The complaint

Ms S wanted to make a claim against a third party. She had Legal Expenses Insurance as part of her house insurance policy, so her insurers instructed the firm to look at her claim and be her legal representatives. The firm decided that the claim did not have reasonable prospects of success and they were unable to act for Ms S. 

Ms S complained to the firm that they had not considered all aspects of her intended claim and had come to an unreasonable conclusion about the prospects of success. When the firm rejected her complaint, she then referred the matter to the Legal Ombudsman. 

When the firm found out that Ms S had referred her complaint to this office, they exercised their right under our Scheme Rules to challenge our involvement in the matter. They explained that Ms S was not their client, and in fact the client was the insurer, who instructed them and paid their fees. The firm’s position was that at no stage did they provide a legal service to Ms S, and therefore we should not be looking at her complaint. 

The outcome

We carefully considered the firm’s challenge and responded to it. In our response, we explained that under our Scheme Rules there is no requirement for the person who is complaining to have been a client of the service provider that they are complaining about, rather we would determine whether the service provider had provided a legal service to them.  

In this case, although we accepted that the insurer was the firm’s client, the service they were providing was to assess the merits of Ms S’s claim, and in undertaking this work they were providing a service to Ms S. The reason that we gave for this was that any errors or delays on the part of the firm in assessing the case could affect Ms S’s ability to bring the claim, and this could cause issues for her. 

We could not therefore agree with the challenge that the firm made, and we advised them that the investigation into Ms S’s complaint would continue. 

Guidance:

Guidance: Scheme Rules FAQ | Legal Ombudsman