The Legal Ombudsman aims to improve the accessibility of information on legal service providers through a ‘single digital register’.
In their response to the 2016 report from the Competition and Market’s Authority (CMA), the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) addressed the areas in which they were acknowledged. These were:
- Data collection about unauthorised providers
- Extension of redress to consumers using unauthorised providers
- Accessibility of information about service providers
- Development of a consumer education hub
The CMA’s report into legal services was issued in December 2016, outlining a range of recommendations and suggestions to regulators and organisations. Some of these acknowledged the role that the Ombudsman could play in alleviating the issues that consumers face when purchasing legal services.
The first related to data collection, suggesting that the ‘LeO should consider whether it could generate a range of information for the contacts it receives from consumers who have used unauthorised providers.’
Whilst the LeO stated that whilst it sees the benefit of generating this information, it would not be able to do so going forward in light of the cost and collection of the information. It also said that to advise a customer that a matter could not be investigated and then to query it further would be counterintuitive. Further, it could also result in frustration or confusion for the consumer.
Instead, it said that it would ‘continue to provide data at current levels but decline to collect and provide further data on unauthorised providers unless specified funding is allocated for this’.
The second recommendation related to the extension of redress to consumers who use unauthorised providers. The report suggests that ‘this could be pursued by extending access to the LeO or through alternative arrangements such as the ADR or self-regulation.’
Responding to this point, the Ombudsman states that it is always looking for new ways to improve the legal services landscape. However, it stresses that to use funding stream to expand jurisdiction would be inappropriate.
On this basis, it says that whilst it not further explore the issue of unauthorised providers, it will agree to be informed by any Ministry of Justice decisions on this matter.
The LeO goes on to state that it would commit to moving forward with a scoping exercise if a designated budget was to be provided for consumers who had used the services of an unregulated provider.
The third suggestion put forward by the report was in relation to information accessibility. It states that data should be made more accessible to comparison tools and other intermediaries in order to ‘facilitate the development of a dynamic intermediary market’.
Acting on this, the ombudsman stated that a ‘single digital register’ will be created, housing information of regulations, membership, quality marks and complaints data.
In support of this, the LeO state that they’ll be using a range of different sources in order to enhance the quality of comparison tools as well as consumer understanding of the legal services market.
However, it does state that it is restricted by the Legal Services Act 2007 about the type of information which it is able to publish.
In addition, it aims to encourage providers to improve the way they handle complaints by publishing some the available complaints data.
The final recommendation highlighted in the response relates to the development of a consumer education hub.
Backing the report’s push for an overhaul of the Legal Choices platform, the ombudsman states that ‘refreshing Legal Choices would be beneficial for consumers.’ Whilst its original aim was to improve public understanding and better navigate the legal sector, the LeO feels that ‘it has failed to reach many consumers and that those who do not use the platform are presented with only a narrow view of the market as a whole’.
Looking forward, it stated that a great deal of work could be done to both improve the quality of information provided and to ensure that it is assessed for relevance to consumer experience. It sets out an aim to improve consumer engagement with legal service providers, creating factsheets and guides.
This, it states, will be based on operational experience with complaints.
The full response to the report can be accessed here.
