ABSs will increase legal complaints confusion
14 November
2011
A new report for the Legal Ombudsman has called for a
review of the right of redress for consumers complaining of poor legal
service following concerns that the arrival of alternative business
structures into the legal services sector will increase consumer
confusion.
The research, carried out by the University of
Leicester, found consumers were confused about how they could pursue
redress if they weren’t satisfied with the advice received.
In
its report published this morning, Mapping potential consumer confusion in
a changing legal market, the Leicester team led by Professor Cosmo Graham
said the confusion stemmed from the development of the market that has
allowed a variety of organisations to deliver
legal advice.
The bundling of
legal advice alongside other types of advice by
these organisations also compounded the issue.
“The provision of
legal and non-legal services may be bundled together and, although the
division may be clear within the organisation, it may not be readily
apparent to consumers,” the report said.
Of particular concern
was the right to pursue a complaint depended on the type of organisation,
even though the service that is being offered is substantially similar.
“This leads to confusion for consumers because, although they may
expect that a service is a legal service, and therefore ultimately there
will be recourse to the Legal Ombudsman, if that service is provided by a
non-lawyer, this will be outside the Legal Ombudsman’s remit,” the report
said.
The position of online services was singled out as giving
rise to another set of potential problems “when it is not made clear how to
make a complaint and what type of person, if any, is involved in the
provision of the service”.
The arrival of ABSs prompted even
greater concerns: “These problems are likely to get worse given the
developments in the market, especially as regards the introduction of
alternative business structures.”
Calling on the Legal Services
Board and the Ministry of Justice to review the rules, the report said the
existing framework contained “gaps and anomalies which raise
serious concerns about whether it is fit for purpose, particularly in light
of the developments that are taking place in this market” and that future
redress arrangements should be “sufficiently comprehensive, streamlined and
robust to meet consumers’ needs”.
At the top of the review list
should be a requirement on LeO to keep a systematic record of complaints it
is unable to handle, clearly identifying the sort of body complained about
and where the complainant has been signposted to. “If it turns out that
there are areas of significant confusion, the Legal Ombudsman should
explore the possibility of direct transfer of complainants to the relevant
body,” the report has recommended.
Will writing was acknowledged
as a problem area but pending the outcome of proposals to make it a
reserved activity the report merely suggested a voluntary system.
The
regulation of
claims management companies came in for particular criticism, with the
authors of the report finding it “anomalous” that the MoJ’s powers in
relation to complaints were more limited than the Legal Ombudsman’s, in
particular with regard to compensation.
The report saw this as a
significant consumer detriment and said the MoJ should “explore and consult
on this issue as a matter of urgency, particularly given the rise in the
numbers of complaints”.
The not-for-profit sector was another
area the research considered. It has recommended the creation of some form
of voluntary jurisdiction for complaints.
Forum 
Scotland 
England and Wales 
