On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 14:10:06 UTC, The Todal wrote:
Here's an interesting article about whether you can complain to the
Ombudsman about a solicitor when the solicitor isn't acting for you and
you aren't his client.
Two scenarios involving conveyancing - in one, the law firm was ordered
to pay compensation (a very small sum, though) and in the other, the complaint was inadmissible.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/client-care/complaints-from-third-parties-could-you-be-accountable
The following is a copy of the article linked to above written by an Ombudsman at the Legal Ombudsman and a Solicitor and regulatory policy adviser at the Law Society, about whether a complaint can be accepted by the Ombudsman about a solicitor when the
solicitor isn't acting for you and you aren't their client. I have interspersed the LeO decision which accepted a complaint with the details of my, in my opinion, similar complaint which was rejected by LeO.
"Delay by lender’s solicitor
In 2012, Mr Z purchased a property with the assistance of a mortgage.
Some years later, he found a cheaper mortgage deal which meant his monthly repayments would decrease. He decided to remortgage the property.
His new lender instructed a firm of solicitors to carry out the legal work.
On being instructed, the firm wrote to Mr Z explaining its role in the transaction. It informed Mr Z that:
the lender was its client and would be responsible for paying its fees as Mr Z was not their client, they would not be able to give him legal advice on the transaction, and he would have to seek his own independent advice if he had queries.”
I owned a flat in a small development and applied for a free lease extension offered by the Management company which was the freeholder. The Management company required that I would be “responsible not only for your own solicitors costs, but also
those of their solicitor incurred in the process of your application.”
Following the failure of the Management company solicitor to respond to my request to deal with it I instructed a firm of solicitors to obtain the lease extension.
“Mr Z was keen to complete the remortgage as soon as possible to reduce his monthly mortgage payments.”
I was keen to complete the lease extension as soon as possible in order to sell the property.
“However, he became concerned the firm was unreasonably delaying matters resulting in him losing money.”
I became concerned that the firm was making basic copy and paste errors (three times) in providing the new lease, being uncooperative in dealing with a flaw which my solicitor had found in the original lease and was unreasonably delaying matters which
resulted in me losing money.
“Mr Z raised a formal complaint with the firm. The firm refused to respond, saying Mr Z was not their client.”
I raised a formal complaint with the firm. The firm refused to respond, saying I was not their client.
“Mr Z escalated his complaint to LeO and it was accepted for investigation.”
I escalated my complaint to LeO. LeO can determine whether the firm provided a legal service to the complainant.
LeO decided the Management company was the firm’s client.
LeO advised that they had:-
“--- considered my complaint and have decided that it does not come within our jurisdiction, so we are unable to investigate your complaint. Our reasons for this are set out below.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought by individual consumers and by small businesses, trusts or charities. We can only look at your complaint if:
The service provider that you wish to complain about provided you with a service;
In your case, you do not fit the above category as you are not a client of the firm and have not received a legal service from them."
I challenged the rejection decision by LeO on the basis that although I was not the firm’s client there is no requirement in LeO’s Scheme Rules 2023 that a complaint must be from a client of the firm and that the firm had provided a legal service to
me,viz. providing a new lease, for which I paid them the fee they had demanded.
Their response included the following comments:-
“ --- this is a procedural decision, it does not address the merits of your concerns. A matter must be within our jurisdiction before we can consider its merits. Where it is not within our jurisdiction, we have no authority to determine it. It is
therefore important to consider and address jurisdiction matters at the outset where they arise.”
“Chapter 2 of our scheme is ‘Who can complain about what’.
2.8 relates to what a complainant can complain about
2.8 The complaint must relate to services which the authorised person:
a) provided to the complainant;
I have seen no evidence that the firm were acting on your behalf in this matter and throughout were liaising with your solicitor, I am satisfied from the information available that the firm were acting for the freeholders throughout. As such rule 2.8a is
not fulfilled.
I do not agree that the services provided by the firm were provided to you directly as you were not the firm’s client. The client of the firm was the freeholder.”
They also advised that if I felt this matter amounted to misconduct, to contact the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Unlike the quoted case, the Management company solicitor did not give any information about their relationship to me, and a major distinction between the cases is that I was responsible for paying their fee whereas in the quoted case the lender was
liable to their solicitor, not Mr Z.
The LeO’s rejection is based on their decision that in the provision of a lease extension using the Management company solicitor was not a service provided to me although I was the recipient of the new lease.
I struggle to understand the distinction between receiving a new mortgage for a property through a designated solicitor being considered to be a provision of a service whereas my receiving a lease extension through a designated solicitor was decided as
not being provision of a service.
In both scenarios property conveyancing documents were received which were subsequently signed and witnessed to enable property transactions, and, in my case, used in the subsequent conveyance of the sale of the flat.
I subsequently referred my complaint to the SRA who advised:- “Based on the information you have provided, I have decided that there has not been a potential breach of the SRAS standards and regulations. What you have reported relates to your
dissatisfaction with the level of service you were provided with. The is no wider risk to the public, and the firm’s regulatory history does not suggest there is a pattern of behaviour here which needs further consideration. Therefore, the SRA will
not take regulatory action on this occasion.”
I note that in contrast to LeO’s approach the SRA categorises my complaint as being about “--- dissatisfaction with the level of service you were provided with.” whereas the LeO’s decision is that I “ have not received a legal service from
them ---.”
Can anyone see any differentiation between the case accepted and mine which was rejected?
Hopefully someone better versed in these matters can clarify the LeO’s logic and advise if I have grounds to escalate this complaint and if so, to whom.
Any advice gratefully accepted.
jv
PS Full details of my original post:
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.legal.moderated/c/GriVSKE-0Eg Complaint against a Solicitor – A veritable Jarndyce v Jarndyce of Lease Extensions.
Probably TL:DNR for most people (;
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)