LeO opens door to investigating “tightly defined” third-party complaints


Elisabeth Davies

Davies: “The current blanket prohibition is unfair”

There is scope for the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) to offer redress to third parties, as long as the complaints involved could be “clearly and tightly defined”, a report by a LeO working party has found.

The working party, chaired by then chief executive Adam Sampson, included representatives from the Legal Services Consumer Panel, the Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.

Their report is still to be published, but minutes for last month’s Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) board meeting reveal the report’s conclusion that there were “some cases” in which access to redress from LeO could be helpful, if the circumstances could be “clearly and tightly defined”.

The minutes said it was agreed at the meeting that it would be “premature to include third-party complaints in any consultation required for rule changes to comply with the EU ADR directive,” coming in next year.

The meeting also noted that “secondary legislation would be needed to address any categories of potential third-party complaints”, but it agreed that LeO would continue to work with stakeholders on the issue and an update would be presented to the board in July 2015.

Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said: “We’ve always accepted that only some such complaints should be permitted, but maintained the current blanket prohibition is unfair – the OLC’s agreement with this principle is an important breakthrough.

“This is no small matter – 1,680 third party complaints were turned away by the Legal Ombudsman in 2013-14. We look forward to making further swift progress on these issues with the LeO and our stakeholders during 2015.”

LeO set up the working group in September last year, amid reports of lawyers harassing third parties over alleged debts, violating their privacy and doling out abusive treatment in court.

The move came in the wake of a commitment the ombudsman made in 2012 following a review of its scheme. This review had put forward various options, with LeO preferring a ‘list’ approach to the kind of complaints that would be caught, rather than allowing all third-party complaints or those where there was a direct duty of care.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


What challenges will the Bar face in the next five years?

As we look towards the end of 2021 and at how the Bar has adapted to the harsh realities of the pandemic, the question beckons as to what the future holds.


The rise of cyber-criminal threat for law firms since Covid-19

The global coronavirus pandemic, and the rise in people working from home, has unfortunately provoked a growth in cyber-crime. The UK government estimates that the cost of cyber-crime is £27bn per annum.


How to ensure your ATE cover is adequate security for costs

When does an after-the-event insurance policy provide adequate security for a defendant’s costs? The short answer is that it very much depends on the wording of the particular policy.


Loading animation