Background

Mr M instructed a criminal defence service provider to help him with his case. Contact from prison was difficult for Mr M, so he appointed a friend to communicate with the service provider on his behalf.

Mr M realised the service provider had progressed his legal matter without communicating directly with him and providing advice. The outcome of the criminal matter was not in Mr M’s favour, and he complained to the service provider. 

Complaints

Mr M complained that the service provider:

  • Failed to discuss the positives and negatives of the course of action they took.
  • Failed to keep Mr M informed on proceedings.
  • Failed to respond to Mr M’s complaint.

The service provider promptly responded to the complaint, explaining how they had been in regular communication with the friend, and kept Mr M updated by post.

Mr M was unhappy with the service provider’s response so escalated it to the Legal Ombudsman. 

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach

The complaint was reviewed on receipt, however as more detail was required around the complaints raised, it was not suitable for early resolution. As a result, it was progressed to an in-depth investigation.

An investigation was started, and initial evidence was reviewed.

The service provider demonstrated that they had written to Mr M at each stage and heard nothing to suggest they should not continue their work. They also shared with us, the advice they had provided to Mr M on the matter.

In terms of the complaint handling, the service provider had responded to the complaint, and although Mr M was unhappy with the response this did not equate to poor complaint handling.

Based on this review the investigator concluded that the complaint should be dismissed.
 
Mr M did not agree, and the matter was passed to an Ombudsman for a decision. The Ombudsman agreed with the investigator’s review and Mr M’s complaint was dismissed under 5.7(b) of our scheme rules, as it did not have any reasonable prospects of success. It was not fair to proceed with a full investigation when it was clear that we were unlikely to uphold Mr M’s complaints.

As the case was dismissed and the service provider’s complaint handling and service were reasonable, no case fee was payable.

LeO Insights

  • Where the Legal Ombudsman assesses they are unlikely to uphold a complaint as there are no realistic prospects of finding the service unreasonable, it is likely that a complaint will be dismissed.
  • In this case, the judgement exercised by the service provider, based on the information available to them, was reasonable, so the service was considered reasonable by the Legal Ombudsman.
  • If a complaint proceeds to investigation but no poor service is found and the service provider’s complaint handling has been reasonable, we will not charge a case fee.