Going the extra mile

Mr and Mrs W had engaged a solicitor to act for them in their sale and purchase of residential property during the course of which they had made a new will.

Before exchanging contracts, a title problem arose followed by a delay, although through no fault of the solicitors.

Ultimately, the transaction cost a great deal more than anyone had expected.

Mr and Mrs W had what they had originally expected, albeit late, but with some 'bonus fencing' around a paddock.

They then complained, detailing 14 separate issues where they said the solicitors' service had been inadequate.

The solicitors maintained that they had acted in their clients' best interest.

They responded to the letter of complaint in detail and addressed each of the 14 points.

They invited the clients to reconsider their concerns.

A month later, the clients wrote to the solicitors, reducing the complaints to six, and informing the solicitors that they were entitled to compensation.

They claimed significant distress and said they were looking for 3,000.

The solicitors acknowledged that in two respects only had their service fallen below a standard they would normally wish to see.

They acknowledged that they had been slow in informing the clients of developments, and that they had failed to respond to one or two of their clients' letters.

They said the clients were acting 'totally out of order' in seeking such a 'ridiculous sum of money'.

They proposed to resolve the matter with a compensatory payment of 250.

In using such terms, the solicitors created a wall between themselves and their clients.

The clients complained to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.

The adjudicator found that the solicitors had provided an inadequate service on the two grounds conceded.

No service inadequacy was identified in relation to any other allegation or complaint made by the clients.

The manner in which practice rule 15 compliance had been addressed, and the way in which the attempted conciliation of the complaints had progressed was considered in detail.

The adjudicator considered that although the solicitors had responded to the complaints, they had chosen to do so in a manner that was perceived as aggressive - and they had failed to take a consumer-oriented view.

They had not offered the clients a meeting to discuss the problems on a face-to-face basis and had adopted a legalistic approach to non-legal issues.

While resisting a series of unwarranted complaints, the solicitors had failed to deal with the matter in a manner conducive to conciliation.

The adjudicator confirmed the clients' compensatory expectations to be unrealistic and awarded 400.

He reminded the solicitors of their obligation to take every reasonable step to avoid confrontation in service complaints.

Every case before the adjudication panel is decided on its individual facts.

This case study is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent