Tweet
As of the 28 th January 2015, the Legal Ombudsman Service began to take complaints against Claims Management Companies, and it seemed at long last, after the inaction of the Claims Management Section of the M.O.J., that consumers could seek redress from the Claims Management companies for ‘POOR SERVICE’, and other ‘misdemeanours’.
Unfortunately, that has not turned out to be the case for us. Having referred THREE companies to them, and having gone through the all the stages of placing the claims, several key points have emerged.
None of the adjudicators or the Ombudsman himself (Andrew Burford) have had any legal training. They make their decisions as to levels of ‘poor service’ (or other possible areas where the Claims Management Companies fail in their contract with the consumer), based upon their opinion of the documents presented to them. Two adjudicators we have been in contact with admitted they were either a ‘lay person’ or giving ‘my lay view’.
When asked for any breakdown of charges they could ‘apply’ to these companies, both stated ‘it is what we consider appropriate in the circumstances’.
NEGLIGENCE is not part of their remit, this matter is solely in the palms of the court system.
We have been through all the steps in the process, and without going into too much detail at this point, before rejecting the Ombudsman’s decisions on all three companies (noting they found poor service in two of the companies cases, but offered what to us was derisory compensation) we then found out the following. They also agreed with the M.O.J., that the companies had breached Claims Management Regulations, yet was done about that?
Simple answer, a big fat zero.
We submitted a great deal of evidence, showing that all three Claims Management Companies, had breached their contracts with us, and all three had lied on numerous occasions, yet a great deal of this evidence, including e-mails and letters from those companies was ignored.
The following is a direct quote from the Legal Ombudsman’s website as regards Claims Management Companies.
‘ Q. How much will this cost CMC’s
A. CMC’s will be charged an annual fee to cover the costs of the service that the Legal Ombudsman provides. The level of fees have been consulted upon and the intended framework for the fees can be found within the response to this consultation’
Now both the LEGAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE and the section of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, who regulate the Claims Management Companies, are BOTH FINANCED by the very same companies, so the question arises, how can either of these organizations be trusted, when both financed by the companies they are supposed to regulate ?
The financing of the Legal Ombudsman Service as regards Claims Management, should have been made clear on their website and definitely in conjunction with the forms relating to those complaints against these companies, AND ‘NOT HIDDEN AWAY’.
This is what Walter Merricks, the LeO Service Complaint Adjudicator says about The Legal Ombudsman in the Annual Review 2012,
"The service is largely confined to remedying identified over-charging or financial loss,
or awarding relatively small sums for the inconvenience caused by poor service"
http://www.legalombudsman-problems.co.uk/
Having rejected the Ombudsman’s decisions in all three cases, we are now progressing to the next level, i.e. Court Action against all three companies. Also, and quite remarkably, the Ombudsman came to his ‘final conclusions’ within a day, which was quite an achievement, bearing in mind, each case involved in excess of 100 pages of written evidence from all parties concerned. The impression that he simply ‘agreed’ with the adjudicators decisions, and simply signed the letters to us, without reading the case files, remains fairly apparent.
Having been through all this, we thought that anybody else thinking of using the Legal Ombudsman Service, needs to be aware of the pitfalls we have encountered in dealing with this service. As it stands, it is more than on a par with the M.O.J., and to put it mildly, there have been many complaints about them and how they deal with the Claims Management Companies.
Unfortunately, that has not turned out to be the case for us. Having referred THREE companies to them, and having gone through the all the stages of placing the claims, several key points have emerged.
None of the adjudicators or the Ombudsman himself (Andrew Burford) have had any legal training. They make their decisions as to levels of ‘poor service’ (or other possible areas where the Claims Management Companies fail in their contract with the consumer), based upon their opinion of the documents presented to them. Two adjudicators we have been in contact with admitted they were either a ‘lay person’ or giving ‘my lay view’.
When asked for any breakdown of charges they could ‘apply’ to these companies, both stated ‘it is what we consider appropriate in the circumstances’.
NEGLIGENCE is not part of their remit, this matter is solely in the palms of the court system.
We have been through all the steps in the process, and without going into too much detail at this point, before rejecting the Ombudsman’s decisions on all three companies (noting they found poor service in two of the companies cases, but offered what to us was derisory compensation) we then found out the following. They also agreed with the M.O.J., that the companies had breached Claims Management Regulations, yet was done about that?
Simple answer, a big fat zero.
We submitted a great deal of evidence, showing that all three Claims Management Companies, had breached their contracts with us, and all three had lied on numerous occasions, yet a great deal of this evidence, including e-mails and letters from those companies was ignored.
The following is a direct quote from the Legal Ombudsman’s website as regards Claims Management Companies.
‘ Q. How much will this cost CMC’s
A. CMC’s will be charged an annual fee to cover the costs of the service that the Legal Ombudsman provides. The level of fees have been consulted upon and the intended framework for the fees can be found within the response to this consultation’
Now both the LEGAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE and the section of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, who regulate the Claims Management Companies, are BOTH FINANCED by the very same companies, so the question arises, how can either of these organizations be trusted, when both financed by the companies they are supposed to regulate ?
The financing of the Legal Ombudsman Service as regards Claims Management, should have been made clear on their website and definitely in conjunction with the forms relating to those complaints against these companies, AND ‘NOT HIDDEN AWAY’.
This is what Walter Merricks, the LeO Service Complaint Adjudicator says about The Legal Ombudsman in the Annual Review 2012,
"The service is largely confined to remedying identified over-charging or financial loss,
or awarding relatively small sums for the inconvenience caused by poor service"
http://www.legalombudsman-problems.co.uk/
Having rejected the Ombudsman’s decisions in all three cases, we are now progressing to the next level, i.e. Court Action against all three companies. Also, and quite remarkably, the Ombudsman came to his ‘final conclusions’ within a day, which was quite an achievement, bearing in mind, each case involved in excess of 100 pages of written evidence from all parties concerned. The impression that he simply ‘agreed’ with the adjudicators decisions, and simply signed the letters to us, without reading the case files, remains fairly apparent.
Having been through all this, we thought that anybody else thinking of using the Legal Ombudsman Service, needs to be aware of the pitfalls we have encountered in dealing with this service. As it stands, it is more than on a par with the M.O.J., and to put it mildly, there have been many complaints about them and how they deal with the Claims Management Companies.
Comment