Miss H instructed the service provider to help her buy her first house. Miss H complained to the service provider after she completed as the transaction took longer than she felt it should have because there were periods of time where the service provider took no steps to move matters forward.
The complaints Miss G raised fell into two broad categories:
Delay – Miss H complained about delays with the transaction and stated she incurred two months’ extra rental payments because of the service provider’s delays, following a change in case handlers
Communication – Miss H also complained about poor communication. In particular, she said the service provider failed to meet her expectations in terms of the level of communication because she was a first-time buyer and so needed things explained to her. Miss H additionally complained that the service provider was difficult to get hold of on the phone and that her instructions were not promptly followed.
The service provider failed to reply to Miss H’s complaint and did not engage with the Legal Ombudsman when asked for a copy of their complaint response.
As the service provider did not reply to Miss H’s complaint, this case was not suitable for early resolution and was passed to an in-depth investigation.
The case was allocated to an investigator, who contacted the parties to agree the complaints and explore whether the service provider accepted there were service failings and, if so, whether it was prepared to make an offer to resolve the complaint.
In this case the service provider accepted that their communication had been poor and that they had directly caused an avoidable delay of a month. As a result, the service provider offered as a goodwill gesture to pay Miss H a remedy of one month’s rent to resolve her complaints about the delay and communication service failings.
The Legal Ombudsman would only direct payments for financial loss where the impact flows directly from the service failing. It is very unlikely that we would direct additional rent or mortgage payments as we would need to evidence that the transaction would certainly have completed sooner. However, in this case the service provider accepted their failings, and wanted to try to put things right for Miss H.
Miss H accepted the service provider’s offer, and the case was resolved as an agreed outcome. As the service provider’s service and complaints handling were both unreasonable, a case fee was chargeable in this case.
Service providers should take account of what they know about their customers – for example, whether they are a first-time buyer – when seeking to manage expectations.
Service providers should, where possible, consider their capacity to complete work when taking on an instruction. Delays are often caused by staff turnover, so where possible service providers should consider putting in place systems to manage this.
Service providers should always issue a final response and seek to resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity. Complaints where a service provider issues a response, and where appropriate, accepts there is a service failing and makes a suitable offer to resolve that, are much more likely to be resolved at first tier and, if escalated, passed to LeO’s Early Resolution Team.
