Proposed changes to first-tier complaints handling, which could include requirements to publish complaints information to clients in a ‘clear, accessible and prominent place’ on firms’ websites, have been criticised by The Law Society.
Responding to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s ‘Changing our requirements on first-tier complaints’ consultation which runs until 1st August, Law Society president Richard Atkinson described the requirements as “regulatory overreach”
Chancery Lane said it supported ‘necessary and proportionate improvements to first-tier complaints handling’ but pointed to recently published statistics from the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) which identified 87% of consumer were satisfied with the legal services they received, as evidence only a small proportion of consumer s are affected. In it’s response to the consultation, The Law Society questions the need for extensive reforms.
In the 10 years from 2012 to 2022 the percentage of consumers who indicated they were satisfied with the legal services they received increased from 79% to 85%. The SRA also reported in 2022 that the rate of resolution of complaints had risen to 81% from 72% in 2012. The proposals risk ‘unnecessary rule changes or duplication of work already covered by the Legal Ombudsman’ the response adds. Indeed, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has only recently published three case studies, naming firms involved in matters brought to LeO as part of a ‘renewed commitment’ to publishing decisions which are in the public interest.
“Little evidence has been produced to demonstrate the necessity for the proposed changes to the SRA rules or the publication of timeliness data. A convincing explanation that regulatory changes would benefit consumers is also lacking. In fact, some of the proposed changes would increase regulatory costs for firms and consumers, reduce efficiency and potentially hinder access to justice.”
said Atkinson.
“Firms are required to inform clients about their right to complain and how to do so at the time of engagement. We agree it is good practice that firms should provide complaints procedure information on request or when a formal complaint arises and most firms already do this therefore there is no need to change the SRA rules.
“We support the SRA’s proposal to require complaints information to be clear, accessible, and prominently displayed on firms’ websites. We do not, however, support requiring information about the complaints process being given at the end of every matter, as this may cause practical difficulties and lead to unwarranted complaints.
“Publishing firm-level timeliness data raises serious concerns due to problems with contextualisation and the time it takes to resolve complex complaints. This can distort average timescales and place disproportionate burden on law firms.
“Similarly, the Model Complaints Resolution Procedure put forward risks imposing a rigid, one-size-fits-all model on the profession. Flexibility needs to be built in any new procedure and there needs to be co-ordination between the SRA and LeO.”
He added the Law Society supports the SRA developing a single, practical complaints handling guidance document and recognises the value of having a universal definition of ‘a complaint’. However, the proposed definition is ‘inadequate’ and any definition that is adopted should be clear and practical to both legal service providers and consumers.
