Ms P complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a personal injury claim. She instructed the service provider in July 2022, and it arranged an appointment for her with a medical expert in November 2022. However, the medical expert was delayed in providing their report, and Ms P complained to the service provider in April 2023 that there had been unreasonable delays in progressing her claim.
Ms P complained that the service provider had caused unreasonable delays in progressing her claim, had not addressed the medical expert’s delays, and had not kept her updated.
The service provider responded briefly to Ms P’s complaint but simply took the view that it was not responsible for the medical expert’s delay, and did not make any offer to resolve the complaint.
Ms P was unhappy with the service provider’s response and escalated the complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. The case was reviewed, and it was decided further investigation was needed – to assess what the service provider did in respect of the medical expert’s delays.
The evidence showed that the medical expert was delayed in providing the medical report, as they had a backlog of work.
Our investigator found that although the service provider had contacted the medical expert, it had done so only once in a five-month period between November 2022 and April 2023. The investigator took the view that the service provider had not taken reasonable steps to progress Ms P’s matter. Nor had it kept her updated about progress during that period.
As a result, the investigator recommended a remedy of £200 to recognise the impact of the failing on Ms P. Although the service provider accepted the investigator’s decision, Ms P did not, as she was upset by the fact the service provider had not recognised its failings.
The matter was passed to an Ombudsman for a final decision. The Ombudsman agreed with the investigator’s findings and remedy. They issued a final decision, directing that the service provider pay Ms P £200 to recognise the impact the failing had had on her. The Ombudsman did not direct a higher remedy, as the actual delay in the medical expert providing the report was not down to the service provider.
As the complaint was upheld and the outcome was not in the service provider’s favour, a case fee was charged in this case.
