Guest post by Philip Liptrot, head of personal injury at Thompsons Solicitors
Liptrot: OLC needs to reconsider its approach
Reforming the legal complaints system should improve efficiency, encourage early resolution and focus resources where they can make a genuine difference. Those are sensible objectives.
However, the Office for Legal Complaints’ (OLC) proposed case fee regime [1] for the Legal Ombudsman risks achieving the opposite.
The proposed charges – £200 at early resolution, £750 for an investigation and £1,500 for an ombudsman decision – represent a dramatic shift. The highest fee would be 275% of the current case fee (£400), yet the consultation does not adequately explain how these figures were calculated or why earlier conclusions about proportionality no longer apply.
Rising complaint numbers does not equate to worsening legal services. The OLC has itself recognised that rising demand reflects changing consumer expectations, greater awareness of complaints routes and the growth of artificial intelligence.
Law firms increasingly receive lengthy, repetitive, AI-generated correspondence that requires significant time and care to assess.
Wider issues outside of a solicitor’s control including court delays, another party’s conduct and delays in obtaining medical evidence, can also cause dissatisfaction.
Charging firms simply because a complaint moves through the process weakens the present connection between fees and fault. It could also encourage firms to settle complaints for commercial reasons rather than because they have merit.
A £200 early resolution charge, combined with uncertainty over likely remedies, risks creating a ‘pay to avoid escalation’ culture.
Personal injury firms in particular have been under considerable financial pressure since LASPO, whiplash reform and the extension of fixed recoverable costs. Additional complaint-related charges may make lower-value, complex or higher-risk claimant work commercially unsustainable, widening the justice gap and restricting access to representation for injured people.
As we argued in our response to the consultation [2], any proposed reform should be supported by a published impact assessment examining the financial rationale, behavioural effects, sector-by-sector consequences and cumulative effect on access to justice.
A demand-based model must consider uphold rates, total case volumes, the quality of first-tier complaint handling and the complexity of the provider’s work – not raw complaint totals alone.
The fee-waiver test also needs clarity. This would apply where the complaint is resolved in the lawyer’s favour or otherwise dismissed and the ombudsman is satisfied that the service provider took all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint at first tier. “All reasonable steps” should be defined in the scheme rules, rather than left to uncertain or inconsistent interpretation.
Similarly, a charge for failing to issue a final response within eight weeks should not be automatic: complexity, third-party evidence, client vulnerability or continuing efforts to settle may explain a delay.
Technology should be part of the answer to technology driven demand. Standardised submissions, automated triage with human oversight and better jurisdiction filtering could identify incomplete, misdirected or out-of-scope complaints earlier.
Publication of ombudsman decisions may improve transparency, but only if complaint numbers are accompanied by uphold rates, caseload volumes and meaningful sector comparisons.
We support a fair, efficient and transparent complaints system. But reform must not turn procedural involvement into a financial penalty. The OLC should reconsider the proposed fees, publish a robust impact assessment, clarify the waiver test and improve early resolution.
Without those safeguards, the changes risk raising costs, distorting complaint handling and restricting access to justice.