A third of Legal Ombudsman complaints relate to residential conveyancing

Poor communication, delays and progression failures are among the top grievances cited by consumers using residential conveyancing services. 

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) have published their annual report on customer complaints, collecting case studies and customer feedback to paint a picture of areas that need improving within the legal landscape.

Out of 2,197 conveyancing complaints accepted, 56 per cent were resolved through early resolution with key findings showing a third of all the complaints LeO accepted related to residential conveyancing, with the next biggest areas being personal injury and wills and probate.

An anonymous case study from ‘Mr G’ revealed that a firm was found to not provide accurate information on the increasing ground rent after a leasehold property purchase. LeO stated that the firm did not inform Mr G of the service charge and ground rent fees that were outstanding, although they had documentation to indicate that this was the case.

Mr G provided evidence to show that mortgage lenders would not provide a mortgage on this property due to the rising ground rent. This meant that the client could not re-mortgage or sell the property on if the potential buyer required a mortgage. The only way to allow him to do this would be to extend the lease.  Mr G challenged the charges with the property management company, he was informed that the ground rent was £300 per year.

The client said he was surprised at the cost, as the firm had told him that the ground rent ‘peppercorn’ ie; a very small amount. Mr G also located a deed of variation, which he did not see at the time of purchasing the property- mentioning that the ground rent would increase on a sliding scale. The client said he would not have purchased the property if he had known this as he would not be able to sell the property later if he wished.

LeO proposed that a remedy of approximately £18,000 should be paid to Mr G to put him back into the position he would have been in had the service been reasonable. This included costs to; extend the lease so the ground rent becomes peppercorn, cover the legal fees incurred to extend the lease, cover the outstanding service charge; and compensate the client for the emotional impact of the firm’s poor service with a payment within their significant category.  Mr G accepted the final decision which meant that it was binding on the law firm.

LeO say they are ‘urging lawyers and their regulators to see complaints as opportunities improve, highlighting the key elements of good service and complaints handling that apply across the profession’.

Chief Ombudsman, Paul McFadden, said:

“It’s good news that we’re able to sort out half of all complaints through early resolution. If something’s gone wrong, and a lawyer has offered to put things right fairly, we can explain that to their client. If they haven’t, we can quickly help the two sides find a way forward.

But the fact is many of these complaints could have been prevented or resolved without us. And where we need to investigate in more depth, our data doesn’t paint a positive picture. It’s also disappointing we’re not seeing change or improvement in the types of issues consumers are raising.

Lawyers should welcome feedback from clients – including, and perhaps especially, about what’s not gone well. It’s clear a cultural shift is needed in lawyers’ approach to complaints – they’re opportunities to learn and do things better. 

The law might be complex, but the principles of good service and complaints handling aren’t. As an independent Ombudsman, we’re here to support legal providers – and to inform the work of legal regulators, who have the power to set standards and enforce improvements – by sharing our insight into how standards of service and complaints handling can improve.”