The Bar Council says proposed changes could divert resources from the Legal Ombudsman’s complaints backlog.
The Bar Council has opposed proposed changes to legal complaints fees and other Legal Ombudsman (LeO) scheme rules, warning that the measures could divert time and resources away from reducing the backlog of outstanding complaints.
The Office for Legal Complaints recently consulted on changes covering LeO scheme rules, case fees and the publication of decisions. Barristers currently account for 4% of all LeO complaint cases, according to the Bar Council.
Stephen Kenny KC, Chair of the Bar Council’s regulation panel, said the proposals were too wide-ranging and inadequately evidenced. He said measures should instead be tightly focused on reducing the outstanding complaints backlog.
The Bar Council’s concerns include a proposed change to the case fee structure. It does not support replacing the current £400 flat fee with a structure that could result in a maximum fee of £1,500.
The organisation also questioned whether financial incentives for service providers to resolve complaints at an early stage would necessarily improve complaints handling. It said the proposed approach could lead chambers to settle an unmerited complaint to avoid the risk of higher costs.
The Bar Council also raised concerns about the proposed test for waiving a case fee where a complaint has been dismissed. Under the proposal, a fee would only be waived where LeO is satisfied that the service provider took “all reasonable steps” to resolve the complaint at first tier. The Bar Council said the proposal does not explain what would amount to reasonable steps.
It has also called for the proposed 12-year long-stop period for complaints to be reduced to six years. The Bar Council said this would align with GDPR data retention considerations and Bar Mutual cover. It also said there should be exceptional discretion to investigate older complaints where detriment is discovered late and the matter can still be fairly investigated.
Another concern relates to the proposed publication of full ombudsman decisions. The Bar Council said this was likely to be costly, with limited benefit, and could further distract LeO from reducing its backlog.
Kenny said many of the proposed changes, if implemented, would absorb LeO’s time and resources and distract from the backlog, which he described as the most important issue.
The Bar Council’s response forms part of the consultation process. Its position is that changes should be more narrowly focused on addressing outstanding complaints rather than introducing measures it considers could create additional burdens for service providers.