As part of our ongoing engagement during the Office for Legal Complaint’s consultation on changes to the Legal Ombudsman’s Scheme Rules, Case Fee and approach to publishing decisions, we're continuing to provide further insight into the proposals and address some of the questions and concerns we've heard from stakeholders so far.
Last week, our Chief Ombudsman, Phil Cain, explained our proposed changes to LeO’s case fees.
Today, I will pick up the thinking behind our proposed changes to the Scheme Rules: why we believe change is necessary, and how the proposals are intended to support earlier and more effective complaint resolution, reduce unnecessary escalation, and ensure our service remains accessible, proportionate and focused on the cases where full investigations are needed most.
We know the proposed Scheme Rules changes have generated interest and discussion across the legal sector. Questions have been raised about how the proposals would work in practice, their impact on consumers and service providers, and how they fit within LeO's wider programme of reform.
Below, we've answered some of the most common questions we've received about the proposed changes so far, and provided additional context on the rationale behind them.
You can read last week’s blog with the case fees Q&A here [Consultation Q&A Series: Case Fees | Legal Ombudsman]. As Phil said there, the proposed changes to case fees, Scheme Rules and the publication of ombudsman decisions are best understood as a connected package, not as separate initiatives.
They form a balanced package of reforms designed to support a complaints system that is fairer, more proportionate and more sustainable. The proposals ask something of everyone, and are designed to work together.
Steve Pearson, Deputy Chief Ombudsman
1. Why is LeO proposing changes to the Scheme Rules when it already introduced changes as recently as 2023?
LeO made changes to its Scheme Rules in 2023, but the organisation is operating in a very different environment today. Demand continues to increase, with complaints rising by 37% in 2025/26, creating significant pressure on the service. As part of our wider transformation programme, we have continued to review how the Scheme operates in practice and whether the existing rules are helping us focus our resources where they can have the greatest impact.
The current proposals build on, rather than replace, the changes introduced in 2023. They are intended to provide greater clarity about expectations at different stages of the complaints process, support more proportionate decision-making, and encourage complaints to be resolved at the earliest appropriate opportunity. The aim is not to reduce fairness or accessibility, but to ensure complaints are dealt with in the right place, at the right time, with minimum formality, while allowing LeO to focus its involvement on cases where independent investigation can make the greatest difference to consumers and service providers.
2. Does this mean LeO is looking to limit the number of complaints it receives?
No. The proposal is to clarify that LeO should focus on complaints involving a real impact or detriment, rather than matters that are trivial, inconsequential, or purely theoretical. This helps both consumers and providers understand what needs to be put right and manage expectations.
We will continue to provide appropriate support for customers who face barriers in articulating their complaint or the impact of poor service.
3. Why ask consumers to explain the impact of poor service?
LeO can only identify a fair remedy if it understands how the alleged poor service affected the person bringing the complaint. The same principle applies when complaints are made to the legal service provider. They need to be able to understand not only what went wrong, but also the impact that any failing had on the consumer when considering whether redress is appropriate and, if so, what form that redress should take.
The proposal is not intended to create an additional hurdle for consumers. Rather, it is intended to help focus complaint handling on the issues that have caused a genuine detriment. In some cases, there may have been a technical or administrative failing, but little or no identifiable impact on the consumer. Understanding that distinction at an early stage can help with reaching a proportionate resolution and avoid complaints escalating unnecessarily through the complaints system.
4. Is the proposed 12-year long-stop unfair to consumers with historic complaints?
The consultation recognises that legal service failings can come to light years later: for example, an issue with a property purchase might not come to light until a subsequent sale some years later. But there is a balance to strike here. The proposed long stop is aimed at those cases where too much time has passed for a fair investigation, including where files have been destroyed, where the service provider might have closed, or where relevant people are no longer available. The proposed 12-year period is intended to balance access to justice with fairness and certainty for providers.
5. Will support be available for those who cannot complete the online complaint form?
Yes. The consultation proposes the use of an online form because they improve efficiency and consistency, but we will continue to offer reasonable support or adjustments where someone cannot use the online form. This includes accepting complaints via alternative formats, where appropriate.
6. Is LeO removing the right to request an ombudsman’s final decision?
No. Either party has access to an ombudsman’s final decision where it is necessary and appropriate. However, ombudsman schemes should be proportionate, so escalation should only happen where it is necessary to resolve a complaint, not as the norm in every case.
Disagreement with an investigator’s findings should not, by itself, be enough to require escalation. Under the proposals outlined, to request an ombudsman decision the party would need to explain the grounds for requiring an ombudsman decision, such as new evidence, a material error, procedural unfairness or a substantive dispute.
The consultation remains open until 2 September. Further details, including how to respond, are available here.
