Mr S complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a conveyancing transaction. Mr S instructed the service provider in June 2023 in respect of a remortgage. Unfortunately, the service provider experienced a cyber-attack, denying it access to its case management system. As a direct result, there was a delay of several weeks in completing Mr S’s remortgage, resulting in him paying his lender’s standard variable rate for a period of time. The service provider did not inform Mr S of the delay, or the reasons for it, until he raised his complaint.
Mr S complained to the service provider about the delay in completing his transaction, the fact it would not use a manual work-around, and its communication with him.
The service provider responded promptly and substantively to Mr S’s complaint and explained why it could not use a manual work-around. The service provider also explained that it was not responsible for the delay Mr S had experienced, because the cyber-attack was a factor outside its control. The service provider did however accept that it could have communicated more effectively, and offered Mr S a remedy of £250.
Mr S was unhappy with the service provider’s response and escalated the complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. The case was reviewed and passed to the Early Resolution Team, because we were satisfied that the delay here was outside of the service provider’s control. We also took the view that the service provider’s offer in respect of its communication failings was reasonable. As such, because the remedy offered was reasonable, Mr S’s complaint was dismissed under the Legal Ombudsman’s Scheme Rule 5.7(c).
As this complaint was resolved by the Early Resolution Team a case fee was not payable by the service provider.
