2009 Performance Update
Legal Complaints Service
November 2009
Contents
Contents
2
Summary of Performance
3
Summary Throughput
4
General Throughput
5
Coal Health Throughput
6
All Work in Progress with Age Profile
7
Insurance Work In Progress
8
Helpline
9
Timeliness of Closures by Month of Receipt
10
All Unallocated with Age Profile
11
Speed of Allocation
12
Quality of Outcome and Customer Service
13
Customer Satisfaction
14
LCS Budget
15
Staffing
16
Cost Index
16
LSO Referrals
17
Cases Over 12 Months
18
Glossary
21
Page 2 of 21
November 2009
Summary of Performance Against Planned Objectives
Getting the Right Answer
Q1: We will achieve a fair outcome and service standard, without significant failings, in at least 90% of cases closed
Quarter 3
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
*Comment added on page 13
Doing it Quickly
T1a: We will investigate and resolve at least 65% of cases within 3 months of receipt
This Month
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
71%
65%
65%
0%
✓
T1b: We will investigate and resolve 100% of cases within 12 months, apart from in exceptional circumstances
This Month
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
99.91%
99.90%
100%
-0.10%
X
Informing the Customer
S1: We will ensure at least 80% of our customers are satisfied with our service
This Month
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
84%
83%
80%
3%
✓
Providing Value for Money
C1: We will reduce the cost index of our service by 6% per year in real terms
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
£1,101.88
£1,202.51
-£100.63
✓
Preparation for Handover & Closure
H1: Optimise total number of cases in progress (WIP)
Month End
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
3535
Approx. 3600
-65 (-2%)
✓
H2: Optimise size of unallocated buffer
This Month
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
100% within 21
96%
-4%
X
working days
Page 3 of 21
November 2009
Summary Throughput
WIP
WIP
Cases
Cases
WIP
Throughput
Brought
Carried
Received
Closed
Movement
Forward
Forward
Complaints
3872
1259
1596
3535
-337
Remuneration
180
10
56
134
-46
Certificates
All Enquiries
231
434
466
199
-32
Total
4283
1703
2118
3868
-415
These figures include receipts and reopens for all complaints.
A large number of Coal Health closures has contibuted to the high volume of closures this
month
Complaints Work In Progress
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
WIP
Forecast
Remuneration Certificates and Enquiries
Work In Progress
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Remuneration Certificates
Enquiries
Page 4 of 21
November 2009
General Throughput Performance Against Forecast 2009
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Forecast Receipts
1060
1172
1034
1121
1169
1233
1315
1065
1054
1114
976
979
12313
Actual Receipts
1035
980
1257
1067
1132
1098
1056
1064
958
1209
1110
11966
Variance
-25
-192
223
-54
-37
-135
-259
-1
-96
95
134
-347
% Variance
-2%
-16%
22%
-5%
-3%
-11% -20%
0%
-9%
9%
14%
-3%
Forecast In House
939
809
887
817
710
944
966
821
996
1060
1036
756
9985
Closures
Forecast Outsource
90
90
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
85
85
1365
Closures
Total Closure
1029
899
987
917
860
1094
1116
971
1146
1210
1121
841
11350
Forecast
Actual In House
916
942
1068
893
858
1002
1115
994
1036
1116
1118
11058
Closures
Actual Outsource
91
89
131
117
128
176
150
87
84
105
93
1251
Closures
Total Actual
1007
1031
1199
1010
986
1178
1265
1081
1120
1221
1211
12309
Closures
Variance
-22
132
212
93
126
84
149
110
-26
11
90
959
% Variance
-2%
15%
21%
10%
15%
8%
13%
11%
-2%
1%
8%
8%
Forecast WIP
3550
3823
3870
4074
4383
4522
3519
3204
3002
2835
2691
Actual WIP
3190
3139
3197
3254
3400
3320
3111
3094
2932
2920
2819
Variance
-360
-684
-673
-820
-983 -1202 -408
-110
-70
85
128
% Variance
-10% -18% -17% -20% -22% -27% -12%
-3%
-2%
3%
5%
This includes complaints kept open to pursue recovery of redress from insurance companies, but
excludes coal health complaints.
After a review carried out in June some alterations were made to the current forecast.
The changes were:
1. receipts reduced by 3% to reflect current YTD variance plus seasonality adjustment
2. In House closures amended to reflect current operational model
3. Outsource closures reduced.
There were also alterations to the way that the WIP forecast is calculated to more accurately reflect our
projection based on the most up to date actual figure.
Page 5 of 21
November 2009
Coal Health Throughput Performance Against Forecast 2009
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Forecast Receipts
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
1562
Actual Receipts
167
117
245
273
191
127
114
111
151
293
149
1938
Variance
25
-25
103
131
49
-15
-28
-31
9
151
7
376
% Variance
18%
-18%
73%
92%
35%
-11% -20% -22%
6%
106%
5%
24%
Forecast Closures
91
82
91
85
75
99
117
95
119
105
108
574
1067
Actual Closures
91
109
144
112
109
144
145
128
106
106
385
1579
Variance
0
27
53
27
34
45
28
33
-13
1
277
512
% Variance
0%
33%
58%
32%
45%
45%
24%
35%
-11%
1%
256%
48%
Forecast WIP
408
468
519
577
644
688
793
840
743
781
816
Actual WIP
433
441
542
703
785
768
737
720
765
952
716
Variance
25
-27
23
126
141
80
-56
-120
22
171
-100
% Variance
6%
-6%
4%
22%
22%
12%
-7%
-14%
3%
22%
-12%
The high levels of receipts during March, April and May can be explained by recent findings against
two Solicitors firms. Although a high volume of cases were being received the unallocated cases
remained constant at around 120 at the end of each month. This is being monitored to ensure that the
volumes of files do not impact on allocation times.
The high volume of closures this month is due to a recent agreement to concilliate all a particularly
difficult firm's files. We expected this to begin in December however a large number of files were
closed in the last few days in November.
Page 6 of 21
November 2009
All Work In Progress with Age Profile
WIP
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Avg.
