The complaint

Mr S was an executor of his late father’s estate alongside his brother; however, they were unable to agree on the value of the estate’s assets and how the estate should be dealt with. Mr S instructed the firm to represent his interests in the administration of the estate. Mr S expected the firm to resolve this quickly so he could receive the financial gift left for him in the will.    

After a few years the estate had still not been finalised. Mr S approached the Legal Ombudsman and requested that we investigate the following: 

1. The firm failed to progress his case to its conclusion; 
2. The firm’s costs exceeded the initial estimate; and 
3. The firm’s complaint handling was unreasonable as they failed to resolve his complaint. 

The outcome

We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable in relation to all three complaints.  

The evidence showed that the firm advised Mr S that the initial estimate was to review his documents, but that further fees would be charged for additional work the firm had to complete. The firm provided additional estimates to Mr S following this so although the costs did exceed the initial estimate, the firm updated Mr S on how the costs were accruing. For this reason, we decided that their service was reasonable.   

We also found that while the firm did follow Mr S’s instructions, they were unable to bring the case to a conclusion as Mr S and their sibling did not come to an agreement on the estate. The firm provided advice to Mr S about how to resolve this dispute but could not be held responsible for them being unable to agree.  

Lastly, we concluded that the firm handled the complaint reasonably. They confirmed Mr S’s complaints before responding to each of Mr S’s concerns within the time frame outlined in their complaints procedure.  

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.