|
Zahida Manzoor is going to become awfully familiar with various trans-Pennine routes during the next few months. As the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) since early 2003, she is already fully established in her central Manchester offices. But earlier this year she was appointed to a second role as Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC), so Ms Manzoor is currently in the process of gearing up another base in Leeds.
As a result, Law Society officials are going to have to come to terms with a whole new set of correspondence, all postmarked in Yorkshire. And just at a time when the messages coming out of Manchester were starting to sound more positive. Wearing her LSO hat a fortnight ago, Ms Manzoor highlighted a series of missed targets by the Law Society in her latest annual report. But she also congratulated Chancery Lane and Leamington Spa on showing signs of significant improvement in their handling of complaints (see [2004] Gazette, 8 July, 1).
How that improved performance will colour the view of Ms Manzoor as she wears her second hat of LSCC remains to be seen. Her management consultants are currently working with the Law Society, analysing case files to assess the issues. Last week, Ms Manzoor told the Gazette she expects to be able to set performance targets for the Society by September. Those targets will have an enhanced piquancy, as missing them would not just incur the wrath of the LSCC, but also possible fines.
'I have asked the Society to provide a draft plan of how it is going to improve its complaints handling procedures and for it to cite milestones along the way to that improvement,' explains Ms Manzoor. 'The targets will be based on a benchmarking exercise conducted to compare the position with other organisations. We want to compare apples with apples so that we can form an accurate picture and then provide guidance on that basis. The targets should be fair and achievable, and also capable of being easily monitored.
'We are hoping to arrive at an open and transparent relationship with the Society. But that is a two-way process, so that when we ask for information from the Society, that information needs to be made available.'
Despite that warning, Ms Manzoor says she intends to adopt a relatively non-interventionist style to her role as LSCC. 'It is not my intention to manage the Law Society - I want to take a light-touch approach. But for the first 18 months or so I will need to take a detailed view of what the Society is doing, so that I can ensure that I can check its compliance with the agreed criteria and targets. I will be giving regular feedback to all the stakeholders involved during that time.'
Likewise, the new commissioner expresses a fairly relaxed view in relation to her powers to hit the Society with financial penalties. 'Fines will only kick in once it has been established through independent reviews that a target has been widely missed. If it is simply a matter of a target being narrowly missed then there is unlikely to be a fine. I'm looking for improvement in outcomes and evidence that the Law Society is making progress. The penalty will not be at the forefront of my mind. It really will be used as the last resort.'
Nonetheless, concerns remain at the Law Society. Chief executive Janet Paraskeva responded: 'We still have serious misgivings about the roles of LSO and LSCC being undertaken by the same person. However, we welcome Ms Manzoor's statement that any targets should be fair and achievable.'
Clearly, Ms Manzoor's experience as ombudsman will provide a substantial grounding for her work as LSCC. Her main message after 18 months in the Manchester office is: 'There needs to be more transparency and information sharing from the Society.'
Following her annual report, the ombudsman makes several recommendations for short-term initiatives to enhance performance. They range from the Society more actively pressing solicitors for responses in relation to complaints, to dealing with the issues of the temporary closure of files and ex gratia compensation payments to complainants for the Society's own process failures. The annual report shows the latter increasing significantly over the past 12 months. 'That is fine if that is the way the Society wants to operate,' says Ms Manzoor. 'But I would be inclined to make the processes more efficient so that the Society wouldn't be in a position of having to rely on those pay-offs.'
Ms Manzoor also raises the spectre of unlawfulness over one technique used by the Society - outsourcing of some complaints files to private practice. 'This might not be something that the Law Society can do legally,' she says. 'Arguably, it should always be the Society that takes the responsibility for the final decision in relation to a complaint. And indeed, there is a public perception issue here of how the consumer feels about a complaint being outsourced to a law firm.'
Again, for its part, the Law Society remains bullish that it has turned the corner on complaints handling. Ms Paraskeva said: 'During the past year, we have resolved over 1,500 more cases than we have received, and 30% more than we resolved in the previous year; 50% of cases are now dealt with within three months and 70% within six months. It is quite wrong to suggest that our performance has deteriorated in recent months. The problem of delay is being overcome. We do agree, though, that there are too many very old cases and special arrangements are being made to concentrate on them.'
No comments yet