0-3 mths
2425
2343
2585
2790
2963
2697
2413
2311
2209
2434
2265
2494
4-6 mths
717
769
709
667
661
834
906
974
857
743
646
771
7-9 mths
312
303
271
317
356
339
278
271
400
476
441
342
10-12 mths
126
123
131
118
130
139
172
169
154
119
99
135
All >12 mths
43
42
43
65
75
79
79
89
77
100
84
71
Insurers > 12 mths
41
41
41
63
71
77
71
76
59
69
56
60
Coal Health > 12
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
8
15
17
4
mths
Total WIP
3623
3580
3739
3957
4185
4088
3848
3814
3697
3872
3535
3813
WIP Forecast
3958
4292
4390
4651
5028
5210
4312
3988
3746
3638
3762
4270
Rollover 6 mths
127
112
108
150
148
109
122
108
120
94
111
119
Rollover 9 mths
59
51
55
55
60
60
100
66
37
35
36
56
After a review carried out in June some alterations were made to the current forecast.
There were also alterations to the way that the WIP forecast is calculated to more accurately reflect
our projection based on the most up to date actual figure.
Page 7 of 21
November 2009
Insurance Work In Progress
Insurers WIP
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Avg.
0-3 months
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
3
1
1
1
4-6 months
5
16
17
8
13
7
8
6
3
4
4
8
7-9 months
30
28
30
55
69
64
29
16
12
10
3
31
10-12 months
31
33
35
47
47
45
59
55
36
16
9
38
13-14 months
23
25
22
41
49
42
29
29
21
32
21
30
15-17 months
9
11
14
12
12
24
29
31
21
17
15
18
18+ months
9
5
5
10
10
11
13
16
17
20
20
12
Total
109
118
123
174
201
193
167
157
113
100
73
139
There has been no new insurers cases (except for cases involving two specific high profile firms) since the
1st June 2009 as this project is coming to an end.
Page 8 of 21
November 2009
Helpline
Helpline Calls
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Forecast
5894
5852
6083
5321
5542
5935
5985
5782
5842
5954
6078
4127
64268
Calls Accepted
5483
5671
6374
5253
5212
5787
6171
5164
5798
5991
6239
63143
Variance
-411
-181
291
-68
-330
-148
186
-618
-44
37
161
-1,125
% Variance
-7%
-3%
5%
-1%
-6%
-2%
3%
-11%
-1%
1%
3%
-2%
Calls Answered
5324
5551
6242
5155
5114
5670
6089
5064
5640
5880
6168
61897
Calls Abandoned
159
120
132
98
98
117
82
100
158
111
71
1246
% Abandoned
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
1%
2%
% Service Level
82%
88%
88%
87%
90%
87%
91%
87%
84%
89%
90%
88%
Helpline Call Handling
100%
10000
90%
9000
d
80%
8000
e
n
o
70%
7000
d
d
n
r
e
a
60%
e
b
6000
w
s
50%
l
/
A
5000
n
e
v
A
e
40%
4000
l
l
s
L
a
e
30%
C
i
c
3000
r
v
20%
2000
Se
10%
1000
0%
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
% Service Level
% Abandoned
Calls Answered
Page 9 of 21
November 2009
Timeliness of Closures by Month of Receipt
Cases Closed Within 3 Months of Receipt
Month of
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
YTD
Receipt
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Complaints
1227
1174
1122
1192
1092
1497
1334
1317
1218
1168
1170
13511
Received
Closed to
765
761
712
830
744
929
858
847
795
770
827
8838
Date
Percentage
62%
65%
63%
70%
68%
62%
64%
64%
65%
66%
71%
65%
Cases Closed Within 6 Months of Receipt
Month of
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
YTD
Receipt
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Complaints
1391
1156
1211
1227
1174
1122
1192
1092
1497
1334
1317
13713
Received
Closed to
1221
1026
1073
1040
1032
983
1062
970
1234
1114
1133
11888
Date
Percentage
88%
89%
89%
85%
88%
88%
89%
89%
82%
84%
86%
87%
YTD LSCC
Target = 87%
85%
86%
87%
87%
88%
87%
86%
86%
Measure
Cases Closed Within 12 Months of Receipt
Month of
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Receipt
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Complaints
1160
1248
1159
1403
1154
1166
1391
1156
1211
1227
1174
13449
Received
Closed to
1152
1237
1147
1372
1135
1149
1370
1139
1191
1188
1150
13230
Date
Closed
99.31%
99.12%
98.96%
97.79%
98.35%
98.54%
98.49%
98.53%
98.35%
96.82%
97.96%
98.37%
Percentage
Exceptions
8
11
12
29
17
14
13
11
9
21
8
153
Insurers
Exceptions
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
7
9
24
Coal Health
Exceptions
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
3
5
8
6
29
Other
Total
1160
1248
1159
1402
1153
1164
1390
1155
1208
1224
1173
13436
Percentage 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.93%
99.91%
99.83%
99.93%
99.91%
99.75%
99.76%
99.91%
99.90%
The three tables above show cases closed against the receipt date. So to measure in January 2009 cases that were closed
within three months we go back to the cases received in October 2008 and measure the number closed at the end of Janaury.
All exceptions include valid exceptions only
Page 10 of 21
November 2009
All Unallocated with Age Profile
0 - 7
7 - 14
15 - 21
22 - 28
29 - 42
43 - 64
65 - 84
Over 85
Unallocated Cases
Total
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
New Complaints
109
59
10
2
0
0
0
0
180
Transfers
0
1
0
3
3
1
2
4
14
Coal Health Firm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Unallocated
Total
109
60
10
5
3
1
2
5
195
Percentage
56%
31%
5%
3%
2%
1%
1%
3%
An agreement made by a Coal Health case firm had populated our unallocated pots with a very high
number of previously unallocated cases. However, these have mostly now been allocated to our coal
health team and now there is only one left remaining. We hope to have this file allocated soon.
Page 11 of 21
November 2009
Speed of Allocation
All New
Allocated
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Complaints
0 - 7 days
504
469
447
308
350
457
589
743
462
917
889
6135
7 - 14 days
396
292
553
451
455
411
401
339
495
375
266
4434
15 - 21 days
150
133
146
238
244
394
154
39
69
50
116
1733
22 - 28 days
154
156
141
53
109
135
46
21
17
2
35
869
29 - 42 days
27
31
24
8
5
27
25
4
3
0
17
171
43 - 64 days
1
6
2
0
2
3
1
4
3
0
2
24
65 - 84 days
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Over 85 days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1233
1087
1314
1058
1165
1427
1216
1150
1049
1344
1325
13368
% Within 21
85%
82%
87%
94%
90%
88%
94%
97%
98% 100% 96%
Working Days
This measure calculates the number of working days between creation on the system to the first
time a caseworker acknowledges receipt of the file in their own worklist.
