Case studies

General principles

  • In complaints about information requested not being provided, we will generally say the date of the refusal is the consumer’s date of awareness for time limit purposes.

  • However, it’s possible that a consumer could have been aware they might have cause to complain – for example, because they saw an advert about claiming legal fees – some time before taking action.

  • If a solicitor says they believe a consumer should have complained sooner, we will ask the consumer or their representative about the reasons for the delay, and make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

Solicitor tells us complaint is out of time – we decide date of awareness is date of receiving legal advice about deductions

Mrs C complained to her former solicitors that she had been unfairly charged a 100% success fee in a case two years ago. She said she had been told by another law firm that a percentage nearer 35% would have been more appropriate, and that she was several thousand pounds worse off than she should be.

The solicitors said they had acted in line with the agreement she signed before starting her case, and that their fees were in line with industry standards. Mrs C then complained to us.

The solicitors told us we shouldn’t look at the complaint under our Scheme Rule 5.4b, because Mrs C had contacted us outside our one-year time limit. They said that if she’d wanted to complain, she should have done so two years ago, after her case closed and she’d been sent details of her settlement.

We agreed that Mrs C could have seen then how much had been deducted from her settlement. But in our view, she only knew there could be an issue with how much had been deduced after being given advice to that effect from the other law firm. 

So we took the date of awareness as the date of her receiving this advice – which was well within a year of her coming to us. 

Solicitor tells us complaint is out of time – we agree that date of awareness is date of receiving details of settlement

Mr D complained that his solicitors didn’t tell him how much they were going to take from his damages settlement after his personal injury claim.

The solicitors said they had acted in line with the agreement he’d signed, and that their fees were in line with industry standards.

The solicitors told us we shouldn’t look at the complaint under our Scheme Rule 5.4b, because Mr D had contacted us outside our one-year time limit. They said that if he’d wanted to complain, he should have done so two years ago, after his case closed and he’d been sent details of his settlement.

In this case, we agreed. Mr D had been unhappy since receiving the settlement, rather than receiving new advice in the interim that made him realise he might have cause to complain.