So far, my experience - as designated ‘complaints partner’ for my firm - of the role of the Legal Ombudsman in complaints-handling has been a positive one. However, I am now mystified as to how we should operate our future complaints-handling process.

In accordance with guidance, we have a detailed written complaints procedure which is contained within our terms of business, and which is communicated to clients at the outset of any transaction. This requires a client to go through three stages of ‘complaint’ before referring a matter to the LeO. In short, if the client is not satisfied as a result of our complaints-handling process (which ends with me), then the client can refer the complaint to the LeO (and we provide contact details for this purpose).

This policy has served us well for years and we have an extremely good complaints-handling record. I was therefore perturbed to be notified of a complaint made to the LeO, of which I had not even been notified. In this case, the client made a complaint to the fee-earner dealing with the case, who responded to the complaint by email. Thinking that the matter had been satisfactorily dealt with, the file was then closed. The next we heard was a request from the LeO for copies of various letters and emails.

We took up the matter with the LeO, explaining that we had been advised on a couple of occasions by LeO investigators that complaints had initially been referred back to us where clients had not followed our clearly-set-out procedures. The LeO then confirmed - ‘for the avoidance of doubt in future’ - that clients can complain to the LeO at any stage, whether or not the firm’s complaints procedure has been followed.

Surely this cannot be correct? Is this not creating a substantially larger workload for the LeO, and risking the situation whereby complaints that would otherwise be resolved by firms ‘internally’ will be allocated to investigators unnecessarily?

Edward R Foster, Fosters Law, Herne Bay