Mrs W instructed the service provider to pursue a personal injury claim on her behalf, following a road traffic accident.
The claim went on for some time and the service provider needed to obtain various expert reports to assess the impact of the injuries sustained during the accident. This included needing to seek additional information from one medical expert and then seek a further expert report.
The service provider applied for a stay in the relevant court timescales to obtain the further medical evidence. However, when the stay needed to be extended, there were issues with the court process, and the payment of the fee to court. As a result, Mrs W’s claim was struck out.
Mrs W raised a number of complaints with the service provider, which included:
Delay;
Poor communication; and
A failure to protect her claim by correctly extending the relevant court timescales.
The service provider responded to Mrs W’s complaints and recommended that she seek independent legal advice about the fact her claim had been struck out. They also made an offer of £600 in respect of their accepted service failings relating to delay and communication.
Mrs W was unhappy with the service provider’s offer, and escalated her complaint to LeO, saying she had lost out on compensation for her claim.
Mrs W’s complaint was reviewed on receipt, and given the stated losses, was passed to in-depth investigation.
Once the matter was allocated to an investigator, the service provider indicated that they wanted to make a further offer to address the loss of chance experienced by Mrs W. The firm made a revised offer, which reflected the potential value of the claim that Mrs W had not received. The basis of this was the loss was a consequence of the claim being struck out, and it was struck out due to the service provider’s failure to follow the correct process steps.
Mrs W accepted the service provider’s revised offer, and the case was closed as resolved without investigation. However, as the complaint had been passed to in-depth investigation, a case fee was payable.
A remedy for loss of chance may be appropriate where, due to a service failing, a consumer has lost the chance to conclude a claim or obtain a settlement.
Service providers should use LeO’s remedies guidance to help them consider the most appropriate remedy to address at the issues of complaint being raised.
The level of a loss of chance payment is likely to depend on the percentage chance of avoiding the loss, had the service been reasonable.
