Ombudsman decision data

We publish data about the final decisions made by ombudsman.

Our Policy Statement sets out why we publish this information.

This data is updated on a rolling quarterly basis and most of our decisions will be published in the quarter after the decision was made.

Each decision remains published for 12 months from the date of publication.

Included in the table below are details of the ombudsman decisions made between 1 January 2025 – 31 December 2025.

The CSV file for this information can be found here.

How to use this information


General information

The information in the table below shows:

  • Name of the service provider.
  • Total decisions about the service provider in the last 12 months.

Click on the name to find the details of each complaint.



Choosing a service provider

This information can be used to look at the record of service providers. When you look at the information it's useful to ask:

  • Does a complaint mean the firm provides poor service?

No. It's important to check the data and see if we decided whether the service was reasonable or not.

Also take into account that everyone makes mistakes from time to time. When this happens it is important how the service provider responds to the complaint. The data will also show you whether we thought their own (first-tier) complaints handling process was reasonable or not. You should be able to find information about their complaints process on their website.

  • How big is the provider?

If a provider has more than one complaint with us, it could be because they are a big provider and deal with thousands of cases. In this situation it is not unusual for them to have a few complaints listed with us. Always look at the decision we make, not just the number of complaints.

  • What type of work do they do? 

We know that some legal work, such as personal injury, litigation and criminal work, can be more complex for people to understand and the outcomes might not be what people want. This means that complaints could be more likely, but always check what the outcome of the complaint was first.



Downloading data

If this information is used, for example on comparison sites, we encourage you to signpost to the Legal Ombudsman so consumers have the opportunity to find out more about the complaints data.

 


Please click on the green cross in the table below and this will give you more information about the legal service provider and the total decisions made in the last 12 months.

You will find the green cross in front of the name of the legal service provider.

In the table below, the ‘ombudsman remedy required’ field will be 0 if:

  • the ombudsman did not propose a remedy or

  • the remedy proposed by the ombudsman was equal to, or less than, the remedy offered by the firm before we investigated the complaint.

Where data says N/A, this means the ombudsman found the provider’s service to be reasonable.

Filter results by area of law

Number of firms: 129

Number of decisions: 144

Name Number Of Decisions Ombudsman Remedy Required
STOWE FAMILY LAW LLP 6 1
Benjamin David Tisdall 2 2
Blanchards Law Ltd 2 1
BRIGHOUSES (INCORPORATING BELLIS KENNAN GRIBBLE & CO) 2 1
DUNCAN LEWIS SOLICITORS LTD 2 2
JMW SOLICITORS LLP 2 1
LINNITTS SOLICITORS LLP 2 2
MILLS & REEVE LLP 2 0
Perduco Law Ltd 2 2
SWITALSKIS SOLICITORS LIMITED 2 1
THE WILKES PARTNERSHIP LLP 2 1
A-Z LAW SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 1
A.P. BERKELEY LTD 1 1
AC GILEAD SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 0
AFG LAW LIMITED 1 1
ALSTERS KELLEY SOLICITORS LTD 1 0
AMICUS LAW (SOUTH WEST) LLP 1 1
ANDREW ISAACS LAW LIMITED 1 1
ASHFORDS LLP 1 0
ASTUTE DYNAMIC LTD 1 1
ATHENA SOLICITORS LLP 1 1
ATKINS HOPE SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 0
Awdry Law LLP 1 0
Axiom Ince Limited 1 0
B P COLLINS LLP 1 1
BERENSENS LLP 1 1
BLASER MILLS LLP 1 0
BPS LAW LLP 1 0
BRETHERTONS LLP 1 0
BROSS BENNETT LLP 1 0
CHARSLEY HARRISON LLP 1 1
CHATTERTONS LEGAL SERVICES LIMITED 1 0
CLARKE WILLMOTT LLP 1 0
CLIFTON INGRAM LLP 1 0
CLINTONS 1 0
CO-OPERATIVE LEGAL SERVICES LIMITED 1 0
COODES LLP 1 0
CUTHBERTSONS 1 1
CUTTLE & CO SOLICITORS 1 0
CYGNET FAMILY LAW LTD 1 1
CYRIL JONES & CO INCORPORATING STANLEY WILLIAMS 1 0
DAWSON CORNWELL 1 1
DICKINSON WOOD 1 1
ENFIELD FAMILY LAW LTD 1 0
EVERETT TOMLIN LLOYD & PRATT 1 0
Family Defence Law Ltd 1 1
FARD & CO LTD 1 0
FARNFIELDS LLP 1 0
FLC Solicitors Limited 1 1
FLG LTD 1 1
Geoffrey Kelly Ltd 1 0
GLAISYERS 1 0
GOODMAN DERRICK LLP 1 0
GREGORIAN EMERSON FAMILY LAW SOLICITORS 1 1
GUNNERCOOKE LLP 1 1
Hallam Limited 1 1
HALLMARK SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 0
HARPER & ODELL 1 1
HARTNELL CHANOT & PARTNERS LIMITED 1 0
HATCHERS SOLICITORS LLP 1 0
HCR Legal LLP 1 0
HORSEY LIGHTLY 1 1
HOWELLS LEGAL LIMITED 1 1
INCE GORDON DADDS LLP 1 1
ISON HARRISON LIMITED 1 0
J W HUGHES & CO LLP 1 1
JOHN COPLAND & SON 1 1
LIVERPOOL LEGAL SERVICES LTD 1 0
LLOYD PLATT & COMPANY LTD 1 0
LMK LAW 1 1
MAKWANA SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 0
Miss Anna Claire Ratcliffe of Coram Chambers 1 1
Miss Catherine Eileen Hewitt of Quartz Barristers Chambers 1 0
Miss Clare Elizabeth Fear of Albion Chambers 1 0
Miss Hannah Rose Gomersall of Coram Chambers 1 0
Miss Joy Brereton of 4 Paper Bldgs 1 0
Miss Sarah Tiffany Munro of St Mary's Family Law Chambers 1 0
MOGERS DREWETT LLP 1 1
MORTONS LAW LIMITED 1 0
MOSELEY CHAPMAN & SKEMP SOLICITORS LIMITED 1 1
MOSS BEACHLEY MULLEM AND COLEMAN LIMITED 1 1
Mr Asim Hussain of The Barrister Group (Manchester) 1 1
Mr Dingle Clark of Goldsmith Chambers 1 1
Mr Gregory Hamilton Dowell of Whitechapel Chambers 1 1
Mr John William Nathaniel Rundall of 1GC|Family Law 1 0
Mr Philip Arnes Bowen of The Barrister Group (Taunton) 1 0
Mr Sarbjit Singh Boora of Cornwall Street Barristers 1 0
Mr Simon William Edward Charles of St Johns Buildings 1 0
Mrs Anjulika Vatish of 3 Bolt Court 1 0
Ms Amratpal Kaur Matharu of 12 Old Square Chambers 1 0
Ms Ceri Ann White of 4 Paper Bldgs 1 0
NEWNHAM & JORDAN SOLICITORS LTD 1 0
OTTEN PENNA LIMITED 1 1
Parfitt Cresswell 1 0
PARIS SMITH LLP 1 0
PARKINSON WRIGHT LLP 1 0
PEACE LEGAL LIMITED 1 1
PEARSON HARDS LLP 1 1
PENNINGTONS MANCHES COOPER LLP 1 1
Perduco Law Group LLP 1 0

If you cannot see any information relating to a decision you have selected above, the ombudsman decided that no remedy was required in the case