In this complaint we found the firm's service and the handling of the complaint to be reasonable so the case fee was waived...
Ms S was involved in a road traffic accident and sustained serious injuries which meant that she was unable to return to work. She instructed the firm to pursue a personal injury claim. They were instructed under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), also known as a no win no fee agreement, which means that the firm would only receive payment from the settlement if the claim was successful.
Ms S felt that the firm gave her no choice but to accept the other side’s offer, so the case was settled outside of court. Ms S was suffering with ongoing pain from her injuries and while the firm arranged for her to be assessed, she felt that they could have done more to help with her recovery.
Ms S complained to the firm but disagreed with their response as they did not admit to any service failings. Ms S came to the Legal Ombudsman and requested that we investigate the following:
We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable for both complaints.
The evidence showed that the firm arranged for Ms S to have an immediate needs assessment, however the other side did not agree to all of the rehabilitation recommendations. The firm had already explained to Ms S that in this instance their only option would be to progress the case, which they did. As the firm did what they said they would and this had been clearly explained to, and accepted by Ms S we concluded that their service was reasonable.
During the case Ms S received an offer from the other side to settle the claim. The firm and a barrister advised Ms S to accept the offer. They informed her of the risks of rejecting it including that she would have been financially worse off if the matter went to court. The firm also informed Ms S that by failing to accept their advice, she would be in breach of the CFA agreement so they may not be able to continue representing her.
Although Ms S was not happy with the advice given, the firm were acting in her best interests and remained polite and professional throughout. The evidence showed that Ms S was given over two months to consider this and explore her options. Ms S later took the firm’s advice and accepted the offer.
We found the firm’s service to be reasonable in relation to these complaints, so we did not need to consider the impact of any unreasonable service to decide on an appropriate remedy.
Despite Ms S being dissatisfied with the firm’s complaint response, we concluded that their handling of the complaint was reasonable. The reasons for this include that they provided a clear response within a reasonable time frame and addressed all of Ms S’s complaint points. On this occasion both parts of Scheme Rule 6.2 were met, so the case fee was waived.
