Hayhoe: Standardisation is needed
The Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has expressed its frustration and “deep concern” over the “persistent failure” of lawyers to effectively deal with complaints from consumers.
It recommended mandating both standardised and user-tested information on how to make a complaint, and adoption of a model complaints procedure currently being developed by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO).
The panel also called for publication of first-tier complaints data, “enabling consumers to make informed choices about legal services providers based on past consumer experiences”, and better collaboration between regulators and service providers “to create a consumer-focused culture across the legal sector”.
“Regulators require all service providers to provide information about how to make a complaint, but this information is not getting through,” the LSCP said today.
Its 2024 tracker survey found that only 51% of consumers who used a legal services provider reported that they know how to make a complaint about poor service – and of those, only 48% said they would complain to the provider first, which is actually a pre-requisite before going to LeO.
“Consumers themselves have been telling us, as far back as 2016, that this information is ineffective and that instructions on how to complain must be available when needed,” the panel said.
“Complaint information in client care letters was found to be complex and difficult to read, expressed in unfamiliar and heavily caveated language as well as lacking in signposting, meaning it was not accessible.
“This inaccessibility was especially pronounced for vulnerable consumers such as those with low literacy levels, visual impairments or for whom English was a second language.”
The problems were also reflected in the fact that 46% of LeO’s investigative outcomes found poor complaints handling by the legal services provider.
“This trend not only undermines consumer trust but also hinders the sector’s overall reputation. Consumers deserve to have their concerns addressed promptly and effectively. Current performance demonstrates a troubling gap between expectation and reality.”
The LSCP has been campaigning on this issue for many years and last year the Legal Services Board adopted a statutory statement of policy setting expectations of the frontline regulators on complaints.
Among the requirements are that providers must explain to client that complaints handling is free, provide upfront timelines and give progress updates on complaints as they are processed
The regulators are now looking to implement this, with both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board publishing consultations in the last fortnight.
The LSCP acknowledged that the Legal Services Board “has made progress in promoting better practices”.
“However, the lack of consistent and standardised approaches to handling complaints remains a major issue. The panel believes that both service providers and regulators must step up their efforts to ensure that consumer complaints are treated with the seriousness they warrant.”
The panel strongly backed LeO’s work on creating a model complaints resolution procedure, which could improve both consistency of information provider to consumers and the quality of complaints handling, “thus encouraging a feedback culture in legal services”.
While aggregate complaints data – collected and published by some regulators – helped identify trends, publishing the records of individual providers “has the potential to improve the experience of all legal services consumers as it can be an indicator of service quality in a sector that has a dearth of quality indicators”.
LSCP chair Tom Hayhoe said: “Consumers should not feel disillusioned or ignored when they raise complaints. It is vital that legal service providers develop robust mechanisms for resolving issues fairly, swiftly and transparently.
“Recent scandals in the legal sector have highlighted how important complaints intelligence can be. This is why we are in full support of the approach proposed by the Legal Ombudsman for standardisation, an approach we have been calling for over many years.”
Leave a Comment