Ms T instructed Firm U to help with her divorce. Ms T was not working at this time and it was possible that a question would be raised – as part of the financial considerations under discussion – about her ability to work after the divorce.
Despite having previously told Ms T that, if the question was ever raised, she should get medical evidence to support her claim that she couldn’t work, the firm didn’t remind her of this, when the other side raised the point about her capacity to earn.
Ms T was unhappy with this, feeling that it reduced the size of divorce settlement she should have received.
Whilst we understood that there is a difference between earning capacity and medical capability, the firm had itself recognised that there was a potential benefit to Ms T getting medical evidence to support her position. As such, when this became relevant, we believed that the firm should have encouraged Ms T to get evidence from her doctor about her situation.
When we looked at the evidence available, there wasn’t enough to persuade us that a GP letter would have made a difference to the outcome. Although we didn’t agree with Ms T’s argument that it caused her to receive a lower settlement in the divorce, we agreed that it left her with a lingering doubt about whether it might have caused her a loss. That feeling was caused by Firm U’s failing and we decided that £250 was a fair amount to compensate for that. It’s at the bottom of our Significant category, reflecting a minor effect but over a long period of time.
The parties couldn’t agree on the outcome, so the matter went to an ombudsman for a final decision, and the ombudsman concurred with the investigator that compensation of £250 was fair.
As the firm didn’t make an offer under its complaint procedure, a case fee of £400 was payable.
LeO Insights- The focus for the parties during the complaint had been on the difference between the settlement Ms T received and the settlement she believed she should have received. - Had Firm U recognised that there was a relevant emotional detriment, even if not accepting a financial one, the firm might have offered a remedy under its complaint procedure.- Whilst unlikely to be accepted by Ms T, if the amount we decided was fair was not greater than Firm U’s offer under its complaint procedure, there would have been grounds to waive our £400 case fee.
