The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published its latest raft of public interest decisions, revealing “serious failings in the delivery of legal services”.
The six new decisions reveal that failures to provide clear advice, carry out essential checks and manage cases effectively have led to tangible and, in some instances, irreversible consequences for the individuals involved.
All six cases resulted in compensation for financial loss, reimbursement of costs, and payments for distress and inconvenience.
Chief ombudsman Phil Cain, said: “These decisions point to serious failings in the delivery of legal services by the firms involved, where fundamental aspects of good practice have not been met.
“Consumers place trust in their legal provider to guide them through complex processes, to protect their interests and to ensure that critical steps are handled properly. When that does not happen, the consequences can be profound.
“Legal service providers should take the learning from these decisions seriously. Reflecting on where things have gone wrong – and taking steps to strengthen processes, service delivery and communication – will be critical in preventing similar failings in future. Public interest decisions are an important part of that process, helping to reinforce expectations and drive improvements across the sector.”
Of the six recent decisions, four relate to legal services around property.
One decision involved Heselwood & Grant Solicitors, a firm instructed in relation to a claim involving alleged defects on a property, which was later dropped. The LeO found that the firm “failed to clearly and comprehensively explain the financial implications of the retainer at key stages” and that this “amounted to unreasonable service”, where she became liable for more than £23,000 of legal fees.
The LeO decided Heselwood & Grant should compensate the client for £23,000 of legal fees for which she had been held liable, and pay her £1,000 to reflect the stress and worry that she had suffered as a result of the firm’s poor service.
In another case, a client instructed a lawyer at the former Manchester office of law firm Laytons LLP to complete and register a lease extension to her flat. Although the firm confirmed to Ms A that the lease extension had completed, it failed to respond to requisitions raised by HM Land Registry, leading to cancellation of the application to register the extension in February 2020.
The LeO found that the firm’s failure to act on requisitions, failure to monitor the application, and failure to update the client amounted to unreasonable service. It ruled that it was fair and reasonable that the firm should compensate the client and directed them to pay more just under £49,000 in compensation to reflect the financial loss, distress, and a partial refund of legal fees.
In a third case, law firm Charles Fraser & Co was found not to have checked whether there was any legal right to park in two spaces connected to a residential purchase. After completion, the client discovered the parking spaces were allocated to other properties. The ombudsman found that the firm’s failure to verify the position and clearly advise on whether parking rights existed constituted unreasonable service. Parking availability was a material feature of the property for Mr A and Ms B and the firm should not have relied solely on informal assurances without confirming the legal position.
The LeO directed the firm to pay £25,000 to the client to reflect the likely loss in value of the property, together with a payment of £500 for the distress and inconvenience they had experienced.
Another decision found that Cheshire-based conveyancers Allchurch Property Lawyers had failed to protect a client’s position after a developer, to whom he had paid a deposit for an off-plan property, went into administration. The firm had failed to lodge a unilateral notice at HM Land Registry.
The Legal Ombudsman found that while off‑plan purchases do carry risk, the firm failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the client’s interest or provide timely and clear advice about the consequences of proceeding without appropriate protection. It directed the firm to pay the client £5,349 compensation to reflect the loss of the money he would have recovered if a unilateral notice had been filed, plus £750 compensation for distress.
Last month the LeO launched a call for input on its draft Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP), a new framework aimed at improving the consistency and quality of how complaints are handled by legal service providers.
