CLSB

Complaints made to Legal Ombudsman (Service)

  • 2019

    2019 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
    Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
    None N/A
    • 2018

      2018 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
      Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
      None N/A
      • 2017

        2017 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
        Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
        None N/A
        • 2016

          2016 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
          Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
          • Failed to follow instructions, including communicating with the other sides representatives.
          • Produced a report for court that the complainant feels is misleading and was done without her approval or knowledge, relying on documentation from third parties.
          • Gave misleading advice and failed to act with a duty of care.
          11 April 2016: Complaint dismissed under 5.7. Compelling reasons why it was  inappropriate for LeO to look at the complaints mainly because the complainant was seeking to re-open matters already considered by the SCCO.
          • 2015

            2015 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
            Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
            26 May 2015: Complainant alleges the Costs Lawyer failed to: Reply to their emails, keep them informed, follow instructions, make full disclose to the court, release file, seek their authority to enter into agreements, deal with the complaint internally, act in their best interests and advise on cost implications. Costs Lawyer ordered to pay £100 compensation and release file. Costs Lawyer accepted this decision, the complainant rejected it. On 7/3/16 LeO advised the case had been closed by them.
          • 2014

            2014 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
            Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
            None N/A
          • 2013

            2013 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
            Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
            22 November 2013: Complainant alleged the Costs Lawyer failed to communicate with them directly, gave misleading advice, acted unprofessionally, breached confidentiality, failed to follow their instructions, failed to provide correct facts to the court, failed to correct errors, spelling and grammatical errors within documents. 4 July 2014: Costs Lawyer ordered to pay complainant £100. The complainant rejected this decision therefore the Costs Lawyer did not need to pay. Case closed by LeO.
          • 2012

            2012 Service Complaints Received & actioned by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) 
            Complaint received (in brief) Outcome (in brief)
            5 July 2012: Complainant alleged the Costs Lawyer had advised there was a limit on costs that could be incurred of £11,500. The complainant was ultimately required to pay £13,250 + interest and assessment costs. 7 November 2012: Informal resolution