Report comment

Its interesting that the LSCP comes at this from a position that more data is always a good thing for the consumer.

I recall from my time studying consumer law at university that this dogma is not actually unchallenged and that there is an alternative view which asserts that it is the quality of the data that matters not the amount. The oft cited area in support of this is the electronics market where companies put out datasheets specifying thousands of statistics which are for the general consumer completely useless. They just care how many bits it has and more is better right?

So in the context of legal proceedings how would it help our clients to pile another 10 pages of charges and contingencies and contingencies to those contingencies to our client care? Our client care is already obfuscating enough with the nonsense that is in there. Plus we all know no-one reads it (we know this because the Legal Ombudsman is telling us we don't signpost clients to them well enough despite the fact that practically everyone includes it in client care letters).

The "consumer" surely cares ultimately that they are getting a decent service for the money they pay. Is berating us and encouraging "competition" (with whom? why? I seriously do not get the drive for competition) really the best way of looking after the consumer? We can't tell a client it will take 3 months and we'll charge you £1k because we do not know. That's sort of the point in lawyers, if the issue was simple and could be dealt with in a day the client would not need to come to us in the first place.

Surely the LSCP needs to be going after the totally broken system we have where it is practically impossible to advise a client on costs and timescales because there is no consistency within the system at all?