Mr A instructed the service provider to help him with an immigration appeal. When one branch of the service provider closed, the other branch continued to deal with Mr A’s appeal. However, as a result of poor communication, Mr A withdrew his appeal and raised a complaint with the service provider.
Mr A raised a number of complaints about the service provider, including that the service provider:
Failed to reply to his emails;
Failed to follow his instructions regarding contacting the appeal office; and
Failed to submit appeal documentation by the relevant deadline.
The service provider did not respond to Mr A’s complaint, so Mr A escalated his complaint to LeO.
Mr A said he wanted a remedy for the impact on him arising from the service provider’s failings.
Mr A’s complaint was reviewed on receipt. However, as the service provider’s complaints handling was unreasonable, the case was not considered suitable for early resolution and instead was passed to in-depth investigation.
The service provider was closed, so the case progressed to a final Ombudsman’s decision.
The Ombudsman upheld all the complaints raised by Mr A, and directed a remedy of £700 to recognise the significant emotional impact of this issue on Mr A. No costs-based remedy was directed, as Mr A’s matter was supported by Legal Aid.
As all the complaints were upheld, a case fee was chargeable.
Service providers should set clear expectations in respect of how and when they will communicate with consumers. To offer a reasonable service, they should ensure those expectations are met.
LeO can investigate complaints about closed service providers.
Where a service provider is responsible for multiple service failings, this is likely to increase the level of remedy directed, as they can increase the effect on the consumer.
