2009 Performance Update
Legal Complaints Service
December 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 22
December 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 4
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?
72%
66%
65%
1%
✓
T1b: We will investigate and resolve 100% of cases within 12 months, apart from in exceptional circumstances
This Month
YTD
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
99.82%
99.90%
100%
-0.10%
✓
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?
85%
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?
£1,088.04
£1,202.51
-£114.47
✓
Preparation for Handover & Closure
H1: Optimise total number of cases in progress (WIP)
Month End
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
3450
Approx. 3600
-150 (-4%)
✓
H2: Optimise size of unallocated buffer
This Month
Plan
Variance
Being Met?
100% within 21
99%
-1%
✓
working days
Page 3 of 22
December 2009
Summary Throughput
WIP
WIP
Cases
Cases
WIP
Throughput
Brought
Carried
Received
Closed
Movement
Forward
Forward
Complaints
3535
1165
1250
3450
-85
Remuneration
134
7
36
105
-29
Certificates
All Enquiries
199
378
316
261
62
Total
3868
1550
1602
3816
-52
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 22
December 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
13292
Actual Receipts
1035
980
1257
1067
1132
1098
1056
1064
958
1209
1110
1059
13025
Variance
-25
-192
223
-54
-37
-135
-259
-1
-96
95
134
80
-267
% Variance
-2%
-16%
22%
-5%
-3%
-11% -20%
0%
-9%
9%
14%
8%
-2%
Forecast In House
939
809
887
817
710
944
966
821
996
1060
1036
756
10741
Closures
Forecast Outsource
90
90
100
100
150
150
150
150
150
150
85
85
1450
Closures
Total Closure
1029
899
987
917
860
1094
1116
971
1146
1210
1121
841
12191
Forecast
Actual In House
916
942
1068
893
858
1002
1115
994
1036
1116
1118
866
11924
Closures
Actual Outsource
91
89
131
117
128
176
150
87
84
105
93
130
1381
Closures
Total Actual
1007
1031
1199
1010
986
1178
1265
1081
1120
1221
1211
996
13305
Closures
Variance
-22
132
212
93
126
84
149
110
-26
11
90
155
1114
% Variance
-2%
15%
21%
10%
15%
8%
13%
11%
-2%
1%
8%
18%
9%
Forecast WIP
3550
3823
3870
4074
4383
4522
3519
3204
3002
2835
2691
2830
Actual WIP
3190
3139
3197
3254
3400
3320
3111
3094
2932
2920
2819
2882
Variance
-360
-684
-673
-820
-983 -1202 -408
-110
-70
85
128
52
% Variance
-10% -18% -17% -20% -22% -27% -12%
-3%
-2%
3%
5%
2%
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 22
December 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
1704
Actual Receipts
167
117
245
273
191
127
114
111
151
293
149
106
2044
Variance
25
-25
103
131
49
-15
-28
-31
9
151
7
-36
340
% Variance
18%
-18%
73%
92%
35%
-11% -20% -22%
6%
106%
5%
-25%
20%
Forecast Closures
91
82
91
85
75
99
117
95
119
105
108
574
1641
Actual Closures
91
109
144
112
109
144
145
128
106
106
385
254
1833
Variance
0
27
53
27
34
45
28
33
-13
1
277
-320
192
% Variance
0%
33%
58%
32%
45%
45%
24%
35%
-11%
1%
256% -56%
12%
Forecast WIP
408
468
519
577
644
688
793
840
743
781
816
385
Actual WIP
433
441
542
703
785
768
737
720
765
952
716
568
Variance
25
-27
23
126
141
80
-56
-120
22
171
-100
183
% Variance
6%
-6%
4%
22%
22%
12%
-7%
-14%
3%
22%
-12%
48%
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 22
December 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