This month, a total of 77 files were removed from the figures as they are all related to a difficult
coal health firm.
Page 12 of 21
November 2009
Quality of Outcome and Customer Service
Quarter 1
Quarter 2
Quarter 3
Quarter 4
Files Audited
(Jan 09 -
(Apr 09 -
(Jul 09 -
(Oct 09 -
YTD
Mar 09)
Jun 09)
Sep 09)
Dec 09)
Total Audited
Meeting Criteria
% Meeting Criteria
Objective
90%
90%
90%
90%
Following concentration of our File Review process on performance management, we will now
confirm our achievement of this objective by audit in January 2010.
Page 13 of 21
November 2009
Customer Satisfaction
Customer
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Satisfaction
Forms Sent
665
664
867
766
675
776
718
674
765
834
890
8294
Forms
360
262
341
302
256
315
325
320
302
285
303
3371
Returned
Response
54%
39%
39%
39%
38%
41%
45%
47%
39%
34%
34%
41%
Rate
Satisfaction
84%
81%
80%
85%
84%
82%
82%
81%
85%
84%
84%
83%
(Service)
Satisfaction
79%
71%
72%
75%
76%
74%
76%
74%
76%
77%
74%
75%
(Outcome)
Page 14 of 21
November 2009
LCS Budget
Adjusted Budget
YTD Budget
YTD Actual
YTD variance
Variance %
EXPENDITURE
Basic Salaries
11,786,177
10,421,595
10,404,146
17,449
0.2%
NI / Pension Contributions
2,233,292
2,292,259
2,286,286
5,973
0.3%
Temporary Staff (Agency)
770,276
646,996
607,079
39,917
6.2%
Total Paybill
14,789,745
13,360,850
13,297,511
63,339
0.5%
Other Staff Costs
102,934
85,286
92,458
-7,172
-8.4%
Total Staff Expenditure
14,892,679
13,446,136
13,389,969
56,167
0.4%
Printing, Stationery, Postage
280,921
263,687
216,912
46,775
17.7%
& Telephone
Computing Charges
280
0
0
0
Travel & Subsistence &
164,541
87,799
79,286
8,513
9.7%
Entertaining
Other Professional Fees
2,188,042
1,503,062
1,491,566
11,496
0.8%
Marketing, Conference &
17,725
0
0
0
Exhibition costs
Other Administration costs
223,841
148,035
133,782
14,253
9.6%
Establishment Expenses
3,130
-19,532
-19,423
-109
0.6%
LSCC Fee
369,000
329,886
329,886
0
0.0%
Total Non-Staff
3,247,480
2,312,937
2,232,009
80,928
3.5%
Expenditure
Gross Expenditure
18,140,159
15,759,073
15,621,978
137,095
0.9%
INCOME
Income
-197,800
-173,860
-342,503
168,643
-97.0%
Net Expenditure
17,942,359
15,585,213
15,279,475
305,738
2.0%
Page 15 of 21
November 2009
Staffing
Staffing
Management
Casework
Support
Total
Current Establishment
58.57
228.38
95.17
382.12
Permanent Staff
52.89
175.31
81.07
309.27
Temporary Staff
0.80
26.80
8.50
36.10
Total Staff in Post
53.69
202.11
89.57
345.37
Variance
-4.88
-26.27
-5.60
-36.75
% Variance
-8.3%
-11.5%
-5.9%
-9.6%
Starters
0.40
7.00
0.00
7.40
Leavers
0.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
Cost Index
Cost Index
Without TLS Shared Costs
With TLS Shared Costs
YTD Applicable Spend
£15,302,939
£26,339,612
YTD Closures
13,888
Cost Index
£1,101.88
£1,896.57
Target
£1,202.51
£1,906.15
Variance
-£100.63 (-8%)
-£9.58 (-1%)
Revision to 2009 Cost Index Performance Objective (C1)
The Cost Index objective for this year was developed during the second half of 2008, in the context of strong LSCC scrutiny, targets and comparisons
with the future OLC costs. The measure used therefore included several adjustments to allow detailed year-on-year comparison of costs relevant to
the OLC, included some TLS cross-charges over which we have no control, and was based on the April to March Plan year. These aspects do not
now serve the current purpose of driving the overall cost efficiency of LCS in the TLS financial year (Jan to Dec).
In light of the refocused purpose of this Objective, we have simplified calculation of C1 as follows:
a) All LCS-controlled costs are included. This is therefore much more transparent and simpler to calculate, as we no longer remove items such as
OLC preparation work or changes required by the Legal Services Act. However, it would be affected by large, unusual costs such as redundancy.
b) TLS cross-charges are separated out, to break the overall Cost Index into 2 parts – one for just LCS spend, and one for central services. This
allows us to demonstrate cost reduction over those parts we can affect, but the LCS portion must not be mis-interpreted as the variable cost of
closing a complaint.
In practice, this adjusts our 2009 YTD Cost Index performance from £2,084.19 to £2,088.99, (an overall increase of just 0.23%).
Page 16 of 21
November 2009
LSO Referrals
File Type
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
Complaints
94
92
103
86
100
118
97
85
107
86
88
1056
Enquiry
2
1
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
11
Remuneration
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Certificates
Total
96
93
107
86
100
118
100
85
108
86
88
1067
LSO Referrals
6%
6%
6%
5%
6%
7%
5%
5%
6%
5%
4%
5%
%
The % of referrals is based on the average monthly closures for the year to date.
Outcome of
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
YTD
LSO Review
76
38
83
48
14
83
88
28
97
58
78
691
No Further
Action
68%
52%
59%
74%
64%
72%
75%
57%
80%
67%
66%
68%
8
7
7
5
4
5
6
2
5
1
12
62
Critical
7%
10%
5%
8%
18%
4%
5%
4%
4%
1%
10%
6%
24
21
38
11
3
26
17
8
16
19
23
206
Reconsider
21%
29%
27%
17%
14%
23%
15%
16%
13%
22%
19%
20%
1
5
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
3
4
22
Reconsider &
Compensate
1%
7%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
3%
3%
2%
3
2
9
1
1
1
6
6
3
5
2
39
Compensate
3%
3%
6%
2%
5%
1%
5%
12%
2%
6%
2%
4%
Total
112
73
141
65
22
115
117
49
121
86
119
1020
The returns during May were very low in comparison to other months, therefore the results are not
representative. Any continuing trends will be investigated as and when they appear.
