By the end of this article, at least in draft form, I fully expect a page full of red squiggles, erroneously identifying the noun ‘conveyancing’ as a misspelling. I have no idea why Word fails to recognise it, given its widespread and generally quite prolific use in legal circles. Perhaps when I am done with this I should get on the phone to Mr Gates.

Why the myriad references to conveyancing this month? Well, it comes as a result of a challenge laid down in a recent article suggesting that the fact the Legal Ombudsman appears to have fewer complaints than its predecessor, the Legal Complaints Service, can only be attributed to some failure on our part in handling the complaints we receive. However, although the fact is very real, the suggested explanation is misplaced. The issue is not that we are turning away would-be complainants, but that fewer complainants are making their way to us.

Why is a question for debate. On the positive side, it could be the result of lawyers giving better service or handling complaints more effectively. However, in my view, another reason is revealed by a small but crucial statistic. Five years ago, over 30% of complaints handled by the LCS were about conveyancing. At LeO, the proportion has fallen to 17%. Given the collapse in the number of conveyancing transactions since the end of the housing boom two or three years ago, it is hardly a surprise. Now, a loss of some 1,500 complaints a year to LeO is nothing beside the impact on the profitability of some law firms: an article in the Guardian earlier this year suggested that only 10% of the legal profession’s current income is attributable to conveyancing - compared with roughly half its income in the 1960s. But it is a clear indication that the drop in our complaint volumes is critically linked to the reduction in activity in the legal market since the recession hit.

Having said all that, even at 17%, conveyancing accounts for a fair proportion of our business. And for this reason, we are planning to publish a thematic report on the subject of how to avoid conveyancing complaints later this year - in keeping with our commitment to feed back the results of our work to the profession. The full report is still just a gleam in our eyes. In the meantime, the following case studies should help give an idea of the type of cases we will be looking at.

Less haste more speed

A firm was instructed to help Mr S buy a house through an online property advice company. Mr S initially paid the company £100 for its service. Mr S was looking for a speedy purchase, and made the firm aware of this. The day after Mr S contacted the firm, it sent out its client care letter, which Mr S found to be lengthy and confusing. They also made him aware that they had a tracking system in place, so that he could follow the progress of his sale. The firm did warn him, however, that the tracking system was not always up to date, and he should keep in regular contact with the firm as well.

The completion took place after two weeks, but Mr S was not happy with the service he had received from the firm. He felt they had not kept him informed of the progress of his case, the tracking system had not worked properly, and that they had incorrectly charged him. When he received the invoice from the firm, he discovered he had been charged an extra £100 for the company’s service, as well as a referral fee, which he had been told the firm would pay.

On further investigation, we felt that the issues with the tracking service were not the firm’s fault, and he had been warned it may not always be up to date. The LeO felt the firm had kept Mr S reasonably informed despite this. We also saw that, while the firm had incorrectly invoiced him, they had made an effort to correct this and had sent a cheque to Mr S to remedy the issue. We also saw that the firm had not actually charged Mr S for the referral fee, but this could have been made clearer on his bill. We therefore decided that the firm should pay Mr S £50 compensation for failing to be clearer in their communication with him. Mr S and the firm both agreed with this remedy and Mr S has now received his payment.

The Italian job

Mr M instructed a firm to buy him a holiday home in Italy. He paid his deposit to the bank account given to him by the firm, but he never received a receipt for it. Two years later the firm tried to chase up the developers, as the completion date had been missed, but they were unable to get hold of them. Mr M began to get worried that he would lose out on both his money and his Italian retreat.

Mr M felt that the firm gave him incorrect details to pay his deposit, which is why the developers were not replying to him. While Mr M’s case was continuing, the firm transferred his file twice. The first time, he was informed that his file would be moving to Sicily. The second time, he was not informed that the firm had re-registered and was now subsequently regulated in Italy. We felt that the firm should have made Mr M aware of the change in their ­jurisdiction.

Following this change, the Italian firm sent Mr M an invoice, which he disputed. We felt that as Mr M had no agreement with the Italian firm, he should not be responsible for the bill. Therefore, the LeO decided that the firm should pay £2,000 towards Mr M’s legal fees, which he incurred pursuing his complaint with the firm. We decided the firm should compensate Mr M £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We also felt that the firm should cover the last invoice. Both parties accepted our decision and the firm paid over Mr M’s money.

Stamp duty confusion

Mr M instructed a firm to purchase a flat back in 2007. Two years later, he received a letter from HM Revenue & Customs saying that he had not paid the stamp duty on the property, amounting to £12,000. Mr M was shocked as he believed he had paid this money to the firm. But the firm claimed they had never received it. HMRC was looking for Mr M to pay the stamp duty, as well as £2,000 relating to the interest and recovery of the debt.

We found that the firm had provided poor service, as Mr M had been charged for them to pay the stamp duty, but they had not done so. We have seen evidence that when the cheque was paid to the HMRC, it came back as ‘dishonoured’. As the firm failed to advise Mr M that it had not paid the stamp duty, we felt that it was only fair that they pay the £2,000 in interest and penalties charged. We also felt that Mr M was due £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience he has been caused.

In all these cases, the main issue seems to be poor or confusing information and a simple lack of communication. Had the firms involved made more effort to explain their processes and update their clients, they would have saved not just the expense of the remedy but the time spent in dealing with my office. And while we aspire to be friendly and easy to deal with, we do not fool ourselves that firms would not prefer to avoid contact with us if they can.

That said, it may just be worth looking out for the thematic report when it comes out. And alongside the reports, we also regularly produce new case studies of investigations from across the legal spectrum. You can find these on our website. If more lawyers read the cases and learn the lessons, we will - as we should - see the number of complaints coming to my office ­diminish even further.

Adam Sampson is chief ombudsman