The Legal Ombudsman (LeO0 is bracing itself for a rise in complaints as a projected 74,000 home moves could miss out on the SDLT deadline. A series of blogs on the LeO website begins with an article on the Ombudsman’s experience and activity around previous stamp duty holidays, design to inform firms of LeO’s attitude toward complaints.
One in three complaints made to LeO relate to conveyancing, an issue amplified by disgruntled home movers who fail to meet the SDLT deadline and end up paying additional stamp duty. The blog highlights some of the key concerns of consumers which include complaints around delays which lead to SDLT being payable; and complaints arising from communication and advice, specifically what has been said about the likelihood of completion before 1 April 2025, and how they were kept informed of any changes to the position.
LeOo add firms can minimise the risk of complaints through proactively
- Making sure they have notified clients of the forthcoming changes and the likely impact on the transaction.
- Providing SDLT figures for both options (completion before 1 April 2025, and completion after that date).
- Keeping clients reasonably updated on progress and any factors that may impact their transaction, including third party delays.
- Ensuring they have clearly advised purchasers of the risk that their transaction may not complete on time.
- Making sure that clients are informed before exchange of the level of SDLT that they will be paying, to ensure they are making a fully informed decision to exchange.
In outlining LeO’s position on how it mediates complaints, the Ombudsman says despite many complainants holding the firm wholly responsible, and demanding they be compensated the sum of the SDLT owed as a result of missing the deadline, they will consider whether the firm’s service has been ‘reasonable.’
“…in order to direct the additional tax as a remedy, the Legal Ombudsman would have to be satisfied that it is the service provider’s failing that led to the payment of the extra tax.”
say LeO, adding it can be difficult to lay blame solely at the door of any one party because of the complex nature of conveyancing. When it comes to financial remedy, it is likely even if complaints are upheld, the ‘remedies may be modest when compared to the additional SDLT a consumer has had to pay.’
Concluding, LeO reminds firms of the ‘tenets of good complaints handling’ and advises they should ensure they address all the detail of the complaint in a timely manner and attempt to resolve the complaint without antagonising the situation, considering the impact of the service failing and proposing a remedy recognises the impact.