Page 17 of 21
November 2009
Cases Over 12 Months
Reasons for cases being over 12 months
Justified?
Case 1
August 2008 detailed analysis of the customer's 18 complaints was carried out. Both customer and solicitor provided comments and the investigation deviated while attempts to conciliate were made. There is
(WIP)
a simultaneous litigation making it tricky. Solicitor was to have had the bill assessed in this matter by 6 October. Solicitor failed to do so and as a result customer looks unlikely to be able to recover £10k.
On 24 October 2008 caseworker wrote to solicitor and gave them a deadline of 7 days to confirm the bill has been assessed. However, no response was received.
A report was prepared and the decision was made on 20 February 2009. The solicitors did not comply and the matter was referred to the insurance team.
The adjudicator reserved the right to make an award in limitation of the solicitors fees in the event that there was further cause of complaint about the inadequacy of the service arising during the course of
any further action that may occur in regard to the recovery of costs. The insurance team referred the matter back to us to deal with the further report as the solicitors had failed to release the files, which was
Yes
causing further inconvenience for the customer.
We have now achieved the release of the files through careful negotiation. However, it has come too late, as apparently the customer has now lost his opportunity to recover costs from the defendants.
Caseworker has been awaiting documentary evidence from the solicitors for the customer to support the allegation that the customer is unable to pursue recovery of costs to enable to prepare a further
report. Documents received here on 26 August 2009. Report for adjudication due for completion by Monday 14 September 2009.
Case 2
The file was dealt with without delay until December 2008 (file 3 months old) when caseworker was absent for a long period and the file was re-allocated. The solicitor made an offer shortly afterwards which
(WIP)
the customer was not happy with. The new caseworker however deemed the offer acceptable and sought confirmation that a reasonable offer made outcome was suitable which was initially confirmed by a
senior caseworker. After all letters were drafted and due to be sent, the matter was reviewed by casework advisor who asked for clarification on one of the issues raised. After initial analysis it was considered
that the matter could not be closed under the reasonable offer made process and needed further investigation into one of the issues.
There were then difficulties obtaining responses and evidence from the firm throughout the matter and even more so following the ROM issue, the caseworker requested the file under section 44b, and even
then the full file was not produced.
Yes
The firm then closed and not made any further offers. The report for adjudication has now been produced and currently being reviewed by a senior caseworker.
In summary there is some evidence of caseworker delay when the original caseworker was absent, however, the main reasons file has exceeded the 12 month target is due to there being many issues of
complaint (approx 16), and difficulties obtaining responses from firm, and ROM procedure failing.
Case 3
File originally worked on by outsource firm and closed in November 2008 well before deadline. However, after being assessed during a routine audit under our file review process it was discovered that the
(WIP)
outcome was technically incorrect and was reopened to be dealt with internally. Since the file has been reopened the decision to reopen the file has been revoked and the file will be closed and dealt with
under a new reference as the technicallity has only arisen as part of recent process change and wasn't present at the time the file was originally closed.
Yes
Case 4
Caseworker received file on 18 November, the caseworker had managed to deal with the file fairly promptly. The caseworker then discovered that the solicitors files had disappeared somewhere between the
(WIP)
firm and the third party who were to get registration done. With no file the firm wouldn’t reply. Statutory notice out on 27 January (file now 6 months old), reply received but no evidence attached.
There was a short period of delay as the solicitor was ill, but caseworker was able to give views on 6 April. An offer was then proposed by the solicitor. Customer was then on holiday. In the meantime
caseworker tried to locate the file for the customer.
The customer then accepted the offer, but was subject to the file being received from the third party, who had began to delay. The caseworker requested the file on several occasions during June (file now 8
months old), and early July. A further issue was then raised over non-payment of Spanish Tax by the firm which solicitor didn't know about until then. The papers then became more urgent as needed to see if
tax was paid and if so by whom.
Yes
Advice sought from advisor by caseworker, the advice was that the caseworker needs the file to fully establish IPS as either responsibility of solicitor’s firm or 3rd party firm, and if so, who is accountable. Two
files were requested by the caseworker, one which customer had and one held by 3rd party. The file from customer was received 31st July (file now 9 months old). Caseworker chased the 3rd party firm on
several occasions for their file which was crucial for establishing where the IPS fell, especially the late tax payment issue. The file was finally received 9th September form 3rd party. The report has now been
drafted and is awaiting approval before been sent to adjudication.
Case 5
The complaint was presented by one client on behalf of themselves and two others. The original caseworker failed to assess the matter in so far as separating the complaints, because although the 3
(WIP)
retainers arose from the same incident, each client had an individual claim. Pursuing a joint investigation, led to issues not being addressed
The file originally belonged to a caseworker who has now left. A report had been prepared and the was being adjudicated upon from 2/6/09 only being returned on 11/8/09. The adjudicator decided to stand
the matter over and issued a 2 page memo indicating what information and actions wanted.
Caseworker reviewed comments from adjudicator and compiled a letter and sent to all three customers stating that they will be dealt with individually albeit on the same file. Caseworker was then on annual
No
leave from 13/8 for two weeks.
Caseworker sent a further letter requiring information on 18 September. The customers are being extremely dilatory and their current solicitor obstructive. Caseworker is still awaiting a substantive response
to both letters. In the meantime the caseworker has obtained the entire files.
The matter will be going back to report however, three separate reports will need to be drafted, which will delay the process
Case 6
Solicitor queried our jurisdiction to deal with complaint and would be obstructive in providing evidence. The customer was not particularly clear about the issues raised and it took some time to clarify matters.
(WIP)
This is a complicated complaint and before the investigation proper could start it was necessary to prepare a report to see if we had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The issue was that the customer
employed the solicitor as an "in house" solicitor. The solicitor believed that they were employed by the customer and as such there was no solicitor/client relationship and therefore could not raise complaints
of poor service. That issue has now been adjudicated upon and the caseworker is in the process of dealing with the main complaint. However, there has been an issue with regard to the solicitors file and
Yes
caseworker has only just obtained some documents from the customer. These now need to be copied to the solicitor for full comments on the issues raised and then another report can be prepared.
