Ms V instructed Firm W to help with her divorce. After experiencing a number of delays over the next three years, Ms V took the work to a new firm. The new solicitors needed to resubmit applications Ms V had paid Firm W to make for her and the work was completed within six months.
Ms V complained about the quality and speed of the work Firm W had done, as well as communication, pointing us to specific areas of concern. Her impression was the firm had not carried out substantive work on her divorce in the three years, except for making applications that had been rejected, so she felt she was no further forward.
On investigation, it became clear to us that, whilst there had been a lot of work done on the case by Firm W, there had been a significant number of mistakes, with four applications all being rejected for administrative failures by the firm. There were also substantial delays and Ms V was not kept informed of the problems the firm was experiencing.
Our investigator found that the service Firm W had provided was of such poor quality that it was fair to waive the firm’s fees in their entirety, and to make Firm W liable for wasted expenses Ms V had incurred in the case while it had acted for her, such as the fees for failed applications. This came to £2,150.
The effect on Ms V was also emotional: she had three years of little progress on her divorce, plus the inconvenience of finding new solicitors to continue her case. Compensation to reflect that was appropriate. We needed to recognise that, by waiving Firm W’s fees and making Firm W reimburse Ms V for the expenses she had paid Firm W, we were removing any worries about how much she had paid for the work.
The emotional effects on her existed, were in addition to the financial effects, and needed to be remedied. In deciding on fair compensation, we needed to recognise that the effects were intense and long-lasting, but they were now at an end.
Bringing this together, our investigator found that £750 was a fair amount, putting it at the bottom of our highest (Serious) category.
Combined, this remedy was £2,900, and Ms V and Firm W resolved the complaint on this basis.
With the firm having made no offer under its complaint procedure, a case fee of £400 was payable.
LeO's Insights- The effects of a failing in service are rarely limited to the financial. - We will always consider whether there have been any emotional effects and then whether those warrant separate redress.- If they do, any remedy for that will take into account any other remedies we are directing, so that there is neither a detriment unaccounted for nor a detriment getting more than one remedy.- Service providers are encouraged to follow the same approach.
