Ombudsman reveals £8.3m operating costs in first six months
The Legal Ombudsman has spent £8.3m in operating costs in its first six months since it came into being on 6 October, according to its annual report published yesterday.
The Ombudsman’s combined implementation and operation costs have been £21.4m from 1 July 2009 when the project first began, to 31 March this year.
Of this, £13.2m was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Justice, with the rest funded by a levy on the professions collected by front-line regulators including the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The report noted that the Ombudsman had been set up ‘on time and under budget’, and its operational costs for the first six months had also been ‘well within the budget set’.
Ombudsman Adam Sampson (pictured) received a total annual remuneration of £161,245 including pension and other benefits in the year to 31 March, according to the report.
In the six months of its operation, 38,155 people contacted the Ombudsman by telephone, email or letter. Of these, LeO accepted 3,768 complaints for investigation.
Sampson said the organisation had had a cost-effective and efficient start, and was proving to be an effective model.
Comments
Legal Ombudsman
£8.3 million to deal with just 3,768 complaints in the first 6 months of operations. Is this really value for money for the consumer or the legal profession?
Doubt if the Legal Ombudsman
Doubt if the Legal Ombudsman cares, its not his money he's spending-so it sure is value for money for him!
Outcome based
How happy are the 3768 people with the service?
How happy are the 34387 people who did not even get to experience the service?
Health Service Ombudsman
Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) also is a massive drain on public purse.
1.5% of complaints investigated , has never investigated a "reconsidered" complaint, despite keeping it in "reconsideration" for up to a year. Cost for this "Ineffective appeals process for the complaints system" (Health Select Committee finding from recent Complaints and Litigation Inquiry) is in excess of £34m per annum.
WHAT FOR?
I was one of the 38,155
I was one of the 38,155 but not one of the 3,768 - I contacted the Legal Ombudsman to see if I could raise a complaint about the appalling behaviour of a particular Solicitor but was told I couldn't because I was not a client - I was just a concerned member of public.
They noted my concerns, and responded within 4 days of my email, giving all the information I needed in a polite and informative way.
I suppose
I suppose the question is how these costs stack up against the costs of other ombudspeople?
Ombudsman
£21.4M / 3,768 complaints investigated = £5,679 per complaint (or a bargain basement £2,202 against operating costs only). The report says they have 263 employees. That's an average of 14 complaints dealt with by each of them. You couldn't make it up, could you? Did Sampson keep a straight face when he said "the organisation had had a cost-effective and efficient start, and was proving to be an effective model", as he trousered a very "cost-effective" £161K for a job worth about half that?
People who spend other
People who spend other people's money always say stuff like this. Heard Adam Sampson on Jeremy Vine the other week discussing unregulated will writing. His advice - don't bother going to a soliitor, write your own will instead. Didn't realise his remit as legal ombudsman extended to providing legal advice. Isn't he also the guy who made staff at Shelter work extra hours for no extra pay? Charming.
Why o Why?
Why do we need an ombudsman anyway, they are great where the customer has no regulatory body to go to but why do we need a fourth level of customer complaint process?
Because the great and the
Because the great and the good need well paid employment telling others where they are going wrong.
Ombudsman for Ombudsmans
I think we need an Ombudsman to oversee all the other Ombudsman services so we have someone to complain to if we are not satisfied with the Ombudsman's service !! A £30 million a year budget should be sufficient to set it up?
£20-odd million is spent on
£20-odd million is spent on this at the same time that legal aid is slashed left, right and centre. It beggars belief. If the issues are regulatory, this is duplication of the SRA. If it is 'service' issues then let the market decide. Firms providing poor service won't survive in the new era. Scrap this and use the money to provide access to justice to those who will soon be denied it.
Why do we need an ombudsman?????
@The Earl of Dublin
"Why do we need an ombudsman anyway, they are great where the customer has no regulatory body to go to but why do we need a fourth level of customer complaint process? "
For the same reason that websites such as Solicitors From Hell exist. ie solicitors cannot be trusted to police themselves.
It really does get tedious having the Law Gazette's propoganda police deleting my postings all the time. Does the truth really hurt that much?
Please feel free to visit my website.
Builders and developers get fever complaints, surely?
I am a locum and I have had the pleasure of working in several London firms over the years. However, I have never been exposed or forced to undertake any underhand dealings whatsoever. Perhaps because I am and always was - temporary? Nevertheless, I am surprised to find that there are so many complaints against lawyers - 38k in six months - are you serious! Cowboy builders, property developers etc. get fewer complaints, surely?
Get the Facts RIGHT
I had the same experience with the FSO in a dispute with a Building Society. The Society told them a Court order for possession had been made.
The FSO had a copy of the order which showed this was not so. In fact the Judge was so concerned about the conduct of the Society she refused to take matters further through the Court before the FSO dealt with the pre-existing complaint.
None the less the FSO decision was based on the fact a Court order for possession was in existence and even on referral for an adjudication this was not revisited. The decision was therefore a farce.
It apears that the lawgazette
It apears that the lawgazette certainly doesnt want anyone telling the truth about how bad the Legal Ombudsman is, that why they keep taking down the posts.
Shame really.
Good job the Solicitors From Hell website allows the public to say it how it is. Bad solicitors, rubish complaints system. I dont mind publishing my name if anyone wants to hear how poor the service is.
But you dont want that.
The comments we removed were
The comments we removed were libellous, abusive, sexist and homophobic, and therefore in breach of our user policy in any number of ways.
Paul Rogerson
Editor in chief
Gazette
Solictors from Hell
I read that the Legal Ombudsman, set up to consider complaints against solicitors, had operating costs of £8.3million in the first 6 months of its short existence and rejected 90% of complaints.
Why not set aside, out of the grant to the Legal Ombudsman, a sum of say £1 million per annum to pay for the appointment of legal professionals to help administer Rick Kordowski's Solicitors from Hell website? A small staff will be of enormous benefit to this much needed independent service which will then be seen by the legal profession as a serious forum for complaints.
The Law Society is, under the competiton laws, obliged to allow any number of solicitors to set up in practice. So it should not object to the formation of a competing complaints procedure which clearly has the support of the public. With a minimum amount of funding Solicitors from Hell can adapt and progress to the benefit of its users.