[1]Cain: Early resolution can settle the majority of complaints
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has warned lawyers that using its new model complaints resolution procedure (MCRP) is not “a proxy” for regulatory compliance.
The finalised version [2] of the MCRP was published last week, following a three-month pilot of the new framework and feedback from legal service providers, regulators and consumer groups.
The feedback raised “concerns” that earlier versions of the framework did not make it clear that when firms and chambers followed the MCRP – and the guidance notes that accompany it – their regulatory obligations still applied.
Some feared that the MCRP could “inadvertently create false assurances” or be seen as “a proxy for compliance assurance”.
The LeO said: “This is particularly important given the diversity of the sector and the different requirements each regulator has in place.
“While the framework has been designed to support effective complaint handling and align with regulatory expectations, service providers remain responsible for ensuring their complaints processes comply with their own regulatory obligations and deliver good consumer outcomes.”
Among the changes made following the feedback are replacing ‘should’ with ‘must’ to “emphasise mandatory expectations”, and providing more help in deciding what is and what is not a complaint.
Chief Ombudsman Phil Cain said the MCRP was “a major milestone” for the LeO, as part of its ambition to improve complaint handling across legal services.
“The evidence from the pilot was compelling. More than half of complaints were resolved at an early stage, often within days, helping consumers receive quicker answers while reducing the need for complaints to progress further.
“By combining a clear process, practical guidance and a comprehensive set of resources, the MCRP gives providers the tried-and-tested tools they need to resolve complaints quickly, save time, and deliver a more consistent and consumer focused complaints experience.”
In the pilot, 631 complaints were put through the MCRP. Nearly 60% were resolved [3] at the early resolution stage, “often through a simple explanation, prompt action or constructive conversation”.
Using early resolution to settle a complaint took on average seven days, compared with 21 days using a full investigation.
Under the MCRP framework, firms and chambers have five days to acknowledge a complaint and eight weeks to respond to it. The same two routes for handling complaints still exist – early resolution or a full investigation – with the emphasis being on reaching settlements quickly in the majority of cases.
In earlier drafts of the MCRP, the LeO said firms and chambers should spend a maximum of 10 days trying to resolve a complaint before opening a full investigation.
But this was seen as prescriptive by some, rather than illustrative.
The LeO said: “We recognise that there are a range of reasons why an early resolution may need to take longer, or that there might be an anticipated benefit to extending it. So, if you want to apply a longer timeframe here, you can do so, and still fully adopt the MCRP.”
In the final version, the ombudsman acknowledged that “every complaint is different”, so some issues would need more time and more flexibility for enquiries and discussions to take place.