How should the progress of the Legal Complaints Service be measured? Shamit Saggar says much has been achieved and it should not be penalised by the LSCC


The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC) has suggested that the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) has not handled complaints in accordance with its plan for 2006/07. Her provisional decision was detailed in last week’s (see [2007] Gazette, 14 June, 1 & 15). The purpose of this article is to test her proposition.



In order to do so, we need a sense of where we started from, where we have got to, and where we are going. In a nutshell, has LCS got to the point of success?



The answer is certainly yes, but there remains important work to consolidate that position. In particular, the consistency of our service quality has to be a priority over the next 12 months.



Our starting point a little under a year ago was an organisation that had 840 cases more than 15 months old. By the end of the plan year, just 56 remained, 53 of which are awaiting adjudication at the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Just three are with the LCS. This was comfortably inside the LSCC target of 65 files. LCS closed a remarkable 740 cases in this category during the plan year. The number of complaints older than 12 months has been reduced from 1,400 to 163, with only 54 of these at the LCS.



We had a big backlog and were struggling with the day-to-day demands placed on the service. This fragile position brought about a strategy turnaround that has delivered substantial improvements. By early March 2007, we had no cases sitting in cupboards awaiting allocation to a case worker. Indeed, we now have a situation where work commences on around 40% of complaints within 48 hours of receiving them. This is hard evidence of a step-change at the LCS. We now are a redress service that is completely in charge of the task that faces it.



This is direct and tangible evidence of the turnaround mentioned above. But do not just take my word for it.



The LSCC has noted the remarkable improvement in our service, as has Ministry of Justice minister Bridget Prentice MP, who said recently in Parliament: ‘The improvement made in recent years by the Legal Complaints Service has been remarkable, and much of that is due to the leadership shown by Shamit Saggar and others in ensuring that they deal with things robustly.’



Customer satisfaction with outcomes and decision-making is a good measure to us of the quality of our overall service. We measure this constantly, and regularly achieve a monthly average satisfaction average figure of 75%, with some months exceeding 85%. This is an impressive result by any standard, including reputed leaders in complaints-handling. Customers place priority on outcome, speed and overall quality. Detailed, nuanced understanding of the LCS process is, not surprisingly, less important, but we remain committed to stretching our performance across the board. We recognise that process quality still has a part to play overall.



Recognition of the improvement is there for all to see; miners’ champion John Mann MP recently stated during a Commons debate: ‘I commend the recent changes in how the Law Society [Legal Complaints Service] has handled complaints with its new set-up and new name. What we see is a more rigorous and robust system in place, which is exactly the direction of travel that is needed.’



Our strategy has been strengthened by an independent board that is absolutely focused on promoting the public interest. It is because the LSCC also seeks to do this that there should be no real difference in the objectives and delivery of the LCS on the one hand, and the balanced scorecard conclusions of the LSCC on the other.



We recognise there is still work to do, especially in relation to the consistency and quality of our processes. Out of the five LSCC quality targets, we have met two by a clear margin, achieved a third within tolerance, and in the two areas where we have failed to achieve the target figure have shown substantial improvements.



This demonstrates that performance on the quality indicators is markedly improved on last year but with key areas for us to focus on and deliver in the current plan year. We have embedded quality measures into our staff training and into our internal audits; this is again hard tangible evidence that the LCS is proactive in driving quality standards upwards.



We have confidence that the LSCC will consider our representations carefully and in the public interest. We have delivered significant improvement this year, and I would want to encourage the organisation to do even better in the current plan year.



In a nutshell, we believe, and are being told, that the LCS is a strong, serious and committed redress organisation. It exists to provide high-quality and timely solutions to problems that exist in the profession. It is no longer a reactive, placid organisation but instead has taken tough measures to get on top of the problems that have affected the service.



The LSCC has to make a judgement about the progress that has been made so far. Undoubtedly, there is a grey area between pass and fail, but to penalise the LCS at this moment would send out the wrong message about an organisation that is rapidly improving.



The LCS now has a rapidly improved track record, but with work still to do. It requires and deserves nothing less than recognition of its achievements and its ambition to hold the highest reputation of any consumer redress organisation.



Professor Shamit Saggar is chairman of the board of the Legal Complaints Service