Ms I instructed the firm following her arrest. The service provider was instructed privately to defend Ms I in the associated proceedings.
Ms I was informed of her plea options and instructed the service provider to enter a not guilty plea. Shortly before the hearing she was advised that a not guilty plea did not have any prospects of success.
She then complained to the service provider, saying she would have pleaded guilty much sooner, had she been advised correctly.
Ms I said she wanted a full refund, and compensation for the impact of the service provider’s service failings.
Ms I complained to the service provider saying they had given her poor advice and failed to follow her instructions. Ms I also raised concerns about communication, costs and delay.
The service provider gave a substantive response to Ms I’s complaints and stated they were of the view that their service was reasonable. The service provider offered a £500 refund as a gesture of goodwill.
Ms I was unhappy with the service provider’s offer and escalated the matter to the Legal Ombudsman.
The case was reviewed and although the service provider had made an offer it was passed for an in-depth investigation because it was necessary to obtain and review evidence to determine whether the service provider’s advice was reasonable.
The investigator agreed the complaints with Ms I and then requested evidence from both her and the service provider. Following an investigation the investigator concluded that the service provider’s service had been reasonable.
The service provider accepted the findings of the investigation, but Ms I did not. The case was then passed to an Ombudsman to make a final decision.
When the Ombudsman considered the file, he noted that the service provider’s advice on Ms I’s plea options changed on receipt of evidence. The Ombudsman concluded that it was reasonable for the service provider to change their advice once they had reviewed evidence.
Ms I also raised issues around the service provider not following her instructions in respect of obtaining evidence. However, the evidence here showed that there were delays on Ms I’s part, as well as third-party delays, which meant the evidence could not be obtained any sooner.
The Ombudsman concluded that the service provider’s service was reasonable.
As the service provider’s complaints handling and service were reasonable, no case fee was payable.
