Background

Mr N instructed the service provider in respect of a house purchase. Following completion, it took more than 12 months to register the purchase. Mr N complained to the service provider because of the time taken, but also because they did not keep him informed. 

In particular, Mr N also raised the fact that the service provider’s complaints handling had been poor. They did not address his points in sufficient detail, which led in large part to his decision to escalate his complaint to LeO.

Complaints 

Mr N raised the following areas of complaint: 

  • Delay in registering the property; 
  • Poor communication as the firm did not provide updates; and 
  • Poor complaints handling. 

The service provider did provide an email response to Mr N. However, Mr N was concerned that they did not provide a chronology of the matter, or issue a formal letter of response to his complaint. 

The service provider did not accept that there were any service failings in its responses to Mr N’s complaints. 

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 

We reviewed Mr N’s complaint and, as there was no clear explanation of the events that led to registration taking so long, we decided that the complaint was not suitable for early resolution. 

The complaint was passed to in-depth investigation and progressed all the way through LeO’s process to a final ombudsman’s decision. 

Our investigation showed that the service provider had failed to reply to a requisition made by the Land Registry which contributed to the time taken to register the property. The evidence also showed that the service provider had not kept Mr N informed. As a result, the ombudsman upheld the complaints and directed a remedy of £350. 

As this complaint went all the way through LeO’s process, and as a service failing was identified, a case fee was payable.  

LeO Insights 

  • Whilst there is no requirement to produce chronologies, they can show that a service provider’s service has been reasonable or highlight gaps which may then lead to a finding of poor service, and enable service providers to make reasonable offers. 
  • We would expect to see service providers provide reasonable updates, even where they are not proactively working on a matter (e.g. when a property is awaiting registration), and a failure to do so is likely to lead to a finding of poor service. 
  • Identifying periods of delay which the firm has caused, and highlighting any communication failings in a final response, as well as offering a reasonable remedy where one is appropriate, maximises the chances of a complaint being resolved in early resolution.