Mrs A instructed the service provider in respect of litigation relating to a charge against her property. The service provider explained that if Mrs A paid them a fee, they would review the file and advise on the merits of success of her case.
The service provider completed their review and explained that their advice was that the case lacked prospects of success and they could not help Mrs A.
Mrs A then raised concerns with the service provider, stating they failed to explain their advice or justify the completed work for the amount paid.
Mrs A asked the service provider to return her files and issue a full refund.
Mrs A complained to the service provider within the following year. Specifically, she complained that the service provider’s communication was poor, that they did not provide clear costs information, and that they had not explained their reasons for not proceeding with the case.
The service provider did not respond to Mrs A’s complaint. As she received no response, Mrs A escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
As the service provider did not issue a final response, this case was not suitable for consideration by the Early Resolution Team and it was therefore passed to an in-depth investigation.
An investigation was undertaken, and evidence was reviewed and considered. Once the LeO investigator had completed their investigation, they shared their findings with both parties by way of a case decision, which upheld some of Mrs A’s complaints.
The evidence demonstrated that the service on the service provider’s advice was reasonable and that they provided Mrs A with clear explanations for their position. Consequently, this part of Mrs A’s complaint was not upheld.
However, the investigator concluded that the service provider’s cost information was poor as they did not make clear exactly what work they would do for the payment made by Mrs A, nor did they tell her that some of her payment would be to pay for advice from a barrister. This part of Mrs A’s complaint was upheld. The investigator also concluded the service provider’s complaint handling was poor as they did not provide a response to Mrs A’s complaint.
The remedy for this complaint was made up of a costs refund of £625 (inclusive of VAT) and an additional £250 compensation for the emotional effects. Both parties accepted the case decision, and as a result the complaint was resolved by way of an agreed outcome.
As the service provider’s complaint handling was unreasonable, and the case progressed to in-depth investigation, a case fee of £400 was payable.
