Mr G instructed the service provider to help him purchase a house. Mr G became concerned when the property did not complete on the agreed date and so raised his concerns with the service provider.
Mr G was concerned about both the delay in completion and general delays in the transaction. He was also concerned about the service provider’s communication, both with himself and the seller’s solicitors. As a result, Mr G raised a complaint with the service provider, seeking a partial refund of fees due to the delays and communication failings.
The complaints Mr G raised fell into three broad categories:
Delay – Mr G complained that there was a delay in completion, caused by the service provider, as they did not provide all necessary information to his lender.
Communication – Mr G also complained about the number of updates he received during the transaction, saying he felt “kept in the dark”. He also said he did not receive responses to his emails, or requests for information. In addition to Mr G’s concerns, he said that the seller’s solicitor had also experienced communication difficulties.
Costs information – Mr G also complained that he was charged more than the original quote and was not informed of this change.
The service provider failed to respond to Mr G’s complaints and only provided a response when informed of the complaint by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO).
The service provider explained that their business model is that separate staff deal with aspects of the transaction, and that communication is electronic and via an app.
The service provider explained that they accepted some communication may have not been at the level Mr G expected. They also explained that the delays, at least in part, were due to issues in the wider chain.
The service provider offered £300, in light of both their poor complaints handling and their communication failings.
When a complaint is received by LeO with no final response, the first step in our process is to request a response. In this case, the service provider had not originally provided a response but did so as soon as they were notified that the complaint had been passed to LeO. Importantly the service provider apologised for the failing in the complaints handling and offered an enhanced remedy to address this.
The complaint was then reviewed and was passed to the Early Resolution Team on the basis the service provider’s offer was reasonable.
Whilst Mr G was seeking a fee reduction, his transaction did complete and so there was no impact on the value of the service he received. It is also the case that even if there were some issues with the costs information provided, that does not mean the service provider cannot make those charges if they were legitimately incurred.
Therefore, a payment for impact was the appropriate remedy here. The offer of £300 falls into the significant category and is in line with what we would direct if we were to uphold all of the complaints being raised by Mr G, including the service provider’s poor complaints handling. LeO’s Early Resolution Team explained this to Mr G and he was content to accept the outcome on that basis and the complaint was closed as an agreed outcome.
As the complaint was resolved at Early Resolution no case fee was payable by the service provider.
Service providers should make clear their approach to managing transactions and communications at the outset of a retainer, which could reduce the likelihood of a complaint being raised.
Where service providers are not fully responsible for the delays, they should ensure customers are kept reasonably informed of what is happening, which again may reduce the potential for complaints to arise.
Where a service provider’s complaint handling is poor, there is a greater impact on the complainant, and so this will require an additional remedy for any offer to be considered reasonable.
