Decisions made about CMCs

We publish data on all complaints that have been resolved by an ombudsman’s final decision.

On this page you can view case summaries and information relating to final decisions made. On occasion, we also highlight concerns to the public about service providers as a public interest case.

Ombudsman decision data

Our Board, (the Office for Legal Complaints) is empowered to publish information on ombudsman decisions by the Legal Services Act 2007. Our Board has instructed the Legal Ombudsman to do this on its website. The information we publish is a simple and transparent record of decisions made by the Legal Ombudsman.

This approach is consistent with government policy which requires organisations such as ours to publish information of this type. It is also consistent with the approach taken by other Ombudsman schemes.

The data is published in accordance with our Publishing Decisions policy.

This policy statement summarises how we approach the publication of decisions, how we will use this information to raise standards and how we will monitor and review the publishing decisions policy.

Publishing Decisions policy statement

This data displays details of claims management companies that have received an ombudsman’s decision made between 1st July 2017 to 30th June 2018.

View datatable View decisions data file (.csv)

Public interest cases

This is where you’ll find detailed reports on cases where there has been a pattern of complaints or set of individual circumstances that have resulted in an ombudsman decision(s) that indicate it is in the public interest that the service provider should be named.

Our Board decided to publish the names of these service providers following extensive consultation.

Please note that this data is from the Legal ombudsman records only. To find out more about service providers you will need to approach them directly or contact the relevant approved regulator.

  • Claimline Direct UK Limited
    7

    Claimline Direct UK Limited

    We have published the details of a series of decisions about Claimline Direct UK Limited. Our board have decided...

Our performance - KPIs 2018-19

Key performance indicators are quantifiable targets and measures that we use to demonstrate how effectively we are working. This information is reviewed on a regular basis by our Management Team and the OLC and allows us to monitor the quality of service we provide to all our customers.

Our data is published on a quarterly basis and covers the following areas:

Customer experience and quality / Reputation and raising professional standards / Efficiency and resilience / People, leadership and culture

Further information about our KPI’s can also be found in our board reporting.

Timeliness

We aim to resolve complaints quickly and fairly, achieving the right outcome based on the facts.

The time it takes to resolve a case depends both on the views of the parties to the complaint and the complexity of the issues involved. If a case can be resolved informally, it tends to take less time than if a longer investigation or an ombudsman’s decision is required.

KPI Measure April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
% CMC cases concluded 60% within 90 days 27% 20% 24%
90% within 180 days 87% 80% 95%
100% within 365 days 100% 100% 100%

Customer satisfaction

Delivering a high-quality service is of fundamental importance to us. It is what matters most to our customers and stakeholders and we are committed to improving the standard and consistency of our work.

The first KPI measure is taken from our regular independent customer satisfaction survey, where we survey our customers (both complainants and service providers) at the end of the process.

Satisfaction within our CMC jurisdiction is gathered annually.

2017/18
CMC 85% customers satisfied with service (satisfied with outcome) Service providers 93%
Complainant 84%
15% customers satisfied with service (dissatisfied with outcome) Service providers 7%
Complainant 15%

Service Complaints

The second KPI looks at complaints about the service we provide and how many we uphold. Our process has 3 levels and allows for complaints to be escalated to an external Service Complaints Adjudicator if required.

Further information can be found in in our Service Complaints Procedure and Service Complaints Adjudicator report.

% complaints upheld % of all complaints resolved
% of service complaints upheld at Stage 1 (Team leader) 40%
Stage 2 (Senior Manager) 48%
Stage 3 (Service Complaint Adjudicator) 70%

Our reputation KPI’s include an indicator of how well we are working with our external stakeholders and whether complainants would recommend us to others. We look separately at complainants who are satisfied and dissatisfied with the outcome of their case as we know that this can significantly affect the views of our service.

Annual
% of stakeholders agreeing that LeO provides value-adding insight Survey undertaken in Q4 2018/19

 

Target Actual 2017/18*
% of complainants satisfied with their outcome who would speak highly of LeO 80% 95%
% of complainants dissatisfied with their outcome who would speak highly of LeO 10% 9%

We are committed to delivering an efficient service within budget. Our unit cost is the total running costs divided by the number of closed cases. Overhead costs are apportioned between our legal and CMC jurisdictions.

Target Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Unit cost – CMC jurisdiction £1,219 £1,496

We are committed to ensuring that the Legal Ombudsman offers an attractive package to all our employees. This includes flexible working, staff development and a focus on wellbeing.

This data covers both the legal and CMC jurisdiction.

Target Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Rolling annual turnover rate <12% 21%
Average days per employee lost to sickness Below CIPD public sector averages (8.5 days per FTE) 10.5 employee days
Staff survey engagement index > 60% 49.4%

Complaints data 2016-17

In this section you will find some data about complaints we have handled from 1 April 2016 – 31 March 2017. We collate and publish complaints data on an annual basis. The data is split into the categories listed below:

  • Who complained to us?
  • Which people or organisations made a complaint?
  • Volume of complaints by area of service?
  • What were the complaints about?
  • What was the resolution method?

Click on the tabs below to view some of the data as graphs.

Please note: Certain historic data will be updated for cases which may be reopened for further investigation and reclosed at a later date. We do not restate previous quarter’s data to reflect this as the effect of this is not significant. Where nets and other results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated.

Who complained to us?

Under the Equality Act 2010, we are required to collate data about those individuals who have made a complaint. The data we collect is analysed to ensure that we do not have a negative effect on the different equality groups. We will report on this data on an annual basis. This data (shown below) is only for those individuals who provide this information to us so the sample size is smaller. The blanks are for those who did not agree to provide their E+D data.

The graphs below show who has made a complaint by *ethnicity, *religion, *gender, *sexual orientation and *impairment.

