Firms must inform clients of new complaints body

SRA-133.jpg
Friday 17 September 2010 by Rachel Rothwell

Solicitors will be obliged to inform clients that the Legal Complaints Service has been replaced by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), following a rule change approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority at its board meeting today.

The SRA said it had been forced to introduce the rule change ‘under duress’, due to pressure from the Legal Services Board.

Under the new rule, which will come into force on 6 October when LeO begins its work, new clients must be told at the outset that they have a right to complain to the ombudsman. This is in line with their current obligations to inform clients of their right to complain to the LCS.

However, the rule also states that firms must inform existing clients that the complaints handling body has changed, and this should be done ‘at the next appropriate opportunity’.

The SRA will write to solicitors to give further clarification of what this means.

Board member Mark Humphries expressed concern that firms should not be obliged to write to clients solely for the purpose of notifying them of the change in complaints handling body, particularly given that some large firms have thousands of clients. Humphries suggested that an ‘appropriate time’ to send a notification letter would simply be when a complaint was made by an existing client. However, other board members suggested that writing a short letter to clients informing them of the new complaints body would not overburden the profession. The board did not reach a consensus on the issue.

Chief executive Anthony Townsend said that given the SRA’s move to outcomes-focused regulation, which will see the regulator issuing fewer prescriptive rules and placing greater responsibility on firms themselves, firms should be responsible for deciding when clients should be notified, rather than the SRA putting more detail in the rule. However, he said the SRA was currently drafting a letter which will be sent to solicitors giving guidance on the issue.

Samantha Barrass, director of the SRA’s corporate regulation project, said the SRA had not to make the change ‘at this time’, but the Legal Services Board had insisted. She said the overarching regulator had not accepted the SRA’s points that the notification of a change in the complaints handling body was unnecessary for firms with sophisticated clients or may be burdensome on the profession.

Comments

Why have you contacted me - should I have complained?

What client wants to receive a letter out of the blue telling them this? I would be puzzled.

Not all clients are idiots, some are even quite bright and can read up on making a complaint if they need to. Even those who can't can usually find the CAB and use a telephone.

Is this to:
a) keep printers in business

b) provide work for postmen

c) provide employment for an additional member(s) of staff to extract the information to create the letters.

d) make sure solicitor as put to another pointless expense to help them over the edge.

Really shows how much we have

Really shows how much we have cravenly given in to the PC box-tickers.

Any client receieiving a letter saying that the quango to whom they should ULTIMAELY complain has changed will think we are stark raving bonkers.

Don't do it, even if we're told to.

WHY DO WE NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN THIS?

Regulation 8(2) of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 provides that you can make information about who a client can ultimately complain to available in any of the following ways:
a) Supply it to the recipient on your own initiative
b) Make it easily accessible to the recipient at the place where the service is provided or the contract concluded, for example, at your premises
c) Make it easily accessible by the recipient electronically by means of an address you supply, for example, by providing the exact address of where the information can be found on a publicly available website
d) Include it in any information documents that you supply to the recipient, which set out a detailed description of the service you provide.

The regulations do not place unreasonable obligations on law firms to give clients information so why does the LSB feel it has to go beyond this just because a firm is already acting for a client?

If the LSB wants to be seen as a modern overarching regulator it should avoid alienating those it regulates by imposing 'gold plated' rules on them.

Unfortunately it seems that

Unfortunately it seems that Anthony Townsend is a box ticking, money grubbing apparatchik, entirely unable to distinguish between what is professionally necessary and what gets him the most money with out liability!

A fine example of modern day bureaucracy.

Justifying their own existence

LeO is simply trying to drum up as much work for itself as possible - you see it wants complaints - lots of them - it has to justify its own existence and wants to be seen to be taking a tough line with the profession.

Confused

What? I am somewhat confused as well. People have to be told that they have the right to complain? I don't think anyone would want that kind of letter coming to them. They should be able to figure it out.

casino online italiani

This casino online has a great practice session that will not only allow you to practice gambling but you can wager nothing while doing it.