Ms D instructed the service provider to sell her leasehold property. She complained to the firm when the process took longer than she expected, saying that she had incurred additional mortgage costs as a result.
She raised a written complaint with the firm some months later but received no response. As a result, she escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman by the end of that year.
Ms D reported a number of issues including:
The service provider failed to keep her informed and caused delays;
They gave unclear completion dates; and
Conveyancing staff were sometimes patronising.
She explained that these issues had caused her stress and financial losses, in the form of additional mortgage payments and costs of the flat she was selling.
The service provider did not respond to Ms D’s complaint.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt by the Legal Ombudsman, and the service provider was asked to provide a copy of their final response. The service provider responded saying their service was reasonable, but they had not provided a final response. As a result, the case was not suitable for Early Resolution.
Ms D’s complaint was allocated to an investigator, who agreed the complaints with Ms D. They sought evidence and reached a conclusion that some elements of the service provider’s service were unreasonable.
The investigator shared views over the ‘phone with both parties, explaining that they had found several service failings, and recommended a remedy to provide compensation for the emotional effects of these service failings on Ms D.
Because of the cumulative nature of the effect of the issues, including the fact the service provider’s complaints handling was poor, the investigator recommended a significant category remedy of £400.
Importantly, the investigator explained to Ms D that we would not direct her additional mortgage payments, as the delays in this matter were not solely down to the service provider, and six months was not an unreasonable time for this leasehold transaction. The investigator explained that we would only direct a remedy for financial loss where it was clear that loss would have been avoided had the service provider’s service been reasonable.
Both parties agreed to the remedy and the complaint was concluded by way of an agreed outcome.
As the service provider’s complaints handling was unreasonable, a case fee of £400 was payable.
One of the reasons why there was no final response in this case was because Ms D was claiming financial losses. However, service providers should assess whether such a payment would be likely and whether a matter can be resolved by providing compensation for the emotional effects.
Had the service provider issued a final response, and acknowledged there was some poor communication and delay on their part, this complaint would have been suitable for Early Resolution, leading to a quicker outcome for both the service provider, and Ms D. It could also have avoided the payment of a case fee.