*Figures based on those who agreed to provide their Equality and Diversity information.

 

 

 

 

 

Click here for the CSV version of this data, (document opens in a new window).

Which people or organisations made a complaint?

The table below shows who has made a complaint, for example a member of the public or executor.

 

Click here for the CSV version of this data, (document opens in a new window).

Volume of complaints by area of service?

The graph below shows what the complaints we received were about by area of service; for example, whether people complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a accident management issue, a financial products/services matter or about employment matters.

You can see a quarterly breakdown for each sector in the CSV file.

 

Click here for the CSV version of the data, (document opens in a new window).

What were the complaints about?

The table shows what the complaints were about by area of service, for example delay/failure to progress or failure to advise.

Costs excessive Costs information deficient Potential misconduct Delay/Failure to progress Failure to advise Failure to Cancel Agreement Failure to Comply With Agreed Remedy Failure to investigate complaint internally Failure to follow instructions Failure to Keep Papers Safe Failure to keep informed Failure to reply Failure to release files or papers Unable to Contact CMC Fee – Settlement – Contractually Disputed Fees Fee – Upfront – Failure to Refund Fees Fee – Upfront – Fee Taken Without Authority Misleading Advertising / Marketing Other Unsolicited Marketing – Telephone Grand Total
Accident management 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.55% 0.90% 0.05% 0.05% 0.30% 0.95% 0.05% 0.35% 0.25% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 3.94%
Criminal Injuries compensation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15%
Employment matters 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45%
Financial products/services 11.66% 2.79% 4.73% 14.95% 9.52% 1.25% 0.50% 2.49% 6.43% 0.30% 10.06% 2.74% 0.35% 8.22% 2.44% 13.65% 1.25% 0.20% 0.05% 0.20% 93.77%
Other-CMC 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.15% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.25% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.80%
Personal Injury 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.25% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.90%
Grand Total 11.86% 2.94% 5.03% 16.04% 10.66% 1.30% 0.55% 2.99% 7.87% 0.35% 10.71% 3.04% 0.40% 8.32% 2.44% 13.65% 1.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.25% 100.00%

 

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

What was the remedy type?

The table shows how we resolved complaints; for example, if they were resolved informally or went through to an ombudsman decision.

Ombudsman Informal Grand Total
Total % Total % Total %
No remedy 99 19.19% 236 34.50% 335 27.92%
To apologise 10 1.94% 19 2.78% 29 2.42%
To complete work for the complainant 1 0.19% 6 0.88% 7 0.58%
To improve procedures to prevent the problem happening again 0 0.00% 4 0.58% 4 0.33%
To limit fees to a specified amount 2 0.39% 20 2.92% 22 1.83%
To pay a specified amount for expenses the complainant incurred in pursuing the complaint. 0 0.00% 2 0.29% 2 0.17%
To pay compensation for emotional impact and/or disruption caused 74 14.34% 120 17.54% 194 16.17%
To pay compensation of a specified amount for loss suffered 5 0.97% 29 4.24% 34 2.83%
To pay interest on monies held 0 0.00% 1 0.15% 1 0.08%
To refund fees already paid 297 57.56% 79 11.55% 376 31.33%
To return papers 2 0.39% 0 0.00% 2 0.17%
To take (and pay for) any specified action in the interests of the complainant 3 0.50% 3 0.44% 6 0.50%
To waive unpaid fees 23 4.46% 165 24.12% 188 15.67%
Grand Total 516 100% 684 100.00% 1200 100.00%

These are remedies applied to cases that were resolved informally or by an ombudsman decision

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

What was the resolution method?

The table shows the resolution methos by area of service. It shows how we resolved complaints; for example, if complaints were closed*, if they were resolved informally or went through to an ombudsman decision.

Closed Informal Ombudsman % Total
% Total % Total % Total
Accident management 27.16% 22 53.09% 43 19.75% 16 100.00% 81
Criminal injuries compensation 50.00% 1 0.00% 50.00% 1 100.00% 2
Employment matters 0.00% 16.67% 1 83.33% 5 100.00% 6
Financial products/services 60.05% 1494 22.71% 565 17.24% 429 100.00% 2488
Other-CMC 16.67% 3 44.44% 8 38.89% 7 100.00% 18
Personal Injury 52.38% 11 33.33% 7 14.29% 3 100.00% 21
Grand Total 58.52% 1531 23.85% 624 17.62% 461 100.00% 2616

*Closed case include:

  • Section 75 Closure
  • Complaints that were withdrawn by the person who complained
  • The person that complained did not make any further contact despite our follow up
  • Complaints which are closed under our scheme rules. Our scheme rules set out the framework for how we resolve complaints about legal services and claims management companies.

Click here for the CSV version of the data table, (document opens in a new window).

How do we put things right?

We prefer to resolve complaints by brokering an agreement between the CMC and the complainant, while bringing both parties to a swift and mutually beneficial resolution. We call this ‘informal resolution’.

Therefore, our investigators attempt to settle complaints as amicably as they can, Where an informal resolution cannot be reached, either party may ask an ombudsman to make a final decision.

At this stage a resolution will be based less on resolving the complaint amicably, and instead on what is considered fair and reasonable.

In 2016-17 we resolved 24% of complaints informally and the number of resolutions reached by an ombudsman decision is 18%.

This year:

  • 21% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of up to £299.
  • 74.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of between £300 and £999.
  • 2.4% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial remedy of between £1000 and £4,999.
  • 2.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial resulted in a remedy between £5,000 and £19,999.
  • 0.2% of ombudsman decisions resulted in a financial resulted in a remedy  £20,000 or more.

Please note: Certain historic data will be updated for cases which maybe reopened for further investigation and reclosed at a later date. As a result the total of each quarter may not match the total.