Case 7
File was created in September and allocated to caseworker in October last year. After initial review of the file caseworker decided that we were not able to help customer as negligence proceedings ongoing
(WIP)
and out of time, however, customer responded with reasons why the issue was not raised within the timeframe. Caseworker agrees to look at the file and decide whether there were any valid issues of
complaint. Caseworker requests file from solicitor in November (case now 2 months old). Caseworker reviews file and agrees reasons for complaint with the customer in late December (now 3 months old).
Caseworker is then on 3 weeks annual leave. Caseworker experiences difficulties in contacting customer as customer now lives abroad, after 2 months of no contact, caseworker writes to the customer
advising that if no response is received, caseworker will be forced to close the file (case now 5 months old). Customer replies and a short exchange between customer and caseworker begins where the
caseworker outlines the documentation needed from the customer with regards to the costing information. Caseworker finally sends out letter to solicitors firm outlining reasons for complaint in April (file is
now 7 months old). Customer writes to caseworker explaining that they have found new issues for complaint and caseworker writes to solicitor to confirm these new issues. Solicitor responds in early May
Yes
(case now 8 months old) and advises the caseworker that, as the file is so old, the solicitors file has been moved to off site archives and will take some time to get returned. Caseworker agrees an extension
for the solicitor to send in the file. The deadline set by the caseworker was exceeded and caseworker contacted solicitors firm for an update, the solicitor mentions that the file is very large and often in a
foreign language so has had difficulty sorting through the papers, caseworker agrees a 30 day extension till early July (file will then be 10 months old). Caseworker chases solicitor as no response received
then solicitor responds to say that all the documentation was destroyed in a fire, caseworker asks for evidence of fire from solicitors. Customer provides some papers as evidence in August and caseworker
sends chaser letter to solicitor in September (case now 12 months old)
Case 8
The matter was with outsourcers for 3 months they made no headway. There was then a delay of 3 months to get the file reallocated. The matter was then with a LCO for approximately 8 weeks due to the
(WIP)
firm's assertions that they did not understand the complaints and inability to provide documents limited to those relevant to the complaint. Our quality team expects the matter to be concluded with their
office by 4/11/09. The report is prepared and will be released to client and solicitor after quality's review assuming that we get the go ahead from the quality team.
Yes
Page 18 of 21
November 2009
Cases Over 12 Months
Reasons for cases being over 12 months
Justified?
Case 9
Complaint received by Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2007. In September 2008 customer made a further complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 2 months later in November 2008 the SRA referred
(WIP)
the matter as service complaint to LCS.
A file was made up and allocated to caseworker in December 2008. Investigation was undertaken as to whether complaint should be considered as out of time. On 13 January 2009 decision was made to
accept complaint out of time. 4 February 2009 complaints were put to former partners of firm, which had closed. In March 2009 the partners responded raising an argument complaints were out of time. April
2009 the LCS requested solicitors’ file under S 44B. 30 April 2009 the former partners respond raising further issues over complaints being out of time and decline to release file. May 2009-Advice was
sought from senior adviser who advised the preliminary issue over jurisdiction should be passed to Adjudicator for decision. June 2009 report was prepared and issued by caseworker. July 2009 matter was
Yes
referred for adjudication. 1 September 2009 Adjudicator decided that our investigation should go ahead out of time but did not at that stage make a S44B decision although one had been requested. Solicitors
were asked again to produce their file but did not comply and therefore a S44B decision was sought and issued on 22 October 2009. Matter transferred to SRA for enforcement but the solicitors provided
their file on 12 November 2009. File has now been reviewed and report is in preparation –it is likely to be referred for adjudication middle of December 2009
Case 10
Matter has been dealt with by caseworker from allocation on 8 October 2008 to present. The firm were intervened on 29 September 2008 and an incomplete file of papers was received from the intervention
(WIP)
agents on 1 December 2008. These incomplete papers and a lack of other documentation caused difficulties during the investigation and this matter spent too long in the stage of drawing conclusions.
There was also no response from the former Partner of the firm. Preliminary conclusions were reached and outlined on 30 March 2009 and then revised in a letter dated 5 June due to further comments
from the client and input from a senior colleague. A draft report was prepared on 2 July 2009 (within 8-9 months of allocation). The caseworker should have concluded and prepared the first draft of the
report sooner. The intervention agents located and forwarded further papers on 16 July 2009 and accordingly the conclusions and report were reviewed and amended in light of this. The report was then
No
reviewed twice by a senior caseworker who directed the caseworker to revisit an issue and to obtain a deposit interest calculation. The report was then passed to a Casework Advisor who has today
authorised the report to be sent out for comments. The matter has already gone beyond the 12 month mark.
Case 11
The case was allocated to a caseworker on 23 October 2008 and the caseworker offered a special payment to the customer for the delay which was accepted. After contacting the parties the caseworker
(WIP)
wrote to the customer on 25 November 2008 confirming their issues. The solicitor notified us of health issues on 10 December 2008 (case now 2 months old) and could not provide a response at the moment.
An extension until 12 January 2009 (case now 3 months old) was granted. On 19 January 2009 the solicitor wrote again saying indicating that a response was imminent. The response did not arrive and the
caseworker sent a failure to reply letter on 29 January 2009 threatening the solicitor with a section 44b. The section 44b was sent by caseworker on 13 February 2009. A further warning letter was sent on 24
February 2009 when the solicitor did not respond. The matter was referred to the SRA on 5 March 2009 to enforce the section 44b.
On 5 May 2009 the SRA forwarded some documents from the file which one of their forensic investigators had managed to obtain. However, there was not sufficient evidence to prepare a report the SRA
were asked to continue to see if they could obtain the full file. On 21 May 2009 the caseworker emailed the customer's new solicitor to obtain any further documents - unfortunately the caseworker misspelt
the email address and it seems the email was never received. In June 2009 the subject solicitor notified the SRA that the customer’s files had been lost by the insurer.
On 31 July 2009 the caseworker wrote to the customer's new solicitor setting out what information was required in relation to the complaints, unfortunately this email was again sent to a misspelt email
address and was not received by the new solicitor.
On 17 August 2009 caseworker phoned the new solicitor and advised that the evidence was required within 7 days, which was then followed up by a chaser e-mail on 25 August 2009 (again sent to an
Yes
incorrect email address) and said that the file would be closed on 1 September 2009 if the requested info didn't arrive. On 28 August the new solicitor spoke to the caseworker and advised that no e-mails
were received. A complaint was received by the caseworker's manager from the solicitor and it was agreed that the deadline would be extended until 11 September 2009. A further complication arose at this
point as the firm officially closed on 28 August 2009.
