Miss B instructed the service provider in an employment matter. However, due to concerns about the service she was receiving and the increasing costs which she had not been told about, and could not afford, she stopped instructing the firm and settled with her employer directly.
Miss B raised a number of complaints with the service provider, including about:
Their costs;
Delays; and
A failure to respond.
The service provider responded to the complaint but did not uphold any aspects of the complaint being made.
Miss B therefore escalated her concerns to LeO.
Miss B’s complaint was reviewed on receipt. It was decided that the complaint was not suitable for Early Resolution, as the service provider had not accepted any service failings, or provided sufficient evidence to show their service was reasonable at that point. The complaint was passed for an in-depth investigation.
An investigator requested and reviewed evidence and having done so upheld Miss B’s complaint about costs. The remaining complaints were not upheld, as the evidence did not show there were any service failings.
Miss B accepted the investigator's conclusions, but the service provider did not. As a result, the complaint was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision.
The Ombudsman considered the service provider’s comments but agreed with the investigator’s conclusions. In particular, the service provider argued that giving a rough estimate followed by monthly updates was providing the best possible costs information. However, the Ombudsman did not agree. The Legal Ombudsman takes the view that a customer should never be surprised by a bill so estimates should clearly indicate all the likely costs which will be incurred by a client. In this case Miss B’s costs significantly exceeded the estimate, and as a result, the Ombudsman decided the service provider’s costs information was poor.
The Ombudsman directed a costs reduction of a third of the service provider’s fees and awarded Miss B £300 to recognise the impact and shock she experienced as a result of the service failing.
As the complaint was upheld, a case fee was payable.
A consumer should never be surprised by a bill. The estimate therefore should include all costs that a consumer is reasonably likely to incur.
Where there are uncertainties about costs, these should be explained to the consumer, and any estimate should take that into account.
