Mr C instructed the service provider in an unfair dismissal claim against his employer. Although Mr C was successful in his claim, he was unable to recover the award from his previous employer, as they went into liquidation before the final hearing.
Mr C was of the view that the service provider’s service failings caused delays, which ultimately led to him being unable to recover the award made against his employer, leaving him with a financial loss. He therefore complained to the service provider.
He wanted the firm to pay him the award he could have recovered from his employer.
Mr C complained about the provider’s communication, delays, and hearing-related issues.
In their final response to Mr C’s complaint, the service provider accepted some service failings and offered Mr C compensation of £250 for the emotional effects.
Mr C was unhappy with the remedy offered and escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
Mr C’s complaint was reviewed on receipt. However, it was determined that the complaint was not suitable for the Early Resolution Team, as evidence was required to establish what information the service provider had at the relevant time and whether alternative actions could have been taken.
Mr C’s complaint was therefore passed for an in-depth investigation.
Following that investigation, a number of Mr C’s complaints were upheld, and the investigator recommended a remedy of £500 in compensation for the emotional effects.
Neither Mr C nor the service provider accepted the case decision, so the case was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision.
The Ombudsman considered the evidence and the comments of both parties and agreed with the investigator. Critically, the Ombudsman was of the view that, although there were service failings, the service provider was not responsible for Mr C’s financial losses. This was because the service failings did not, themselves, lead to Mr C losing his award.
The Ombudsman did however conclude that the service provider’s offer was not appropriate. They agreed with the remedy of £500 as proposed by the investigator, to compensate for the significant lingering doubt that would be suffered by Mr C.
As the decision directed a remedy higher than that offered by the service provider, a case fee of £400 was payable.
