In depth: LeO names errant firms in fresh batch of complaints decisions

The legal ombudsman (LeO) has published its fourth batch of complaints decisions – and named the firms involved – to highlight cases where service levels fell short.

The case list covers conveyancing and litigation matters where the ombudsman says there was a ‘consistent pattern of poor service’ and failures to provide clear advice, carry out essential checks and manage cases effectively.

All six cases resulted in the complaints-handler ordering remedies, including compensation for financial loss, reimbursement of costs, and payments for distress and inconvenience.

The largest remedy in the latest six cases was the £49,000 compensation paid by Manchester firm Laytons LLP, which had been instructed to complete and register a lease extension for a client’s flat.

The firm failed to respond to requisitions raised by HM Land Registry, leading to the cancellation of the application to register the extension, with the client only becoming aware of the issue a year later when she attempted to remortgage her flat.

The ombudsman found that the firm’s failure to act on requisitions, failure to monitor the application and failure to update Ms A amounted to unreasonable service.

Fee-sharing firm Keystone Law had to pay £20,000 to a client after it had stopped working on her claim against a local authority when she raised a complaint.

When another firm was instructed, it was found that Keystone had failed to comply with court directions, missed deadlines for serving witness evidence, and failed to respond to important applications made by the defendant local authority. The client had a costs order made against her and incurred significant legal fees paying for her new solicitors to fix the outstanding issues.

The ombudsman said Keystone’s ‘repeated procedural failures and lack of communication’ constituted unreasonable service, although it noted the firm had already reimbursed a significant amount of money to the client.

'Legal service providers should take the learning from these decisions seriously. Reflecting on where things have gone wrong – and taking steps to strengthen processes, service delivery and communication – will be critical in preventing similar failings in future'

Phil Cain, chief ombudsman

Lancashire firm Heselwood & Grant Solicitors had to pay £23,000 to cover a former client’s legal fees and a further £1,000 to reflect the stress and worry caused as a result of its poor service.

The client had discontinued her claim after the insurers funding it declined to cover the cost of expert evidence. The ombudsman found the firm had not been fully clear with the client about the status of her claim or the financial and practical implications of discontinuing it. She eventually became liable to the defendants for more than £23,000 in fees.

The ombudsman stressed that the firm could not be held responsible for the claim being unsuccessful or the client not being able to recover the money she had wanted.

Guildford-based England & Derbyshire LLP was required to pay a total of £13,000 after entering its client into a standstill agreement with the wrong party. The client had been pursuing a professional negligence claim against her former divorce solicitors but lost her chance to pursue this when a standstill agreement mistake was discovered after the limitation period had expired.

Charles Fraser & Co, which has since become part of Birketts, was instructed on the purchase of a house where the seller said the property came with two dedicated parking spaces.

The firm, based in Bury St Edmunds, did not check whether the owner had any legal right to use these spaces and the client found out only after completion that they did not. They complained that they would not have proceeded at the agreed price had they had this information, and the ombudsman found the firm’s failure to verify the position was unreasonable service.

Although the client had not suffered a real financial loss, the firm was directed to pay £25,000 to reflect the likely loss in value of the property, as well as £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Cheshire-based conveyancers Allchurch Property Lawyers had to pay around £6,000 after a client paid a reservation fee to a developer on an off-plan purchase. The developer later entered administration and the transaction did not complete. The client was unable to recover his money because the firm failed to protect his position, in particular by failing to lodge a unilateral notice at HM Land Registry.

The complaints-handler has now published 27 decision notices in a bid to educate firms about what constitutes poor service and to highlight the consequences for clients.

LeO’s chief ombudsman Phil Cain said: ‘Legal service providers should take the learning from these decisions seriously. Reflecting on where things have gone wrong – and taking steps to strengthen processes, service delivery and communication – will be critical in preventing similar failings in future. Public interest decisions are an important part of that process.’