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.

  • Steve says:

    I have had cause to complain about the Ombudsman Service even though they judged the firm had provided poor service. The Ombudsman went onto making excuses for the firm (It was around Christmas when I sent some of the chasing emails…, The file had been passed to another member of staff and they were familiarising themselves with the file …, There were lots of other things going on … (The firm are Executors of my late mother’s Will and failed to ensure the main asset was insured for 9 months although it was a condition in my late mother’s Will). Apparently the only recourse I have is a judicial review which can be very costly and time consuming. I think it is high time an investigative journalist or consumer organisation looked into the Legal Ombudsman Service practices because it does appear the Ombudsmen are too concerned about legal action from firms that they have even stooped to making excuses for the poor behaviour of firms. Any investigative reporters or consumer organisations please get in touch as I can provide you with evidence of shocking behaviour by the Ombudsman Service, their investigators and Ombudsman

  • Anon says:

    It’s hit and miss with case handlers. My particular experience was similar to this reported in here. The most disturbing one is where a solicitor admits negligence and the investigator didn’t find them negligence. The case worker contradicting themselves. The case worker not addressing their own questions. These are totally non-sensical and irrational. Example “solicitor says I was negligence” the ombudsman say they were not negligence…..

  • Kamlesh Anon says:

    Kangaroo court.
    SRA blocking complaints about their services so they don’t show on their statistics.

  • Deborah Guthrie Ketley says:

    My ombudsman case has just finished. The recommended remedy was to refund costs of applications made up the firm told me had been sent when they had not. The ombudsman did not calculate the costs remedy correctly and added the apparent outstanding bill to the costs already paid then took off the amount for the unsent applications plus compensation of the total cost of 25%. Then awarded more compensation which totalled around 2600 then took off the amount for the apparent unpaid bill from the compensation which included the applications that had been resolved to be refunded. Leaving me with around 800. This does not seem right to me. The legal ombudsman said that she had not resolved to not pay the apparent outstanding bill but she had because the apparent outstanding bill included the applications that she had resolved to refund.

  • L Mills says:

    Please read the reviews about the Legal ombudsman on Trustpilot, and most of them are right. Even a retired judge & barrister criticised the legal ombudsman harshly. The investigator sides with the solicitors, take what the solicitors say for granted (even without any objective evidence), and will not listen to the clients who have suffered poor service and negligence of the solicitors.

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.


Success in-house – what people don’t tell you about how to get there

TV dramas have made many people think that the legal profession consists of heroes (or villains) in high-flying firms or public prosecution. In reality, nearly a quarter of solicitors work in-house.

The ‘soft landing’ growth strategy for law firms

Increasing demand for ‘hot’ areas of law inspires opportunist law firms to hire more specialists to add to their firepower – the right people at the right time. Yet this is a big ask.

The changing landscape of legal education and online learning

Learning has come a long way since I qualified. There’s a lot more knowledge available about how students learn and how different students learn differently. It’s not one-size-fits-all anymore.

Loading animation