The complaint

H was living in a property owned by a housing association. The housing association wanted to evict H, but firstly applied to get an injunction to prevent H from displaying violent behaviour towards their neighbour.

H wanted to prevent this and submitted a counterclaim for discrimination.  H instructed the firm to represent them which was funded through legal aid.

During the proceedings the housing association made an offer to discontinue their application for an injunction. They also offered H new accommodation. H was given a few weeks to consider this offer which they later declined. The matter came to an end as the court dismissed all claims during the trial. H was able to remain living in the property.

H felt that the firm had not acted in their best interests. H complained that the firm pressured them to accept the housing association’s offer and threatened to have the legal aid funding removed if they did not accept. 

The outcome

We concluded that the firm’s service was reasonable.

The evidence showed that the firm gave their advice for H to accept the offer in a professional manner. The firm explained the benefits and risks of H accepting and rejecting the offer and reassured H that they did not need to accept it if they did not want to.

The firm are required to inform the legal aid agency of any offers made. It is the legal aid agency that may have withdrawn any further funding if they considered the offer to be reasonable. We would expect a service provider to inform their client if any decisions may impact their funding, which is what the firm did.

We recognised that H felt pressured because of the time frame he was given to consider the offer, however this was due to the upcoming trial and was out of the firm’s control.

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.