Since the Office for Legal Complaints launched its consultation on changes to LeO’s Scheme Rules, Case Fees and Publishing Decisions, we have been engaging with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss the proposals outlined and gather initial feedback.
As part of that ongoing engagement, we’re taking the opportunity to respond to some of the points and queries we are hearing most often. We recognise that consultations of this nature can raise important questions about what is being proposed, and what the impact could be for consumers, service providers and the wider sector.
Over the coming weeks, we will be publishing a series of Q&As covering each main area of our proposals. These articles are intended to complement the consultation document by exploring some of the common themes, concerns and – in some cases – misconceptions that have emerged during our conversations with stakeholders and feedback we’ve received.
There’s a particular point I’d like to re-emphasise and draw out at the start of this series.
Although the consultation covers three distinct areas of reform – changes to case fees, Scheme Rules and the publication of ombudsman decisions – the proposals are best understood as a connected package, not as separate menu items.
Together, they form a balanced package of reforms designed to support a complaints system that is fairer, more proportionate and more sustainable. The proposals, in effect, ask something of everyone:
Of consumers – to be clear about the detriment they have experienced.
Of providers – to engage seriously with complaints and resolve them earlier.
Of LeO – to focus its resources where they add the most value.
All of these elements are designed to work together. Whilst today’s focus is on our proposed changes to case fees, further Q&As will follow on the other key areas of the consultation.
We hope you find them useful.
1. Why are you not considering charging consumers to bring a complaint to LeO?
This is by far the most frequent comment we’ve heard back so far. The simple answer is it’s not something we can do. The Legal Services Act 2007 explanatory notes say that if a complaint is not resolved satisfactorily in-house, the consumer can bring it to the ombudsman scheme free of charge. In addition to this, the Ombudsman Association’s Terms and Rules say those complaining to an Ombudsman should be entitled to do so free of charge, and its good complaint-handling principles describe accessibility as a service that is free, open and available to all who need it.
Charging consumers creates a barrier for people who can currently access the Legal Ombudsman because the service is free at the point of use. For many consumers, particularly those who are vulnerable, on low incomes, or already experiencing financial hardship as a result of the issues they are complaining about, even a relatively small fee could discourage them from pursuing a complaint. This risks creating a situation where access to redress is influenced by a person's ability to pay, rather than the merits of their complaint.
2. Is this a revenue-raising exercise for LeO?
No. Case fee income cannot be used by LeO for additional spending and can only be used to reduce the overall levy contribution payable by the sector. Based on 2024/25 closed cases, the current regime generated around £940,000, around 5% of LeO’s costs, while the proposed model could have generated nearly £3.5m, around 20%, reducing the levy-funded proportion from 95% to about 80%.
It's also important to view the case fee proposals alongside the wider package of reforms being consulted on. The proposed Scheme Rules changes are also intended to help prevent complaints from unnecessarily escalating through our system. By encouraging earlier resolution and ensuring complaints are dealt with at the right stage, they aim to reduce avoidable demand on LeO while maintaining access to independent redress where it is needed.
3. Why are you proposing to introduce an additional £400 fee where a provider has not issued a final response within eight weeks?
Around 25% of complaints received each year involve consumers telling us that they did not receive a final response from their provider, equivalent to around 2,000 cases in 2024/25 and 2,300 in 2025/26. We will do all the necessary checks to establish whether a response has been provided but if it is clear there hasn’t been one, the complaint cannot be resolved through one of our early resolution processes and will require a full investigation. This incurs additional time and cost to resolve, and this cost should not be borne by the rest of the profession through the levy.
4. Could providers feel pressured to settle weak complaints just to avoid fees?
No. The proposals are not intended to encourage providers to settle complaints that lack merit. Instead, they are designed to encourage firms to engage meaningfully with complaints and resolve them wherever possible at the first tier. Where a provider has handled a complaint appropriately and offered fair redress where justified, they should have confidence in their position. LeO will continue to dismiss complaints where there is no real detriment, where a reasonable remedy has already been offered, or where further consideration would be disproportionate. A case fee will not be charged where no poor service and no poor complaint handling has been identified.
5. Are the fees proposals proportionate from a cost perspective?
The fees are designed to be proportionate to the cost of LeO resolving the complaint. Whilst a case resolved through an early Resolution typically costs approximately £500, ombudsman decisions are significantly more resource-intensive, which is one of the reasons given for the proposed £1,500 case fee at that stage. This is lower than the average cost of resolving a complaint via a final decision.
We know service providers are concerned that consumer will try to push a complaint all the way through our systems so that their service provider incurs a larger fee, but the changes we’re proposing to our scheme rules will prevent this from happening.
6. Will all complaints within jurisdiction automatically result in a fee?
No. The proposal is that all complaints within jurisdiction are potentially chargeable, but a case fee can be waived where the complaint is resolved in the provider’s favour or dismissed, and the ombudsman is satisfied the provider took all reasonable steps at first tier. This has always been the case. As it stands, cases resolved through an early resolution are not chargeable. We are simply bringing in a charge for cases closed through an early resolution where evidence of poor service and/or poor complaint handling has been found.
The consultation remains open until midday on 2 September. Further details, including how to respond, are available here.
