LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEFFECTIVE

[The Tech Clerk]

Just found this old complaint - non effective response from the legal ombudsman = No Regulation if you are Defendant.



Your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc
Thank you for writing to the Legal Ombudsman on xx October 2013 and outlining your complaint about DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. I am writing to explain why we are unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.
You told me that you have a complaint against DG Solicitors c/o Hsbc Bank Plc. This is because you say they issued a claim against you without evidence of a consumer credit agreement and misled the court.
The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the people who were the lawyer’s customer at the time – that is, people who were themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned.

In your case, you were not receiving the service you are complaining about from the lawyer concerned. The legal service which you are complaining about was provided to someone else. Unfortunately, this means we are not able to help you on this occasion.
Please get back in touch with us if you think we have got the facts as shown in this letter wrong or are aware of other matters that significantly alter the circumstances surrounding your complaint.
Thank you again for contacting us.

[PlanB]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEEFECTIVE

They weren't really being ineffective Techie since investigating complaints about another party's solicitor is not within their remit I'm afraid. They were only advising you of the true situation.

If you want to complain about the service you've received from your own solicitor you go to The Legal Ombudsman:

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/helping-the-public/

If you want to complain about the way you have been treated by someone else's solicitor (eg if they may have broken the SRA Code of Conduct) you go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/prob...hen-report-sra

Plan B x

[PlanB]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEEFECTIVE

Just found this old complaint

How old is old?

The SRA only investigate a complaint made within a six month deadline of the issue unless there is a compelling reason for the delay.

You may still have time

Plan B x

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEEFECTIVE

They weren't really being ineffective Techie since investigating complaints about another party's solicitor is not within their remit I'm afraid. They were only advising you of the true situation.

If you want to complain about the service you've received from your own solicitor you go to The Legal Ombudsman:

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/helping-the-public/

If you want to complain about the way you have been treated by someone else's solicitor (eg if they may have broken the SRA Code of Conduct) you go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/prob...hen-report-sra

Plan B x

Went there as well = waste of time, Barristers = waste of time Law Society = Waste of time so on so on

[PlanB]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEEFECTIVE

Went there as well = waste of time, Barristers = waste of time Law Society = Waste of time so on so on

Oh dear, someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning

Plan B x

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEEFECTIVE

1st complaint to SRA September 2013 . then legal ombudsman- then law society , FCA. and repeat complaints over the next 18 months, but seriously they all refer you to the other, one says go the other with complaint - Thread is for Peeps to understand that the response is what they will get, and do not stand a chance if the go to court on their own without solicitors = self regulation seems to be useless.

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEFFECTIVE

Each set of circumstances and complaint will be different. You may well be right but it shouldn't deter anyone from going through the process if they feel aggrieved.

There is at least increasing awareness within the legal profession that more cases are being defended by Litigants in Person, to the extent that new guildelines were drawn up earlier this year.

The guidelines have been developed by the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and the Law Society in response to the rising numbers of people representing themselves in court without a lawyer as a result of cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small-claims limit and the introduction of employment tribunal fees.
...Lord Dyson, master of the rolls, commented:
'I warmly welcome the publication of these joint professional guidelines, and the collaboration of the three leading professional bodies in producing a valuable and timely reference for lawyers.
'An increasing number of litigants in person are coming before courts and tribunals in all jurisdictions, and the challenge for all of us in the justice system is to make sure that everyone is treated equally, fairly and impartially and according to the law.

More>http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/pr...yers-may-2015/

Guidelines attached below. At least there may be some salient quotes therein to support complaints.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: LEGAL OMDUSMAN - WHEN INEFFECTIVE

The Legal Ombudsman is currently consulting on a series of welcome proposals that would allow greater numbers of consumers to access its services. One of these is the proposal to allow complaints from individuals who are not the lawyer's own client. This is known in the jargon as 'third party complaints'.
There has, understandably, been a mixed reaction to the proposal. Lawyers quite reasonably shudder at the prospect of giving, for example, an embittered ex-husband with nothing to lose the right to complain about his treatment by his former wife's winning legal team. Moreover, the responsibility of lawyers is to act in the best interests of their clients, which may properly involve taking action that is contrary to the interests of other parties. In our adversarial legal system, we must be careful that the consumer redress system does not create conflicts of interest or impair the proper pursuit of justice.

These are legitimate concerns, but the current system is a crude one, as it creates a blanket prohibition on all third party complaints so that parties with legitimate grievances are shut out from seeking redress (unless they have the means to go to court). Surely a better approach would be to allow the Legal Ombudsman to accept some types of third party complaint whilst excluding those which fall on the wrong side of what is acceptable.

This would, in fact, bring the Legal Ombudsman in line with practice elsewhere. Redress schemes for legal services in Scotland, Ireland and parts of Australia all allow some third party complaints. Outside of the law, the Financial Ombudsman Service is one of six private sector ombudsmen which accept some complaints from individuals other than the firm's customers. And let's remember that harmonisation is a driving principle in the Legal Ombudsman's scheme rules consultation.
Reaching consensus on which types of complaint should be inside and outside of scope is unlikely to be easy. We hope it will be relatively easy to agree on allowing complaints where a lawyer carries out work intended to benefit a consumer, but they are not treated as the client because the work was arranged through someone else. The Legal Ombudsman's first annual report gives an example of an unregulated estate administration company which subcontracted obtaining the grant of probate to a firm of solicitors, but the consumer was unable to complain because they had employed the company and not the solicitor to do the work. Such technical niceties seem especially unjust and would appear to frustrate the intention of the contract on which consumers rely in good faith. This also encourages lawyers to create complex business structures in order to evade regulation.

The Legal Ombudsman currently accepts complaints from beneficiaries about poor service by lawyers dealing with an estate. However, on our reading of the rules, it cannot act should those same people lose their inheritance because the will was poorly drafted. The Panel's evidence of bad quality work in this area – one in five wills prepared by solicitors and will-writers are substandard – suggests this is an important lacuna. Another key gap is breaches of confidentiality where there are examples of laptops containing personal details falling into the wrong hands. Although the Information Commissioner can investigate and penalise firms breaching data protection laws, consumers cannot complain to the Legal Ombudsman unless they are the client.

A far trickier question is whether victims and witnesses should be able to complain. Lawyers must defend their client's interests robustly and this can quite properly require challenging questioning of innocent parties. And, of course, judges are there to intervene should advocates overstep the mark. But this issue must be properly debated as these individuals, who are among the most vulnerable users of the criminal justice system, can be left feeling victims twice over due to their ordeal in the courtroom. It is vital to ensure that the right checks and balances are in place if the public are to continue to come forward to report and help prosecute crimes, and to stop offenders from targeting others. Opening up a right to complain could be one part of the solution.

Our goal in all this is to extend routes to redress for legitimate grievances and create the incentives for the market to work well for consumers. The Panel will shortly publish a think piece to stimulate discussion on these issues as part of the Legal Ombudsman's consultation exercise. I hope that you will read the paper and add your views to the debate

Courtesy LeO News: http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/leo...er-to-you.html

Let us hope action is taken within this area!

also bring it into the the 22nd century