Case study 1 - Final decision Background Ms T instructed Firm U to help with her divorce. Ms T was not working at this time and it was possible that a question would be raised – as part of the financial considerations under discussion – about her ability to work after the divorce. Complaint Despite having previously told Ms T that, if the question was ever raised, she should get medical evidence to support her claim that she couldn’t work, the firm didn’t remind her of this, when the other side raised the point about her capacity to earn. Ms T was unhappy with this, feeling that it reduced the size of divorce settlement she should have received. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach Whilst we understood that there is a difference between earning capacity and medical capability, the firm had itself recognised that there was a potential benefit to Ms T getting medical evidence to support her position. As such, when this became relevant, we believed that the firm should have encouraged Ms T to get evidence from her doctor about her situation. When we looked at the evidence available, there wasn’t enough to persuade us that a GP letter would have made a difference to the outcome. Although we didn’t agree with Ms T’s argument that it caused her to receive a lower settlement in the divorce, we agreed that it left her with a lingering doubt about whether it might have caused her a loss. That feeling was caused by Firm U’s failing and we decided that £250 was a fair amount to compensate for that. It’s at the bottom of our Significant category, reflecting a minor effect but over a long period of time. The parties couldn’t agree on the outcome, so the matter went to an ombudsman for a final decision, and the ombudsman concurred with the investigator that compensation of £250 was fair. As the firm didn’t make an offer under its complaint procedure, a case fee of £400 was payable. LeO Insights- The focus for the parties during the complaint had been on the difference between the settlement Ms T received and the settlement she believed she should have received. - Had Firm U recognised that there was a relevant emotional detriment, even if not accepting a financial one, the firm might have offered a remedy under its complaint procedure.- Whilst unlikely to be accepted by Ms T, if the amount we decided was fair was not greater than Firm U’s offer under its complaint procedure, there would have been grounds to waive our £400 case fee.
Case Study 2 – 5.7(c) dismissal without investigation Background 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. Complaint 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. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 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.
Case Study 3 - Agreed Outcome Background Ms V instructed Firm W to help with her divorce. After experiencing a number of delays over the next three years, Ms V took the work to a new firm. The new solicitors needed to resubmit applications Ms V had paid Firm W to make for her and the work was completed within six months. Complaint Ms V complained about the quality and speed of the work Firm W had done, as well as communication, pointing us to specific areas of concern. Her impression was the firm had not carried out substantive work on her divorce in the three years, except for making applications that had been rejected, so she felt she was no further forward. The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach On investigation, it became clear to us that, whilst there had been a lot of work done on the case by Firm W, there had been a significant number of mistakes, with four applications all being rejected for administrative failures by the firm. There were also substantial delays and Ms V was not kept informed of the problems the firm was experiencing. Our investigator found that the service Firm W had provided was of such poor quality that it was fair to waive the firm’s fees in their entirety, and to make Firm W liable for wasted expenses Ms V had incurred in the case while it had acted for her, such as the fees for failed applications. This came to £2,150. The effect on Ms V was also emotional: she had three years of little progress on her divorce, plus the inconvenience of finding new solicitors to continue her case. Compensation to reflect that was appropriate. We needed to recognise that, by waiving Firm W’s fees and making Firm W reimburse Ms V for the expenses she had paid Firm W, we were removing any worries about how much she had paid for the work. The emotional effects on her existed, were in addition to the financial effects, and needed to be remedied. In deciding on fair compensation, we needed to recognise that the effects were intense and long-lasting, but they were now at an end. Bringing this together, our investigator found that £750 was a fair amount, putting it at the bottom of our highest (Serious) category. Combined, this remedy was £2,900, and Ms V and Firm W resolved the complaint on this basis. With the firm having made no offer under its complaint procedure, a case fee of £400 was payable. LeO's Insights- The effects of a failing in service are rarely limited to the financial. - We will always consider whether there have been any emotional effects and then whether those warrant separate redress.- If they do, any remedy for that will take into account any other remedies we are directing, so that there is neither a detriment unaccounted for nor a detriment getting more than one remedy.- Service providers are encouraged to follow the same approach.
