The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) must ‘overhaul its complaints handling and risk assessment processes,’ introduce better safeguarding measures for clients, be more proactive about redress for consumers, and embed a consumer culture for better outcomes as the fallout from the report into the failure of SSB Group continues.
A report published by the Legal Services Board last week indicated the SRA knew nearly a year before its failure SSB Group was in trouble, having received over 100 reports about the firm acting without adequate instruction, issuing meritless claims, inflating damages, and failing to properly advise clients on liabilities and costs
Now the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has responded with ‘deep concern’ to the findings of Carson McDowell who undertook the report. The panel, created by the Legal Services Act 2007, provides independent advice to the Legal Services Board about the interests of consumers purchasing legal services. Tom Hayhoe, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said the report laid bare the SRA’s inaction, ‘with devastating consequences for consumers,’ adding the regulator
“enabled a pattern of misconduct to escalate unchecked. The legal services sector must now confront the reality that its regulatory framework and oversight does not prevent harm to consumers, especially the most vulnerable.”
Those affected by the failure of SSB Group, who undertook volume cavity wall insulation claims, have now found themselves personally liable to costs associated with their claims leaving ‘thousands of vulnerable clients facing crippling debts from adverse costs, many of whom believed they were protected under “no win, no fee” arrangement’ said the LSCP. The LSCP said the SRA’s failures had resulted in delays to consumer complaints and a failure to protect vulnerable clients, undermining public confidence in the regulatory system.
Calling on the SRA to take action the LSCP said it must overhaul its complaints handling and risk assessment processes to ensure timely and effective action; introduce clear safeguards for clients involved in high-risk legal arrangements, including litigation funding; be more transparent around information for consumers about their rights, risks and avenues for redress; and adopt ad encourage a culture that prioritises consumer outcomes and access to justice across its regulated community.
Concluding the LSCP said the SSB case ‘is not an isolated incident’ and reflected ‘deeper vulnerabilities’ in the legal service market that have bene previously highlighted by the Competition and Markets Authority, and the panel.
“Without decisive reform, consumers will continue to face unacceptable risks and barriers”
2 responses
Absolutely right to say: ‘the SSB case ‘is not an isolated incident’ and reflected ‘deeper vulnerabilities’ in the legal service market that have bene previously highlighted by the Competition and Markets Authority, and the panel’.
The problems are systemic and blaming the LSA 2007 will not sort it out. It is culture, approach and know how that need to change.
The Legal Services Board has clearly breached the legal requirement of Section 6 for it to submit annual reports to the Lord Chancellor specify ng the degree to it has met the regulatory requirements of Section 1 of the 2007 Legal Services Act
What can be done to ensure that the LSB meets its legal duties under the Act. The LSB’s directions to the SRA also fail to require it to make reports in terms of the regulatory requirements of Section 1 of the Act . How can we get the Lord Chancellor to issue a writ of mandamus against the LSB for its failure under Section 6?