Mr J instructed the service provider to give advice on a criminal matter. However, the service provider then became aware that there was a conflict of interest, and they were unable to continue to act.
Mr J complained to the service provider about their failure to list all persons involved in the matter on the file. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the service provider to confirm what information they did and did not hold.
The service provider did not respond to Mr J’s complaints, on the basis that they did not consider him to be a client.
As Mr J did not receive a response to his complaints, he escalated the matter to the Legal Ombudsman. It was reviewed on receipt and, as there was no final response, the complaint was not suitable for Early Resolution. The matter was therefore passed to in-depth investigation.
At investigation, we agreed to look at Mr J’s complaint about the information listed on file, and also in respect of the service provider’s complaints handling.
Following an investigation, the Legal Ombudsman upheld Mr J’s complaint about the service provider’s poor complaint handling. The complaint about the information listed on file was not upheld.
Given the significant period of time that Mr J’s complaints went unanswered, a remedy of £250 was proposed by the investigator to recognise the emotional effects of the failing on Mr J. This was accepted by both Mr J and the service provider, and the case was closed as an agreed outcome.
As the case had passed to full investigation, and the service provider’s complaints handling was unreasonable a case fee was payable.
Any service provider that provides a service should respond to a complaint that has been raised. Complaints that have been responded to may be suitable for early resolution.
Where a firm receive multiple complaints and still fail to reply, it is likely that any remedy for emotional impact will be higher, as the consumer can demonstrate a more significant level of impact.
