Complaints: LSB should use its powers to force LeO action, says panel
The Legal Services Board (LSB) must take “a more proactive stance” in making the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) publish complaint outcomes in full, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has argued.
The LSCP said the oversight regulator “must explore, more rigorously, how to bring about the desired outcome, if not through the [Legal Services Act] 2007, then perhaps by issuing formal guidance”.
In its 2024/25 annual report, the LSCP said it had “long argued that LeO will not publish ombudsman decisions in full without regulatory intervention”.
Although the LSB was “of the opinion that it does not have the statutory levers to intervene robustly, the panel is of the view that the LSB must explore, more rigorously, how to bring about the desired outcome”.
It went on: “The LSB must take a more proactive stance to ensure that LeO’s decisions are accessible, consistent, and capable of driving improvements across the sector.
“We acknowledge that LeO has agreed to publish more public interest cases, thanks to the pressure exerted by the LSB, but this falls short of what consumers and their representative need.”
Last month, LeO published three decisions about law firms [1], describing the move as “a renewed commitment to using the powers granted under part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007, which allow publication of final decisions where there is a clear public interest in doing so”.
LeO cited pressure from the LSB and LSCP as part of the reason it restarted work on publishing decisions, having stopped for two years for operational reasons.
But LSCP wants it to go further, arguing that none of the arguments against routine publication were “insurmountable” or outweighed the benefits of “transparency and accountability”.
LeO had “historically resisted full publication, citing operational challenges”, the report said, such as legal threats in the form of judicial reviews and pre-action protocol letters and “prohibitive costs (approaching £1m) for additional staff and systems”.
The LSB meanwhile had “repeatedly expressed its desire to see improved transparency from LeO, particularly in relation to the publication of ombudsman decisions” but had not been “able to compel” LeO to publish decisions in full.
“The LSB is of the view that its powers do not stretch this far, compounding the need for revisiting the regulatory architecture.
“While we acknowledge that the LSB must balance competing considerations, including LeO’s operational independence and the resource implications of full publication, we note that this issue has persisted unresolved for over a decade.”
The absence of full decisions undermined public confidence, it argued.
“Without access to precedents, consumers and legal professionals are left in the dark about how similar complaints are handled, increasing the risk of inconsistency and perceived unfairness.
“This opacity is particularly troubling given that other ombudsman schemes such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman routinely publish full decisions to promote accountability and learning.”
In a blog on the subject published on the LSCP website, chair Tom Hayhoe said the panel believed that LeO’s resistance reflected “an outdated regulatory mindset, one more concerned with control than progress”.
He went on: “The cost argument must be seen in context. £1m is a lot of money, but what is the cost of sustained opacity in a public service system? How do we measure the impact on consumer confidence, inconsistent professional learning, and the erosion of public trust?”