2325
2480
4-6 mths
717
769
709
667
661
834
906
974
857
743
646
638
760
7-9 mths
312
303
271
317
356
339
278
271
400
476
441
288
338
10-12 mths
126
123
131
118
130
139
172
169
154
119
99
137
135
All >12 mths
43
42
43
65
75
79
79
89
77
100
84
62
70
Insurers > 12 mths
41
41
41
63
71
77
71
76
59
69
56
37
59
Coal Health > 12
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
8
15
17
13
5
mths
Total WIP
3623
3580
3739
3957
4185
4088
3848
3814
3697
3872
3535
3450
3782
WIP Forecast
3958
4292
4390
4651
5028
5210
4312
3988
3746
3638
3762
3470
4204
Rollover 6 mths
127
112
108
150
148
109
122
108
120
94
111
112
118
Rollover 9 mths
59
51
55
55
60
60
100
66
37
35
36
48
55
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 22
December 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
1
4-6 months
5
16
17
8
13
7
8
6
3
4
4
2
8
7-9 months
30
28
30
55
69
64
29
16
12
10
3
2
29
10-12 months
31
33
35
47
47
45
59
55
36
16
9
4
35
13-14 months
23
25
22
41
49
42
29
29
21
32
21
13
29
15-17 months
9
11
14
12
12
24
29
31
21
17
15
8
17
18+ months
9
5
5
10
10
11
13
16
17
20
20
16
13
Total
109
118
123
174
201
193
167
157
113
100
73
46
131
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 22
December 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
68395
Calls Accepted
5483
5671
6374
5253
5212
5787
6171
5164
5798
5991
6239
5701
68844
Variance
-411
-181
291
-68
-330
-148
186
-618
-44
37
161
1574
449
% Variance
-7%
-3%
5%
-1%
-6%
-2%
3%
-11%
-1%
1%
3%
38%
1%
Calls Answered
5324
5551
6242
5155
5114
5670
6089
5064
5640
5880
6168
5545
67442
Calls Abandoned
159
120
132
98
98
117
82
100
158
111
71
156
1402
% Abandoned
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
1%
3%
2%
% Service Level
82%
88%
88%
87%
90%
87%
91%
87%
84%
89%
90%
84%
87%
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
The high number of calls received during December is due to a high profile solicitors firm being intevened into on
Christmas eve. An unusually high number of calls were received between Christmas and new year relating to this firm.
Page 9 of 22
December 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
1103
14614
Received
Closed to
765
761
712
830
744
929
858
847
795
770
827
795
9633
Date
Percentage
62%
65%
63%
70%
68%
62%
64%
64%
65%
66%
71%
72%
66%
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
1218
14931
Received
Closed to
1221
1026
1073
1040
1032
983
1062
970
1234
1114
1133
1089
12977
Date
Percentage
88%
89%
89%
85%
88%
88%
89%
89%
82%
84%
86%
89%
87%
YTD LSCC
Target = 87%
85%
86%
87%
87%
88%
87%
86%
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
1122
14571
Received
Closed to
1152
1237
1147
1372
1135
1149
1370
1139
1191
1188
1150
1107
14337
Date
Closed
99.31%
99.12%
98.96%
97.79%
98.35%
98.54%
98.49%
98.53%
98.35%
96.82%
97.96%
98.66%
98.39%
Percentage
Exceptions
8
11
12
29
17
14
13
11
9
21
8
4
157
Insurers
Exceptions
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
7
9
6
30
Coal Health
Exceptions
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
3
5
8
6
3
32
Other
Total
1160
1248
1159
1402
1153
1164
1390
1155
1208
1224
1173
1120
14556
Percentage 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.93%
99.91%
99.83%
99.93%
99.91%
99.75%
99.76%
99.91%
99.82%
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 January.
