Delays outside of a service provider's control

The Legal Ombudsman is committed to sharing learning and insights to help lead to better legal services, and to help legal providers improve their complaints handling. 

Almost half of complaints made to the Legal Ombudsman each year are about communication and delay. 

And one of the most common features in complaints about delay is whether a service provider is responsible for, or could have influenced a delay caused by, a third party or an event outside of their control.

This article is the second in our new ‘Spotlight’ series and looks at the impact on customers of delays outside of legal service providers’ control – or what are sometimes called ‘third-party delays’. 

We set out what we expect to see from service providers for their service to be considered reasonable, and some tips on how to handle complaints effectively.

What are third-party delays

Third-party delays are delays caused by parties other than the legal service provider, for example a court, the Land Registry, another service provider that is not acting for the customer, or an expert (for example a medical expert in personal injury cases).

Common third-party delays in legal matters may include:

  • Waiting for a property to be registered by the Land Registry (conveyancing);
  • Waiting for probate to be granted by the Probate Registry (probate);
  • Waiting for something from the court, or a court date (all areas of law);
  • Waiting for the Home Office to consider an application (immigration law);
  • Waiting for an expert report, for example a survey (property law), or a medical report (personal injury or medical negligence claims); and
  • Waiting for the other side to take an action (all areas of law).

In general, any periods of delay caused by a party other than the service provider are not considered to be the fault of the service provider.

How we approach these complaints

In general, when the Legal Ombudsman is looking at complaints about delay, we will not hold service providers responsible for delays they did not cause or could not have avoided. But we do consider whether the service provider could or should have contacted the party who caused the delay to try to progress matters more quickly for the customer. We also consider the service provider’s communications with their customer.

So, what do we expect to see?

  • Service providers should provide customers with clear information when they are waiting for input from a third party.
  • Service providers should, where possible, continue to progress the matter whilst waiting for third party actions.
  • Service providers should, where possible, give customers an idea of the likely length of delay. However, it is not always possible to tell a customer how long something will take, and where that is the case the service provider should advise the customer of that.
  • Service providers should also keep customers informed of any changes in likely timescales.

What should service providers do about unreasonable third-party delays?

Service providers are unlikely to have control over how long a third party takes to respond or provide information.

However, it is also the case that in many circumstances the service provider should contact or chase the third party to try to progress the customer’s matter as efficiently as possible. 

This may not be appropriate in all circumstances, however, for example where the third party is an organisation with queues of its own. This commonly applies to the Land Registry, the Probate Registry, Courts and the Home Office.

However, where waiting for expert input, or a response from the other side in legal proceedings, the firm should reasonably chase for required information, reports or responses. The Legal Ombudsman would expect the service provider to consider the cost impacts of any chases and discuss that with the customer.

What does reasonable service look like here?

  • Service providers should, where appropriate, contact third parties to try to progress matters. However, it is also important that service providers consider the costs and proportionality of any contacts.
  • Where third party delays are unreasonable, and can be avoided, the firm should keep the complainant informed of both the delay and chases to the third party.
  • The service provider should actively consider whether there are other approaches that can be taken to reduce or avoid delays.
  • The service provider should escalate matters as appropriate within a reasonable period time.

Helping prevent complaints about third-party delays

Service providers can minimise the risk of complaints arising about third-party delays by:

  • Giving customers an overview of the process and any potential third-party delays at the outset of the retainer;
  • Keeping customers informed about progress and any third-party delays;
  • Telling customers if things change; and
  • Advising customers of steps being taken to avoid or mitigate third-party delays.

Good communication is the key here. If the firm provides good communication and where possible seeks to explain or avoid unnecessary third-party delays, it is likely that the Legal Ombudsman would consider its service to be reasonable.

Good complaints handling

Despite providers’ best efforts, not all complaints can be prevented.

In considering complaints about third party delays, service providers should:

  • Clearly explain to a customer when a delay is not down to them;
  • Explain to the customer what they have been doing to address the delay, and how they ensure the matter progresses as effectively as it can;
  • Explicitly consider their own actions, and recognise where their service could have been better;
  • Where there are issues with the service provider’s service, they should consider the Legal Ombudsman’s guidance on “Putting Things Right” when making an offer to resolve the complaint.

Some case study examples involving third-party delays, and how the Legal Ombudsman approaches them, can be found below.

Third-party delay - case resolved by an early resolution

Background

Miss T complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a probate matter. The service provider was instructed in March 2022, and made the application for probate, following various necessary work, in December 2022. Miss T then raised her concerns about the progress being made with the service provider in September 2023.

The complaint

Miss T’s complaint is that this is a straight-forward estate, and she does not understand why it is taking so long to conclude.

The service provider investigated the complaint and provided a detailed reply in line with its complaints process. In particular, the service provider provided a chronology and evidence to show the attempts it had made to get updates on the progress of the application from the Probate Registry. It also provided evidence showing the updates that it had provided to Miss T.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach

Miss T 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 the service provider had provided evidence showing it was not responsible for the delay in progressing the estate, had appropriately contacted the Probate Registry to seek updates on the matter, and was taking reasonable steps to progress the estate in the interim. The service provider also raised a complaint with the Probate Registry about the delays and kept Miss T informed of the actions it was taking to try to move the administration forward.

Having reviewed the evidence provided, a member of the Early Resolution Team contacted Miss T. They explained that the service provider was not responsible for delays caused by a third party, in this case the Probate Registry, and that it had taken all reasonable steps to progress the matter. As such, Miss T’s complaint lacked any prospect of success. Miss T accepted that view and the complaint was closed by agreement.

As this case was resolved by the Early Resolution Team, a case fee was not payable by the service provider.

Third-party delay - reasonable offer made

Background

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.

The 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.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach

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.

Third-party delay - complaint resolved by final decision

Background

Ms P complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a personal injury claim. She instructed the service provider in July 2022, and it arranged an appointment for her with a medical expert in November 2022. However, the medical expert was delayed in providing their report, and Ms P complained to the service provider in April 2023 that there had been unreasonable delays in progressing her claim.

The complaint

Ms P complained that the service provider had caused unreasonable delays in progressing her claim, had not addressed the medical expert’s delays, and had not kept her updated.

The service provider responded briefly to Ms P’s complaint but simply took the view that it was not responsible for the medical expert’s delay, and did not make any offer to resolve the complaint.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach

Ms P was unhappy with the service provider’s response and escalated the complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. The case was reviewed, and it was decided further investigation was needed – to assess what the service provider did in respect of the medical expert’s delays.

The evidence showed that the medical expert was delayed in providing the medical report, as they had a backlog of work.

Our investigator found that although the service provider had contacted the medical expert, it had done so only once in a five-month period between November 2022 and April 2023. The investigator took the view that the service provider had not taken reasonable steps to progress Ms P’s matter. Nor had it kept her updated about progress during that period.

As a result, the investigator recommended a remedy of £200 to recognise the impact of the failing on Ms P. Although the service provider accepted the investigator’s decision, Ms P did not, as she was upset by the fact the service provider had not recognised its failings.

The matter was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision. The Ombudsman agreed with the investigator’s findings and remedy. They issued a final decision, directing that the service provider pay Ms P £200 to recognise the impact the failing had had on her. The Ombudsman did not direct a higher remedy, as the actual delay in the medical expert providing the report was not down to the service provider.

As the complaint was upheld and the outcome was not in the service provider’s favour, a case fee was charged in this case.