The caseworker left the LCS on 4 September 2009 and the file was reallocated. The further evidence was received on 15 September 2009 and a review of the papers concluded that there was IPS.
Caseworker noted that, potentially, there were financial effects and that the customer should be given the opportunity to provide evidence that these effects had been paid. The caseworker then telephoned
the new solicitor on 18 September 2009 to advise of final conclusions. As the solicitor was going on holiday the following week, a deadline of 2 October 2009 to provide further evidence was agreed. The
caseworker was on annual leave from 5 October to 9 October inclusive but in any event the further info didn't arrive until 12 October 2009. A letter report was then drafted and sent to the parties on 15
October 2009. The deadline for representations on the report is 29 October 2009.
Case 12
This was an unusually complex matter that had been returned from the Ombudsman for a third time. The file is voluminous comprising of a box of papers. The caseworker who was asked to review the
(WIP)
complaint was of the view that adequate information was available to prepare a report and did so relatively promptly without undertaking a further investigation stage. The report did not adequately reflect the
complaints or our powers. A complaint was raised about our service and a technical review completed. The caseworker was asked to complete a supplemental report.
The caseworker then did not prepare a report for many months. The caseworker then went on long term sick leave and subsequently left the organisation. The file remained unactioned for this time. The file
was passed to another caseworker to complete - it was then nine months old. The new caseworker completed a review and prepared a supplemental report in a very short time. This was then passed to an
adjudicator. The Adjudicator upheld all bar one of the complaints and was of the view that more information was needed on the last complaint and stood over that issue. Caseworker then prepared a new
No
report and returned it to the queue for adjudication on 5 November 2009 - where it currently awaits a decision.
Case 13
Customer is severely dyslexic and caseworker has had to make reasonable adjustments in giving the customer extra time to consider and respond. It also means that the customer has a tendency to provide
(Closure)
masses of information via electronic media, much of which is duplicated and which adds to the time taken in reviewing any response. The caseworker arranged to have a LCO meet with customer on a couple
of occasions. The underlying retainer is also long standing and complex. The customer's original complaint included an allegation of discrimination by the solicitors around his dyslexia disability.
At present, the LCO and caseworkers that have been involved in the file have, between them, managed to establish a clear understanding of the facts and found some IPS. The solicitor has offered £1,000 in
compensation. However, due to new issues raised the caseworker feels that this is inadequate and a report has been drafted and sent to the adjudication team.
Yes
In summary the delay has been caused by allowing additional time for the customer to assess the correspondence sent to them and also reviewing the volume of data forwarded in return. As the customer
has a disability the caseworker thought it necessary to do so.
Case 14
When the complaint was received on 14/11/08 the letter did not provide the clients contact details and the solicitors firm that the complaint was about were intervened into. The caseworker made enquiries
(Closure)
with SRA and the intervention agents. It was not until 2/2/09 that the caseworker was actually provided with the clients address. The caseworker wrote to customer in early February but received no response
by March so wrote to customer again stating that the file would be closed if no response received by 18/3 and the customer contacted the caseworker on 20/3. All that the caseworker was able to obtain from
the intervention agents were two ledger sheets so the caseworker needed to get the documents from the client, which were requested on 23/3. On 30/3 the customer sent a few documents and also stated
that there were more if required. With the letter sent with the documentation the customer listed a set of complaints not previously discussed so the caseworker spent some time confirming the issues that the
customer wished to raise. It transpired during the progression of this case that the client was a solicitor. A few further documents were received from the customer on 5/6 and then after a long telephone
Yes
conversation on 29/6 the customer advised that there was a whole file of papers which, once sent, enabled the caseworker to progress the case. The letter outlining the areas of complaint was sent on 27/7.
The caseworker then requested further details from the client and again experienced delay in receiving the information and finally completed the report on 21/9/09. It therefore took 4 months to find the client
and get a response before the investigation could start.
Case 15
The file was progressed with no delay for 6 months when evidence of financial losses was requested from customer. Customer did not understand what was required, however, the caseworker submitted
(Closure)
report to adjudicator despite this. Adjudicator stood over decision and requested further evidence of financial losses. Customer sent more letters but still no further evidence of financial losses, however the
caseworker re-submitted the report with the new evidence and the adjudicator stood over the matter again asking for further evidence of financial losses.
Yes
Case 16
The retainer with the subject firm concerned the administration of the client's late husband's estate.
(Closure)
The file was a reopened file and was allocated to the current caseworker on 29 October 2008 having previously been dealt with by another caseworker under the old number.
The client had Solicitors assisting with their complaint and we communicated with them about the complaint. They had also helped to finalise the administration of the estate.
We had previously obtained a photocopy of the Solicitors' file which was voluminous and the client's new solicitors also sent to us documents which needed to be examined and considered. This took some
time and we spoke to the new Solicitors about the issues in late November 2008.
Our letter setting out the complaints was sent to the subject firm on 9 December 2008. They did not reply to us but wrote to the new Solicitors saying they were confused about the amount they still owed the
client. Upon telephoning and emailing the subject firm we received no replies. We wrote to them again on 7 January 2009
outlining proposals for resolution of the complaint which had been prepared by the client's new solicitors.
The firm did make contact on 12 January 2009 stating that they were unable to meet the resolution proposals made due to cash flow problems. In early February 2009 the client stated that she wished her
complaint to be decided by an Adjudicator.
Before the report could be prepared information needed to be gathered regarding the financial effects of the poor service, e.g. documentary evidence of the new Solicitors' costs, these were received in mid
April 2009. Matters were further complicated as the subject firm failed to provide documentary evidence which would have assisted us.
Preparation of the report was commenced but completion was delayed due to the volume of papers which needed to be considered and also by caseworkers annual leave and a short period of sickness.
Yes
The report was completed and disclosed to the parties on 17 August 2009. It should be noted that this was a complex matter - the report ran to 23 pages with 160 pages of attachments and so did take
longer than the caseworker would have liked to prepare as many documents needed to be examined and cross referenced.
On 22 August 2009 the client provided substantial comments on the report. This necessitated a further detailed analysis and resulted in the preparation of a four page letter within which, further
recommendations of inadequate service were made. That letter was disclosed to the parties on 16 September 2009.
The matter was sent for Adjudication on the same date and the decision was made on 9 November 2009 by the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator adopted all of caseworkers recommendations of poor service.
