to give fair reasons for their decision to stop acting. It therefore followed that they could not hold the service provider responsible for the money Mr R was unable to secure.
It is reasonable for a service provider to stop acting for a client where the reasonable criteria necessary for a claim to be successful are not met, and where they have explained this to the client.
On that basis the firm acted reasonably, the complaint was dismissed.
As the complaint was resolved by the Early Resolution Team, no case fee was payable.
The Legal Ombudsman will only investigate where it is unclear whether the decision was one the service provider was reasonably entitled to make or where the communication about the decision was poor.
