Mr M instructed the service provider to represent him in his divorce and financial proceedings. The financial matters proceeded to a final hearing, at which the judge issued a decision regarding those finances.
Mr M was unhappy with the judgment, and as a result raised a number of complaints about the service provider’s service.
He complained to the service provider, and they provided a prompt and thorough response to his complaints. The service provider was of the view that their service was reasonable, and due to the tone and manner of the complaints raised by Mr M they also noted that their working relationship had broken down so they could no longer act for him.
Mr M complained to the service provider after his final hearing, but before the firm ended the retainer. He raised a number of issues including costs, advice, communications and that the service provider had made various errors and had not followed his instructions.
The service provider gave a detailed final response, in line with their own complaint handing procedure. They did not uphold Mr M’s complaints.
As Mr M was unhappy with the service provider’s response, he escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
As a remedy, Mr M wanted compensation for the financial losses he said he had incurred, as a result of the service provider’s service failings.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt, but due to the number of issues and the nature of the complaints, it was not suitable for early resolution. As a result, it was progressed to an in-depth investigation.
The investigator obtained evidence and reached a conclusion that the service provider’s service was reasonable. Mr M did not accept this, and as a result the complaint was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision.
The Ombudsman reviewed the evidence, as well as the parties’ comments, and concluded that the service provider’s service was reasonable.
Importantly, it was clear that much of this complaint was driven by the fact Mr M was unhappy with the outcome of his financial matters. However, the Legal Ombudsman does not look at decisions made by the court and it cannot consider actions that were or were not taken by the other side and their solicitors.
It is also the case that deciding what information to present to a court is often a matter for a service provider’s professional judgement, which unless it is obviously wrong, is unlikely to lead the Legal Ombudsman to determine that the service provider’s service was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s final decision was that the service provider’s service was reasonable.
As the service provider’s service and complaints handling were both reasonable no case fee was payable.
