Background 

Mrs C instructed the service provider in a personal injury claim after a road traffic accident. Following the conclusion of her claim, Mrs C raised a number of complaints with the service provider about their communication and delay. 

The service provider issued a substantive final response and offered Mrs C a remedy of £50. 

Mrs C was unhappy with the service provider’s final response and escalated the matter to the Legal Ombudsman. As a remedy to her complaint, Mrs C wanted the difference between the original value of her claim, and the amount she was awarded. 

Complaints 

Mrs C complained that the service provider caused delays and that their communication was poor. In particular, she complained that there were issues with the valuation of her claim, and that the service provider had failed to take steps which meant that the value of her claim was reduced. 

The service provider upheld a number of Mrs C’s complaints, including poor communication, delay and the fact that there was confusion in respect of the valuation of the claim. They offered Mrs C £50. 

The service provider’s response was provided in line with the timescales in their own complaints handling procedure. 

The Legal Ombudsman's view and approach 

The Legal Ombudsman reviewed the complaint on receipt and passed it to the Early Resolution Team for action.  

The view taken by the Early Resolution Team was that although the service provider upheld a number of issues, and offered a remedy, the remedy was insufficient. The Legal Ombudsman therefore decided to attempt a guided negotiation and asked the service provider to increase their offer to £250.  

The service provider agreed, however Mrs C did not accept the increased remedy of £250. 

As Mrs C did not agree with the revised remedy, the matter was passed to an independent Ombudsman for a decision. The Ombudsman decided that Mrs C’s complaints about the firm’s advice lacked prospects of success, as the advice was not obviously wrong, these aspects of complaint were dismissed under Scheme Rule 5.7a). The Ombudsman also decided that if Mrs C’s other complaints were upheld, that an offer of £250 was in line with the likely remedy that the Legal Ombudsman would direct.  These aspects of complaint were dismissed under Scheme Rule 5.7c), as the service provider’s offer was reasonable. 

As the complaint was closed by the Early Resolution Team no case fee was payable. 

LeO Insights

  • The complaint could have been avoided had the service provider’s communication been clearer and more prompt.
  • The service provider upheld several complaints, so if they had also offered a remedy in line with the Legal Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this complaint would be been resolved by the service provider, without escalation to the Legal Ombudsman.
  • Even with escalation to the Legal Ombudsman, had the remedy been in line with our guidance it is likely that the complaint could have proceeded immediately to dismissal.  This would have saved time for all parties.