Ombudsman's casebook

A monthly column of examples from the files of the Legal Services Ombudsman

Improving quality - a new year's resolution for the OSS?The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) has succeeded in reducing its live caseload from around 17,000 in July 1999 to the target of 6,000 set by the Lord Chancellor.

It is to be congratulated on that.

But the matching quality target remains elusive.Only 58% of OSS cases referred to the ombudsman between 1 April and 31 December 2000 were given a clean bill of health by her - against the target of no less than 63%.

And that figure dipped to 56% in the last three months.This month's casebook gives two recent examples of cases where the OSS's performance could still be improved.

The OSS can rightly celebrate its success in clearing the caseload, but its focus for 2001 must be a substantial improvement in the quality of its complaint handling.Second time aroundMs M was the residuary beneficiary of her late husband's estate.

In March 1999, because of defects in its original investigation, the ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider Ms M's complaint about the solicitor executor.

The OSS made a decision in June 2000, finding that, while the solicitor's service had been poor, compensation couldn't be awarded, because a lay executor was involved; and the bill couldn't be reduced, because quality of service had already featured in the remuneration certificate process.Ms M was not happy with the OSS's second investigation and referred the matter back to the ombudsman.The ombudsman reluctantly concluded that, after five years, the OSS's final decision was reasonable, given its limited powers in such cases.

For a second time though, she was dissatisfied with the way in which the OSS handled the complaint.The OSS was asked by the ombudsman to look at Ms M's case urgently, but it took it 15 months to make a decision.

It didn't help that the OSS allowed the solicitors six months to comment, but in the end, there was nothing to add to the original remarks.There were also some aspects of Ms M's complaint that the OSS had overlooked.

After so long, however, the ombudsman decided that, as compensation could not be awarded against the solicitor and Ms M had been put to enough trouble already, the OSS should not be given a third bite of the cherry.

She saw no benefit in asking the OSS to reconsider the matter yet again, but she did recommend that the OSS pay Ms M 250 compensation for its repeated failures.More haste, less speedMs W decided to buy a flat and instructed a solicitor to do the conveyancing.

Unfortunately, the purchase fell through, leaving the solicitors holding the deposit money.

Months passed and in May 2000 Ms W complained to the OSS about the solictors' reluctance to return what was rightfully hers.

The OSS 'investigated' with lightening speed and delivered a verdict in six weeks.

The solicitors told the OSS that they had delayed in paying, because they thought the money belonged not to Ms W, but to a relative.

Overall, the OSS decided that the complaint raised legal issues that they said they couldn't investigate.

The OSS may have been fast, but Ms W was furious.

She referred the matter to the ombudsman.The ombudsman shared Ms W's lack of enthusiasm at the OSS's performance.

While it acted quickly, the quality of its efforts left much to be desired.

The OSS was all too ready to accept the solicitor's explanation for the delay in paying, but without asking for evidence to support its version of events; and without running the solicitors' explanation past Ms W to see what she thought of it.

The OSS had also failed to look at whether interest was due to Ms W for the time the money was sitting in a client account.

All in all, the ombudsman decided that the OSS had let Ms W down and she recommended that the complaint be reconsidered.