Mr T instructed the firm to extend the lease of his residential property. The extension was completed the following year, and the only matter outstanding was the registration of the extended lease at the Land Registry. This was not completed at the time Mr T complained to the firm two years later.
Mr T contacted the firm on various occasions and when he did not receive a satisfactory response raised a formal complaint.
Mr T complained to the service provider about a few broad issues including:
When Mr T received no response from the service provider to the complaint after a period of four months, he escalated the matter to the Legal Ombudsman.
When the Legal Ombudsman reviewed the complaint, we followed our standard process of asking the service provider for complaints correspondence. It soon became clear that, whilst the service provider had in fact prepared a response, they had not sent it to Mr T.
The service provider’s final response explained that the application for registration was completed promptly, but that the Land Registry raised a requisition that required third party input. There were delays in the required information being provided, and the application was cancelled.
The service provider accepted that there was some delay on their part at this point. They also accepted their communication was poor. However, they did not offer a remedy, nor did they then keep Mr T informed, as they said they would. As the service provider accepted there was a service failing, this complaint was passed to the Early Resolution team, who then resolved the matter by way of a guided negotiation.
The remedy agreed by both parties was £150 in compensation for the emotional effects to recognise the impact of the delays caused by the service provider and their poor communication. They also made a commitment to keep Mr T informed every three weeks, at no cost to him.
As the case was resolved by the early resolution team no case fee was payable.