All exceptions include valid exceptions only
Page 10 of 22
December 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
227
125
34
1
0
0
0
0
387
Transfers
0
6
10
4
8
12
5
8
53
Total
227
131
44
5
8
12
5
8
440
Percentage
52%
30%
10%
1%
2%
3%
1%
2%
Page 11 of 22
December 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
687
6822
7 - 14 days
396
292
553
451
455
411
401
339
495
375
266
229
4663
15 - 21 days
150
133
146
238
244
394
154
39
69
50
116
54
1787
22 - 28 days
154
156
141
53
109
135
46
21
17
2
35
11
880
29 - 42 days
27
31
24
8
5
27
25
4
3
0
17
1
172
43 - 64 days
1
6
2
0
2
3
1
4
3
0
2
0
24
65 - 84 days
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Over 85 days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1233
1087
1314
1058
1165
1427
1216
1150
1049
1344
1325
982
14350
% Within 21
85%
82%
87%
94%
90%
88%
94%
97%
98% 100% 96%
99%
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.
Page 12 of 22
December 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
0
Meeting Criteria
0
% Meeting Criteria
#DIV/0!
Objective
90%
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 22
December 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
817
9111
Forms
360
262
341
302
256
315
325
320
302
285
303
321
3692
Returned
Response
54%
39%
39%
39%
38%
41%
45%
47%
39%
34%
34%
39%
41%
Rate
Satisfaction
84%
81%
80%
85%
84%
82%
82%
81%
85%
84%
84%
85%
83%
(Service)
Satisfaction
79%
71%
72%
75%
76%
74%
76%
74%
76%
77%
74%
80%
75%
(Outcome)
Page 14 of 22
December 2009
LCS Budget
Adjusted Budget
YTD Budget
YTD Actual
YTD variance
Variance %
EXPENDITURE
Basic Salaries
11,332,168
11,332,168
11,311,621
20,547
0.2%
NI / Pension Contributions
2,493,392
2,493,392
2,484,229
9,163
0.4%
Temporary Staff (Agency)
682,346
682,346
636,244
46,102
6.8%
Total Paybill
14,507,906
14,507,906
14,432,094
75,812
0.5%
Other Staff Costs
92,454
92,454
101,395
-8,941
-9.7%
Total Staff Expenditure
14,600,360
14,600,360
14,533,489
66,871
0.5%
Printing, Stationery, Postage
267,747
267,747
206,035
61,712
23.0%
& Telephone
Computing Charges
0
0
0
0
Travel & Subsistence &
134,573
134,573
99,599
34,974
26.0%
Entertaining
Other Professional Fees
1,710,204
1,710,204
1,585,607
124,597
7.3%
Marketing, Conference &
0
0
0
0
Exhibition costs
Other Administration costs
162,740
162,740
140,051
22,689
13.9%
Establishment Expenses
-19,532
-19,532
-19,219
-313
1.6%
LSCC Fee
369,000
369,000
249,111
119,889
32.5%
Total Non-Staff
2,624,732
2,624,732
2,261,184
363,548
13.9%
Expenditure
Gross Expenditure
17,225,092
17,225,092
16,794,673
430,419
2.5%
INCOME
Income
-189,025
-189,025
-363,135
174,110
-92.1%
Net Expenditure
17,036,067
17,036,067
16,431,538
604,529
3.5%
Page 15 of 22
December 2009
Staffing
Staffing
Management
Casework
Support
Total
Current Establishment
56.97
210.38
91.17
358.52
Permanent Staff
51.09
164.19
75.07
290.35
Temporary Staff
0.80
25.80
8.50
35.10
Total Staff in Post
51.89
189.99
83.57
325.45
Variance
-5.08
-20.39
-7.60
-33.07
% Variance
-8.9%
-9.7%
-8.3%
-9.2%
Starters
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Leavers
0.80
11.12
5.00
16.92
Cost Index
Cost Index
Without TLS Shared Costs
With TLS Shared Costs
YTD Applicable Spend
£16,470,810
£28,510,817
YTD Closures
15,138
Cost Index
£1,088.04
£1,883.39
Target
£1,202.51
£1,906.15
Variance
-£114.47 (-10%)
-£22.76 (-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 22
December 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
96
1152
Enquiry
2
1
4
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
11
Remuneration
0
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
96
1163
LSO Referrals
6%
6%
6%
5%
6%
7%
5%
5%
6%
5%
4%
6%
6%
%
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
14
705
No Further
Action
68%
52%
59%
74%
64%
72%
75%
57%
80%
67%
66%
56%
67%
8
7
7
5
4
5
6
2
5
1
12
1
63
Critical
7%
10%
5%
8%
18%
4%
5%
4%
4%
1%
10%
4%
6%
24
21
38
11
3
26
17
8
16
19
23
9
215
Reconsider
21%
29%
27%
17%
14%
23%
15%
16%
13%
22%
19%
36%
21%
1
5
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
3
4
0
22
Reconsider &
Compensate
1%
7%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
3%
3%
0%
2%
3
2
9
1
1
1
6
6
3
5
2
1
40
Compensate
3%
3%
6%
2%
5%
1%
5%
12%
2%
6%
2%
4%
4%
Total
112
73
141
65
22
115
117
49
121
86
119
25
1045
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 22
December 2009
Cases Over 12 Months
Reasons for cases being over 12 months
Justified?