The Decision has been sent to the parties and the Solicitors are allowed till 18th November for compliance.
In view of the solicitors previous failures to co operate with LCS and cash flow problems it is not certain that they will comply with the compensatory payment or with the direction to provide a copy of their up
to date
ledgers and account to the client for any balance.
Page 19 of 21
November 2009
Cases Over 12 Months
Reasons for cases being over 12 months
Justified?
Case 17
The original caseworker suffered long periods of delay due to the firm being unhelpful and slow to respond as the firm was closed. The customer also changed addresses and contact details several times
(Closure)
during the life of the investigation without updating the caseworker. Therefore, on a couple of occasions the post was being returned to caseworker unread and without comment or confirmation of receipt, it
was only when the customer rang to chase was the caseworker notified in change of address.
There was also some uncertainty whether there would be a particular financial effect to the customer as it depended whether insurers would pay for the mortgage company's solicitors to sort the legal work or
whether it would be added to her mortgage. This therefore delayed us sending the matter to Adjudication, in which time this file was reallocated as the original caseworker left the organisation. The new
Yes
caseworker obtained confirmation on 22 September 2009 that this issue would not be a financial effect to the customer.
Case 18
This matter refers to a compliant against a firm well known to the LCS. There were numerous delays caused by the firm's slowness to respond. Virtually all correspondence with the firm needed to be chased
(Closure)
at least once. After several delays receiving the file from the firm (finally retreived under section 44b) the report was eventually drafted in August (file 11 months old) and sent to adjudicator for decision.
Caseworker is currently awaiting details of decision.
Yes
Case 19
The customer was a beneficiary of a Trust complaining about the solicitor who was acting as the sole trustee. The status of the customer to raise the complaint is significant. The complaints were confirmed
(Closure)
with the customer on 14.11.08 and the file was then allocated to original caseworker on 18.11.08. Further information was received from the customer between this date and 3.12.08. The caseworker was
then away from the office for much of December due to illness. Some issues were raised with the solicitor on 8.1.09 and caseworker was in correspondence with the solicitor during January and February
2009. The caseworker then went on maternity leave and the file was allocated to a new caseworker on 9.2.09.
The caseworker raised the complaints formally with the solicitor on 18.2.09. A response was received on 6.3.09. Having reviewed the response the caseworker requested more information on 20.3.09. A
further letter was sent to the solicitor on 9.4.09 as the customer had raised new issues on 31.3.09. The solicitor responded on 22.4.09 but this was again not sufficient and so the caseworker wrote back to
him on 1.5.09 asking for more information. A further response was received from the solicitor on 18.5.09 but he had still not provided the information the caseworker had requested so the caseworker asked
him to send the file.
On 4.6.09 the caseworker received a call from a different solicitor who had been instructed by the original solicitor whom the complaint was about. This solicitor argued that we did not have the jurisdiction to
consider the customer's complaints and no jurisdiction to request the file. The caseworker exchanged arguments with this solicitor during June and July taking advice from our legal advisor, as solicitor was
adopting a very legalistic approach. On 3.7.09 the caseworker proposed placing the matter before an Adjudicator to determine whether we could investigate the complaints. After further discussions with both
Yes
solicitors and our legal advisor in July 2009 the caseworker completed a memo for the Adjudicator on 20.8.08 and this was sent out for comments. The papers were referred for a preliminary decision on
7.9.09. The preliminary decision was dated 24.9.09 and was sent out as soon as it was received on 5.10.09. The Adjudicator's decision was asking for further comments from the solicitors, after which the
customer would have to be given the opportunity to comment before the matter was referred back to a different Adjudicator. The solicitors delayed in responding and their comments were not received until
22.10.09. These comments were then sent to the customer to comment on the same day. The customer's comments were received on 3.11.09 and a second memo was prepared for the Adjudicator dated
6.11.09. The second preliminary decision was dated 11 November 2009 but the papers were not returned until 23.11.09. The Adjudicator's second decision was sent out and the file was closed on this day.
To sum up, the file has gone over 12 months mainly as a result of inadequate responses being received from the solicitor which culminated in a request for the file and the involvement of a second solicitor.
There was a jurisdictional argument being discussed which involved our legal advisor and ultimately two adjudicators.
Case 20
Complaint received 14 August 2008 and allocated to original caseworker on 2 September. Following initial assessment of papers, letter despatched to the parties on 19 September and by 20 October
(Closure)
comments received from both sides. Minimal activity in the period October 2008 to February 2009 as the next substantive action is the detailed letter to customer dated 12 February 2009, copied to solicitor,
in which caseworker confirms views in a number of the issues raised. The action post the 12 February letter is a telephone discussion with customer on 18 February and again on 14 April, followed by a
further analysis letter on 15 May. Thereafter are caseworkers attempts to conciliate and informing the parties of ROM and which take the file to 30 June 2009.
All in all, a gap (of about 4 months) appears in the file between October 2008 and February 2009. Although there are a couple of telephone notes, there is little evidence of significant work and the analysis of
February 2009 should have been done around October/November 2008. The period post February 2009 also reveals gaps (1 to 2 months) the work of May/June could have been done around March time.
No
Matter reassigned to new caseworker July 2009. Review of the papers on 13 July, followed by analysis letter of 24 July and further letter to solicitor of same date raising additional questions. A time extension
request and conciliations attempts in the period 24 July to 10 August 2009 with caseworker informing both parties on 14 August that matter to proceed to report.
Case 21
The file was re-allocated, in representation, to the current caseworker after the original caseworker had her temporary contract terminated.
(Closure)
It was agreed that the case would not be 'fast tracked' given that although there had been some delay due to the solicitor's slow responses / failure to respond, there was also some due to the original
caseworkers poor work method.
It was agreed that the current caseworker would allow the insurers time to respond on this file, pre adjudication, in the hope that it can be resolved. This was because we would not have had time to disclose,
Yes
let alone adjudicate.
Case 22
The file was allocated on 28 November 2008. The letter confirming all the issues was sent to the customer on 19th December 2008. Initial letters were sent 6 January 2009. The firm resisted all
(Closure)
communication with LCS citing legal argument as to why LCS do not have jurisdiction. LCS legal department involved. A Section 44B Paragraph 3 was sought and issued 20th January 2009 to obtain the file
from the solicitors. From January to August 2009 there was an exchange of information between LCS, customer, and firm requesting evidence. The final evidence was received 16th August 2009. The final
report was sent to adjudicator 20 August 2009. The adjudicators made their decision 5th November 2009 which was then disclosed to both parties. A chaser letter was sent to insurers and the firm on both
Yes
12th and 20th November 2009. File was then closed on 30 November 2009.
Case 23
The complaint was first received by the LCS on 3 November 2009. The solicitor concerned has not replied throughout the investigation. The solicitor was intervened into on 30 June 2008 and was struck off
(Closure)
on 24 November 2009. The caseworker was allocated this file on 8 December 2008 wrote to the customer on 16 December 2008. The caseworker needed documentary evidence which could show that a
solicitor client relationship existed between the customer and the subject individual so that the caseworker could be sure we had the jurisdiction to investigate the complaints. The evidence the caseworker
required was received on 13 January 2009.
The caseworker initially wrote to the solicitor on 4 February 2009 - no response was received despite chasing. A report was prepared by the caseworker naming the solicitors as the subject individual, and
was sent on 7 April 2009 to the adjudication team. This report was stood over on 18 May 2009, as the adjudicator felt that the LCS did not have the jurisdiction to consider the customer's complaint as it did
not appear that the customer was a client of the subject individual.
The adjudicator did feel however that a solicitor client relationship existed between the customer and the solicitor named in the customer's will as a trustee which was different to the solicitor initially named as
the subject individual. The adjudicator suggested that the caseworker addresses the customer's complaints to the solicitor named in the will - essentially meaning the investigation needed to be started again.
By this stage the complaint was approximately 6 months old.
The caseworker initially wrote to the second subject individual on 9 June 2009. The second subject individual refuted any suggestion of responsibility for the actions of first subject individual and the matter
eventually went to the adjudication team again. A report was drafted and sent to the adjudication team on 22 July 2009.
On 12 October 2009 a memo was sent to the caseworker by the adjudicator who felt that legal advice was needed on whether the LCS had jurisdiction over the second subject individual in this matter such
that we could make a finding of inadequate professional service. The last date for disclosure was 19 October 2009.
Yes
The legal advice obtained recommended that we did not have jurisdiction over the second subject individual but that we did have jurisdiction over the first subject individual. The caseworker was informed of
this by the adjudicator on 4 November 2009.
The adjudicator made his decision on this matter naming the first subject individual on 6 November 2009 and it was sent to the parties on 10 November 2009. The adjudicator also made a decision about the
second subject individual on 6 November 2009 officially stating that we had no jurisdiction over them in this matter.
The first subject individual did not respond therefore on 23 November 2009 the caseworker requested the contact details of the first subject individual's professional indemnity insurers so that the caseworker
could assist the customer in making a claim. The caseworker was then informed on 30 November 2009 that this process has recently changed and that if the solicitor has not provided the details of his
insurers it is up to the customer, albeit with our assistance, to contact the SRA and request this information. The file was closed on 30 November 2009.
Although there was a slight delay in sending out the initial letter to the solicitor, this can be accounted for due to the fact that this caseworker did not have documentary evidence was needed in order to take
the matter forward until 13 January 2009. The matter clearly went over the 12 month mark due to the confusion that arose over whether we had jurisdiction over the first subject individual and the need to take
legal advice on the point. It should be noted that the second report on this matter was sent on 22 July 2009, just under three months before the final date for disclosure.
Case 24
The file was allocated to caseworker on 8 September 2008 and progressed without delay until 30 January 2009 when the matter was referred to adjudication in the format of an accelerated adjudication
(Closure)
report. On 20th April the matter was referred back to caseworker as the adjudicator had returned the papers as there were too many points attached for an accelerated adjudication. Caseworker then
prepared a standard letter report which was ready on 27 April and awaiting approval by a senior caseworker. There was a delay until 10 June to get the report approved. It was sent out for comments to both
parties on 16 June and then sent to adjudication after 14 days.
Yes
On 13 August the Adjudicator requested further information in order to make a decision. On 17 August further information was requested from the firm, which is due by 14 September.
Case 25
Initial delay identifying issues of complaint due to customer holiday. Solicitors firm dispute our powers to deal with this case a small delay caused whilst confirming our powers with firm. Firm cause additional
(Closure)
delay of 2 months whilst they further dispute our powers. Firm cause delay after delay often asking for extensions on deadlines and denying receiving letters from caseworker. Customer delays in sending in
evidence to support financial losses which in turn delays the caseworker in finalising report for adjudication. File only obtained from solicitor after section 44b decision obtained (File now 10 months old) as
firm ceased during life of file. Evidence taken from file to complete report and send to be adjudicated upon during August. File is currently still with adjudicator.
Yes
We do not as a matter of course list insurers cases.
Page 20 of 21
November 2009
Glossary
Term
Definition
Enquiry
A matter where we provide information, clarification or explanations of jurisdiction
Complaint
A matter where action is taken to conciliate or settle or investigate and determine an expression of
dissatisfaction about the service provided by a firm of solicitors or the conduct of an individual solicitor
Age Profile
The age profile groupings are measured as follows:
0 - 3 months = 0 - 91 days
4 - 6 months = 92 - 183 days
7 - 9 months = 184 - 274 days
10 -12 months = 275 - 365 days
12 months & over = 366 days & over
6 Month Rollover
The rollover figure is calculated by comparing what cases in a month are over 6 months old with those
that were less than 6 months old the previous month. This also includes matters that were reopened
during the previous month
9 Month Rollover
The rollover figure is calculated by comparing what cases in a month are over 9 months old with those
that were less than 9 months old the previous month. This also includes matters that were reopened
during the previous month
Establishment
Number of FTE posts within the budget
Permanent Staff
Staff as FTE employed by The Law Society as at a particular point in time who have a permanent
contract
Temporary Staff
Staff as FTE employed at a particular point in time who have a temporary contract of employment. This
will include temporary staff and Agency staff
Staff In Post
Staff as FTE employed at a particular point in time
Starters
FTE Staff joining roles, so either moving into a management, caseworking, or support role. Internal
moves within the roles are not recorded in this figure
Leavers
FTE Staff leaving roles, so either moving out of a management, caseworking, or support role. Internal
moves within the roles are not recorded in this figure
WIP
Work In Progress - All cases received but not yet resolved, including new complaints awaiting
allocation to a caseworker.
Page 21 of 21
November 2009
