Case work corner

Ms D was buying a buy-to let property and instructed the firm to handle the purchase in February 2020. The purchase was delayed, and Ms D complained that the firm’s staff were unavailable when she contacted them, that the firm did not follow up issues in a timely manner and there was a lack of urgency in their work which caused the delay.

The firm explained that, when the pandemic struck, they sent out a letter to clients on 17 March 2020 which explained that they were following government advice for staff to work from home. They explained that “we may not be able to return telephone calls and / or emails as we would otherwise do and we request your patience and understanding whilst the potential effects of this unprecedented period unfolds”.

Was the service reasonable?

When investigating the issue, we found that although the firm did take longer to respond to correspondence during the period after March 2020, they did respond eventually and, as they had made it clear to their clients that due to the pandemic they would need longer to respond, we found their service to be reasonable.

However, despite the communication having been reasonable, we did find that the firm had delayed the purchase and in doing so did provide poor service. The seller’s solicitors were contactable during the pandemic but the firm did delay in contacting them and dealing with matters generally which we found to be unfair and unreasonable and did delay the purchase. We found that these delays were not caused by the pandemic and were avoidable.

How was the situation resolved?

We recommended that the firm pay compensation to Ms D of £500. The firm accepted our findings and paid the sum to Ms D, resolving the complaint.

Ms L was purchasing a property and instructed the firm in December 2019 to represent her in the purchase. She had cause to complain about the firm’s handling of the purchase and made a formal complaint. When she brought the matter to the Legal Ombudsman in June 2020, one of her complaints was that the firm had failed to respond to her formal complaint.

When we contacted the firm, they accepted that they had not responded to the complaint, and explained that this was due to the fact that their Complaints Handling Partner was clinically vulnerable and had been shielding from March 2020 at home in line with the government’s advice on the coronavirus pandemic. She had not been working during this time and had not therefore responded to the complaint.

Was the service reasonable?

Whilst we had sympathy for the Complaints Handling Partner’s situation, we decided that the firm should have put processes and procedures in place to respond to complaints during the period that the Complaints Handling Partner was shielding. Ms L was entitled to a response to her formal complaint and the fact that she did not receive one was poor service.

How was the situation resolved?

We upheld this complaint recognising that the firm’s failure to respond to the complaint caused Ms L frustration. We directed the firm to pay £250 to compensate for this.

Mrs C was injured in a road traffic accident that was not her fault in January 2020 and instructed the firm to represent her in a personal injury claim against the third-party driver who hit her vehicle whilst she was driving it. Mrs C had serious ongoing whiplash symptoms and was in considerable pain. The firm arranged for a course of physiotherapy to assist her recovery, however when the pandemic struck the physiotherapist felt no longer able to provide face to face treatment and offered an alternative via a Zoom call. Mrs C was not happy with this alternative.

Mrs C identified a different physiotherapist who was prepared to offer face to face treatment during the pandemic. She complained when the firm informed her that she would have to pay privately for doing so.

The firm explained that they had their preferred physiotherapy provider who Mrs C was entitled to continue to use, albeit via Zoom, and their view was that this was an acceptable compromise in difficult times. They told Mrs C that if she was to use a different physiotherapist, she would have to pay for this, but ultimately the costs would be recoverable from the third party driver in the claim anyway, so she wouldn’t be out of pocket when the claim settled.

Was the service reasonable?

When we investigated the matter, we found the firm’s position to be reasonable in the circumstances. They were not preventing Mrs C from using her own physiotherapist but told her that she would have to pay to do so, but when the claim settled – and the other side had admitted the accident was their fault – she would recover all costs incurred at that point.

How was the situation resolved?

Whilst we understood why Mrs C wanted to continue to use the firm’s physiotherapist after March 2020, we found that the firm had explained their position to Mrs C and provided reasonable advice so she was fully informed of what her options were. We did not uphold the complaint.