Case 1
Two of the partners of the firm were intervened into about a year ago and the firm subsequently closed. The partners protested about this and took legal action against the Law Society and one in particular,
(WIP)
the solicitor in this case, used this as an excuse not to respond and then refused to respond on the grounds of ill health. The other partners that were not intervened into personally denied knowledge or
responsibility of many of the complaints raised and would not always address the complaints raised. Furthermore where partners did agree to respond they had to arrange to attend the intervention agents
offices to view the files and again where further information has been requested. This has sometimes resulted in us having the papers sent to this office where responses have not been
forthcoming/adequate. In this case the file consisted of 36 boxes, each containing 4 or 5 ring binders. The caseworker had difficulty obtaining a response from solicitor and eventually made a referral to the
SRA. The caseworker obtained a response from the other partner but this took some time as they delayed, then had arrange to view the files at the intervention agent's office. The caseworker then required
Yes
further information, had difficulty obtaining an adequate explanation from the one partner that was responding, and was forced to request the 36 boxes of files to obtain the evidence which they are currently
sorting through.
Case 2
The case was originally allocated on 21st January 2009. The original caseworker outlined the reasons of complaint within good time and requested the file from the solicitor. On receipt of the file, the
(WIP)
caseworker noticed that some issues were apparent on the file that were not raised by the customer. After a brief discussion the original caseworker agreed to add these issues to the list of original issues
raised. This meant that the file would need to be transferred to a caseworker in our specialist team. The reallocation took place on the 10th March 2009, the file was now 3 months old. After reallocation the
file was proceeded without delay until the new caseworker was on sick leave for more than 1 month in October. After 4 weeks delay the file was reallocated in November. Considering the amount of
information present on the file at that time, there was a need to clearly review and move the matter on a soon as possible, which the caseworker did via a letter to the customer on 25 November 2009. At this
No
point, the caseworkers view was to try and persuade the customer not to continue with the complaint and gave the customer until 9 December 2009 to decide. The customer did respond by this date asking
for an extension of time until 18 December, which was agreed. There was again another period of 4 weeks delay whilst the new caseworker was also on sick leave.
Case 3
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 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
This has been a complex file involving an immigration firm which has attracted a large number of complaints over the last year. The complaint was received in our office on 19 December 2008. It was
(WIP)
allocated to caseworker on 8 January 2009 and the initial letters were sent to the customer and the firm on 15 January 2009. The firm did not respond, so a reminder letter was sent on 29 January 2009. The
firm then requested an extension of time until 12 February 2009 to provide their response, which was granted. Their response was received on 13 February 2009, a copy of which was sent to the customer
on 17 February 2009 and was given 7 days to comment. Comments were provided on 26 February 2009.
