Ombudsman swamped by surge of grievances; CASE STUDIES
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Solicitor K offered Mrs J investment advice and retained pounds 4,000 commission without her consent. The Solicitors Complaints Bureau said it was his word against hers.
In fact, solicitors have to provide proof of consent. The Ombudsman recommended that Mr K pay Mrs J pounds 4,000, plus pounds 800 for unnecessary legal charges and pounds 200 for the inconvenience caused.
t t t
Dr G wanted to buy an pounds 80,000 cottage in France. Solicitor P claimed expertise, but sought a pounds 275 increase on an agreed fixed fee of pounds 500 and proved unable to interpret French legal documents. He asked for a further pounds 100 to provide a translation.
The Bureau declined to take any action. While Dr G had not lost any money, he lost confidence in Mr P and felt he had to instruct other solicitors. Compensation of pounds 250 was recomended.
t t t
Solicitor G had acted on behalf of Miss E's late aunt. Miss E complained that Mr G had not informed her aunt that he would be charging for his services but gave the impression that he was acting as a favour to her husband.
The Bureau insisted there had been no breach of the Law Society's professional standards on costs, but the Ombudsman found there was no evidence on file to suggest costs had been discussed at all. The pounds 2,500 that Mr G charged meant an unexpected decrease in the value of the estate. pounds 400 compensation was recommended.
t t t
Barrister Y was advising Mr H on his divorce. Miss Y returned her brief for a hearing when she had known for some time that she might not be able to represent Mr H owing to commitments in another case. Mr H's distress was exacerbated by the "complacent attitude" of the replacement barrister. The Ombudsman recommended that both barristers each pay Mr H pounds 500.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments