Sharp rise in complaints about Legal Ombudsman’s service

Complaints: Increasing delays in complaints being allocated to an investigator

There has been a sharp rise in the number of complaints made about the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), its service complaint adjudicator has reported.

But Claire Evans said that, in general, LeO dealt with those complaints appropriately.

LeO received 183 service complaints in 2018/19 – up 42% from 129 the year before – of which 45 were referred to stage 2 of the process, to be considered by a senior manager. Some 28 were then referred on to Ms Evans.

She said the reason for the increase in complaints was not clear and LeO was investigating. “It could well be connected to the introduction of the customer experience specialist who now deals with all stage 1 service complaints.

“What is pleasing is that the percentage of those complaints going to stage 2 is at its lowest level for the last four years at (24.5%). Previously it has been as high as 43% (in 2016/17).

“On the whole, I have been satisfied by the responses provided by the customer experience specialist and the level of investigation that has been undertaken.”

Complaints about LeO’s services are first considered by the team manager responsible for the area where the complaint arose; if the complainant is not happy with the outcome, it goes to a senior member of staff, usually an ombudsman or operations manager; the final stage is Ms Evans, who is independent of LeO.

Though overall the decisions and explanations provided at the first two stages of the complaints process were appropriate, the adjudicator said, the “significant increase” in the number of cases reaching her – 62% of the stage 2 cases – was “disappointing”. The previous highest was 48%.

Ms Evans completed 25 cases during the year, which included 258 individual issues of complaint. She supported 35 of those individual issues in 16 of the cases.

The remedies included an apology from the chief ombudsman, compensation totalling £1,600 in seven cases, and for a complaint about a firm to be considered, as it had been missed previously.

Ms Evans wrote: “I have seen a number of cases this year where delays have been an issue. This is not reflected in the number of cases I have upheld because on the whole, complaints about delay have usually been accepted and remedied before the complaint comes to me.

“However, I have been disappointed to see increasing delays in complaints being allocated to an investigator this year, as well as delays in complaints awaiting an ombudsman’s decision.”

At the same time, she said LeO has improved the information it provided to complainants while their case awaited an ombudsman’s decision, while the wait times reduced as the year progressed.

“However, in terms of the cases awaiting allocation, what has been disappointing is that the customer’s expectations have not always been managed well and they have not always been regularly updated.”

Ms Evans also identified issues with stage 2 complaint responses “not always reflecting the evidence in the case”.

She explained: “There have been individual incidences of misunderstanding and/or a lack of attention to detail. In addition, customers were not always contacted to clarify their concerns as part of the stage 2 complaint investigation.

“I have made recommendations accordingly that have been adopted, and this should be set against my view that on the whole the stage 2 complaint responses have been appropriate and fit for purpose.”

Ms Evans said she had made 12 suggestions for service improvements, and found LeO “very receptive” to them.

    Readers Comments

  • Christopher Lennon says:

    Very few complainants are prepared to go through the opaque process required to reach Stage 2, especially as the decision on the original Complaint, even if shown to be wrong, is final and only nominal compensation is available. Service delays are only part of the problem and bearable, if the LeO then reaches a ‘fair and reasonable’ conclusion, but how often does that happen? The Ombudsman who dealt with my case, it having been passed up to him by an Investigator, defended his decision in the above phrase, but he seemed to have a comprehension deficit, or it was a perversion of language, being the entire opposite of the truth. A Google search shows some 94 percent of those posting who had lodged a Complaint to the LeO were dissatisfied with the outcome and there is a consistent pattern whereby they conclude the LeO is partial towards solicitors and against complainants, besides complaints of delay, unreasonable demands and high-handed treatment, all of which I experienced as well. That is far too high, even allowing for the fact a proportion of Complaints will be impossible to uphold.

  • Michael White says:

    From experience, LeO has no legal experience and decisions are not always compliant with the law. The LeO has a law degree but some mistakes are so basic principles it beggars belief that she graduated law school. There appears to be no consistency and investigators are clueless are easily manipulated by solicitors. The powers are deminimus. I would suggest you save time and circumvent the LeO and direct your complaint to the SRA and despite the SRA are equally incompetent , the SRA would not influenced by any unsubstantiated decisions of the LeO.

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.


Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.


3 April 2020

In challenging times, should you move to the cloud?

Having a cloud-based system can provide workers with incredible flexibility. However, there are many things that a firm should be aware of before making the transition to the cloud.

Read More

Loading animation