Background

Mrs B instructed the service provider in respect of a property matter.

Once the work was completed an invoice was issued to Mrs B.

As the invoice remained unpaid for several months, the matter was passed to the service provider’s debt recovery team. They served notice that legal proceedings would be initiated if payment remained outstanding.

Mrs B complained to the service provider, stating the invoice was not due as she had not signed the client agreement hence had not given her approval for work to commence. She asked for the bill to be cancelled.

Complaints 

Mrs B complained that the service provider had not provided a reasonable service. Her main complaints were that the service provider:

  • Failed to provide clear costs information regarding Mrs B’s initial consultation.
  • Did not wait for Mrs B’s written approval before starting work.

Mrs B said that as she had not approved the work, no payment was due. 

The service provider gave a detailed response to the complaint in line with the timescales in their own complaint handling procedure. 

They explained why they understood Mrs B to have given her approval to work being carried out. They also identified several occasions where Mrs B could have stopped the service provider from completing further work. 

They offered a reduction of £150 plus VAT as a goodwill gesture, for the lack of clarity around their charge for an initial consultation.

Mrs B remained unhappy with the service provider’s response, so she escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 

The complaint was reviewed on receipt and passed to our early resolution team. This was because the service provider had already made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint, by offering a reduction to their fee.

The investigator reviewed the information already provided and shared their initial assessment with both parties, stating that the service provider’s offer to resolve the complaint was reasonable.

As Mrs B did not agree with the investigator’s assessment, the matter was passed to an Ombudsman for a decision. Mrs B’s complaint was then dismissed by an Ombudsman under 5.7(c) of our scheme rules, as a reasonable offer had been made. 

The Ombudsman explained it was reasonable for the service provider to carry out work on the understanding that Mrs B approved, due to ongoing communication that did not state to the contrary. 
Mrs B had also been presented with a number of opportunities to halt work. On this basis it was fair to charge for the work that had not been stopped.

The service provider’s offer to discount their bill by more than 50% of the initial consultation fee, was unlikely to be exceeded by any remedy directed by the Legal Ombudsman, and the gesture of goodwill was in line with our remedies guidance.

As the complaint was resolved by the early resolution team, no case fee was payable.

LeO Insights

  • If we decide that a service provider reasonably believed their client consented for the work to be done as proposed, we will find the service to have been reasonable. 
  • As the service provider’s complaint handling was reasonable it resulted in resolution at the earliest opportunity, without the need for a full investigation.
  • A final response with recognition of the service failing and an appropriate remedy offer, prevented the service provider from being charged a case fee.
  • Where a service provider’s costs information is unclear or unreasonable, it is unlikely the Legal Ombudsman will waive all costs, unless work was of no value. A proportionate costs reduction or impact payment is more likely.