What we heard in our consultation Throughout the six-week consultation period, LeO undertook a comprehensive programme of engagement that focused on understanding the wide range of stakeholder views on the priorities outlined for the year ahead. A total of 19 formal written consultation responses were received from: · 4 x regulators · 3 x professional bodies · 2 x consumer bodies / representative groups · 1 local law society · 5 x individuals · 4 x service providers The number of responses received was notably higher than previous years. This is likely due to the increased engagement LeO has been having with stakeholders during 2024/25 around areas of strategic collaboration, and the increase in the number of consumer and service provider responses received may be in part due to LeO’s increased social media presence. Summary of responses Overall, the responses received showed balanced support for the proposals outlined for 2025/26. Respondents continue to recognise the improvements that LeO has made to its operational processes and the efficiencies these have brought to its overall service delivery. A number of responses reflected concern that LeO has not met the trajectories outlined for 2024/25, however this is largely related to an increase in core demand which is out of LeO’s immediate control and is impacting on the ability to reduce the investigation queue. The value and support for LeO’s strategic focus on delivering greater learning and insight was encouraged and supported by the majority of responses received – particularly from regulators. In line with previous feedback received, a small minority of respondents told us that LeO resource and funding should primarily focus on continued improvements to customer journey times and resolving complaints more efficiently. Strategic objective for LeO’s service Overall, the responses received indicated a good level of support for the proposals outlined under the service objective. Like the responses to the 2024/25 Business Plan and budget consultation, a number of responses outline the view that service should be LeO’s primary focus. Many of the responses recognise the improvements that LeO has made over recent years to its output, particularly around early resolution, but they also continue to reflect on the improvements still required to average end-to-end customer journey time for cases which require investigation. Concern about an increased investment in resource is primarily linked to the fact the backlog has not reduced to the rate that had been forecast for 2024/25. Strategic objective for LeO’s impact Overall, the responses to the proposals under LeO’s impact objective were broadly similar to the ones received to the consultation last year. Regulator responses were all supportive of LeO doing more with the insights it gathers from complaints. There continues to be clear recognition of the need for collaboration with LeO to use its insights to better inform the sector of the improvements required – particularly in relation to complaint handling in light of the LSB’s first tier complaints handling requirements. Consistent with the responses received in 2024/25, two responses, from the Law Society and the Bar Council, were not supportive of the impact objective. While there was still some recognition of the value of learning and insight, these respondents felt LeO should focus its resource on resolving complaints and improving customers’ experience. Budget and future funding As was the case last year, there was overall support for LeO to continue delivering improvements to the customer experience and to do more with the insights it has. There was also broad recognition that LeO cannot continue to absorb additional costs, particularly in light of increases in inflation. But, as in previous years, there was varying support for the budget ask being consulted on with some organisations reiterating questions around LeO’s efficiency posed in their responses from previous budget consultations. Responses which showed support for the proposed budget focused on the need to ensure that LeO is appropriately funded to deliver an adequate service for its customers, and to support delivery of the ambition outlined in the 2024-27 strategy. Responses which were less supportive of the budget sought predominantly focused on two areas: · Whilst recognising sustained performance on outputs, the concern that LeO has not reduced the backlog to the levels forecast for this year; and · the desire to see greater efficiencies being found before an above inflation budget was agreed. Additional concerns related to the budget ask to support LeO moving towards publishing ombudsman decisions, to the additional financial pressures already being borne by the profession (with the professional bodies questioning whether this was a priority for LeO’s budget), and to the ambition to see LeO’s budget reduce as its backlog continues to decrease. Two responses from professional bodies recognised the value of the insight available from complaints but questioned LeO’s role in delivering its own learning and insight agenda and therefore the associated budget requirements. LeO’s case fee There was an overall level of support for reviewing the case fee, recognising that an increase in line with inflation has never taken place. There was also recognition of the role an increase can play in offsetting the levy and the benefit of encouraging service providers to resolve cases at the earliest possible opportunity through improved first tier complaint handling. While there was substantial support for an inflationary increase to the case fee, some responses felt that the doubling of the case fee to £800 would be too steep a rise due to potential adverse impacts on the profession – particularly to smaller firms, for providers working in areas funded by legal aid, or in areas of law that naturally carry a higher risk of complaints. Responses which responded positively to the option of LeO exploring options for a ‘polluter pays’ model or tiered case fee structure felt this had the added benefit of reducing the levy by ensuring those who have complaints upheld by LeO pay more towards its costs. Those who responded negatively to any proposal of an alternative charging system identified key considerations such as the disproportionate impacts on different groups within the sector, including those operating in areas of law with small profit margins, and the potential that a differentiated system could drive negative behaviours that seek to prevent a complaint being referred to LeO. LeO’s transparency and publishing decisions Views on LeO publishing final ombudsman decisions – or summaries of those decisions – continued to reflect on the importance of transparency, but some long-standing concerns remain. These concerns relate to perceived value that publishing decisions will have for consumers, the impact on LeO’s operational efficiency and therefore the customer experience, and legal considerations around privilege and associated redaction risks. Responses that referenced the option of publishing summaries also highlighted concerns about the risks presented by using AI and technology – such as cyber security and data breaches. Responses from consumers and consumer representative groups were all supportive of LeO publishing decisions in the name of transparency. Key changes arising from consultation feedback In the main, the consultation responses endorsed LeO’s proposed priorities for 2025/26 – albeit with some concern about the budget ask. Budget LeO is mindful that its consultation was published at the same time that employer National Insurance (NI) contribution increases were announced in the Government’s Autumn Budget. The timing meant that these additional contributions were not reflected in LeO’s budget proposals. Transparency While some responses to the consultation reflected a level of concern around LeO publishing more of the decisions it makes, both LeO and the OLC are committed to enhancing the transparency of decision making over the course of the 2024-27 Strategy. After careful assessment, LeO considered that the most realistic pathway to delivering on this commitment is to pursue an option involving the summarisation of decisions in their current form. The budget ask therefore includes the anticipated preparation costs of resourcing LeO to prepare the necessary systems, processes and people to publish summaries of full ombudsman decisions within 18 months from the initiation of the project. Note: Following careful consideration and detailed engagement with LeO around specific aspects of our plans, the budget related to the publication of summaries of decisions – the pathway LeO has committed to delivering whilst continuing to assess options for publishing decisions in the longer term - was not approved by the LSB Board. Instead of publishing full redacted ombudsman decisions, or summaries of decisions, LeO will make increased use of our existing powers to publish decisions where it is in the public interest to do so. Alongside this, LeO will share more insight, data and case studies to enable the sector to learn and improve from what we see. Taken together, LeO believes this package of activities will generate momentum in what is an area of considerable stakeholder and consumer interest, establishing a strong foundation for building on further in subsequent years. Case fee income The responses to the consultation indicated a general level of support and consensus in relation to the merits of an increase in LeO’s case fee, particularly one that increased the fee to reflect increases in inflation since its level was originally set. LeO will reflect more widely on the size of the increase to the standard case fee and will engage with stakeholders in 2025/26 to identify a level of increase that strikes an appropriate balance between competing priorities. It will continue to explore the viability and practicality of alternative and more dynamic charging structures, with a view to assessing whether long term future changes are needed.