Upon assessing the matter, both caseworker and senior caseworker had suspicions about the authenticity of the evidence provided by the firm. A referral was made to the SRA on 6 March 2009 and a report
was prepared for adjudication on 21 April 2009. The matter was referred to the adjudication team on 7 May 2009 upon receipt of both parties' comments. The matter was, however, stood over on 8 June
2009, as further information was required from a number of different sources. This information was gathered and the matter was returned to the Adjudicator on 3 September 2009. Delays were due to lack of
response from the information providers and having to chase them. A decision was made by the Adjudicator on 22 September 2009.
Yes
Had the firm complied with the decision, the matter would have been closed within the 12 month period. However, they did not, and instead asked for the matter to be reconsidered by a different Adjudicator.
The request was considered by a Casework Advisor, who considered on 12 October 2009 that the reconsideration policy did apply in this case. Both parties had to be given a further 14 days to comment. The
firm did not provide their comments within the timescale and so a reminder letter had to be sent out. These were received on 2 December 2009 and the matter was sent to a new adjudicator on that day. Due
to the complexity of the case, the new Adjudicator wished to seek advice from our Legal Advisor before making a final decision, and a decision was made on 16 December 2009. This was disclosed to the
firm on 23 December 2009, although the firm have not complied with this fresh decision. A reminder letter has been sent out and hopefully the file will be closed next week whether or not the firm complies by
this date.
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 22
December 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
This matter was progressed by an outsource firm until 17 April 2009 at which time it was allocated to an internal caseworker. There was a 6 week delay before the caseworker discussed the issues with the
(WIP)
solicitor on 1 June and the solicitors provided a full response on 8 June and were not prepared to conciliate. The caseworker then started gathering information to prepare the report. There was another file
which had dealt with some of the issues which needed to be referred to in the report and so the caseworker obtained the file after a short delay of 14 days. The customer then advised that there were further
documents in their possession. The customer provided these on 5 November and the report was sent to the customer and solicitor on 23 November. There was another short delay due to Christmas but the
file was sent to an adjudicator on the 29th December where it still currently is.
No
Case 11
The file was allocated 22nd December 2008 and was investigated with no delay until end of March when caseworker went long term sick, however within 2 weeks of this date the file was reallocated on 6
(Closure)
April 2009.
The new caseworker shared conclusions on 15 May 2009. The caseworker needed to get documentation from the new solicitors firm regarding financial effect and contacted them on 20th April 09, 14th May
09, 15th May 09 and 22nd June 09 without success as they did not respond to the letters sent and did not return any calls.
On 10th June 09 caseworker asked the customer to attempt to contact the new solicitors to request the detail as their solicitor has a duty to them and not to LCS. On 30th June 09 the customer informed the
caseworker that this had been done.
There was then a brief delay due to caseworker holiday. On 10th August 09 caseworker sought advice from a senior caseworker, who confirmed that this information is needed and suggested that the new
firm was refered to an adjudicator to obtain documentation. Caseworker then requested the customer to do this as they have the power to do so which was done on 10th August 09.
Yes
Caseworker then received the information from the new solicitor on 11th September 09. Subject firm made an offer 6th October 09 in light of the new evidence. However this was rejected by customer on 16th
October 09.
Report was then drafted and sent out on 11th November 09. The adjudicator reviewed the report and the decision was made on 8th December 09 but wasn’t confirmed to the caseworker until 18th December
09. Final decision letter sent out on 21st December 09, the file was then finally closed on 30th December 09.
In summary there was a significant period of delay caused by the customer’s new solicitors firm refusing to respond to any requests from the customer or caseworker. It wasn’t until the adjudicators formal
decision was produced to obtain the information that the new solicitor complied with any requests.
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
(Closure)
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
No
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
report and returned it to the queue for adjudication on 5 November 2009 - where it currently awaits a decision.
Case 13
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
(Closure)
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
Yes
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.
Case 14
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
(Closure)
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
leave from 13/8 for two weeks.
No
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 15
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
(Closure)
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 16
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
(Closure)
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.
We do not as a matter of course list insurers cases.
Page 19 of 22
December 2009
########
Page 20 of 22
December 2009
########
Page 21 of 22
December 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 22 of 22
December 2009
