Poor communication, delays and progression failures are among the top grievances cited by consumers using wills and probate services.
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) have published their annual report on customer complaints, collecting case studies and customer feedback to paint a picture of areas that need improving within the legal landscape.
According to LeO’s data, the top three issues clients faced with wills and probate firms were poor communication – making up 25 per cent of complaints, delays and progression delays (25 per cent) and failure to advise (14 per cent). Of those who complained 75 per cent claimed their issues were handled poorly and 48 per cent said they were not satisfied with the initial tier of objection handling from firms. However, it was noted that 1,070 complaints were resolved to satisfaction, 43 per cent of which were reconciled through early resolution.
A case study from an anonymous customer claimed it took ‘years’ for firm to solve his inheritance dispute and approached LeO for assistance. LeO investigated whether he firm in question had failed to progress his case to conclusion, if the cost of the case exceeded the initial estimate and that the firm’s complaint handling was unreasonable.
The case study, ‘Mr S’, who was the executor of his late father’s estate alongside his brother, sought assistance from a law firm to agree on the value of the estate after disagreements within the family. The client instructed the firm to represent his interests and expected a quick service so he could receive the financial gift left for him in his father’s will.
LeO’s conclusion found that the firm’s service was reasonable on all three counts and the fees had been outlined if additional work on the case was needed. The firm did follow Mr S’s instructions but said ‘they could not be held responsible if the brothers could not agree’, therefore the case was not brought to a conclusion.
Another case study saw a customer receive compensation after the wills and probate firm accepted they had made a mistake when dealing with IHT forms. The forms she was sent to sign had errors and discrepancies – leaving the client confused as to whether they were responsible for the IHT bill – which was not able to be covered by the cost of the estate. The firm offered £250 alongside additional costs for their error and emotional damages to the client.
Bosses at LeO say that many complaints could have been solved without the need for their involvement. The independent body also said they are seeing ‘the same type of complaints without resolution’.
Chief Ombudsman, Paul McFadden, said:
“It’s good news that we’re able to sort out half of all complaints through early resolution. If something’s gone wrong, and a lawyer has offered to put things right fairly, we can explain that to their client. If they haven’t, we can quickly help the two sides find a way forward.
But the fact is many of these complaints could have been prevented or resolved without us. And where we need to investigate in more depth, our data doesn’t paint a positive picture. It’s also disappointing we’re not seeing change or improvement in the types of issues consumers are raising.
Lawyers should welcome feedback from clients – including, and perhaps especially, about what’s not gone well. It’s clear a cultural shift is needed in lawyers’ approach to complaints – they’re opportunities to learn and do things better.
The law might be complex, but the principles of good service and complaints handling aren’t. As an independent Ombudsman, we’re here to support legal providers – and to inform the work of legal regulators, who have the power to set standards and enforce improvements – by sharing our insight into how standards of service and complaints handling can improve.”
