Dear Sir or Madam,

The OLSCC's report on the SRA may be found here:
http://www.olscc.gov.uk/docs/srawebupdat...

One of the targets set is defined as: In 90% of closed complaints,
SRA to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome with no significant
case failings.

It appears the findings of the OLSO are a significant factor in
determining performance under this target... but see Q3 below...

1. What is the definition of "No significant case failings"?

2. In the past 5 years how many cases examined by the Ombudsman
were found to suffer from "significant case failings"?

3. Why does the OLSO appear NOT to understand this request when
they clearly need to know the definition and (should) be able to
supply their own statistics?
See
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/si...

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Spenser Poultney

Dear Mr Poultney,

Thank you for your Freedom Of Information request. I have attached a
response - please see Word document attached.

Thanks,

Mark Webber
OLSCC
Corporate Services Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Webber, Mark,

Thank you for your reply. I had to re-read it a number of times but
confirm that it is a GOOD and reasonable answer.

In particular having the TITLES of the various reports made life
much easier. The following report was very interesting:-
http://www.olscc.gov.uk/docs/audit0607.pdf

In the 3rd paragraph on page 2 you said...
"In terms of the past 5 years, the OLSCC first assessed SRA against
these criteria on the Quality of Outcome Audit 2007 and the number
of significant failures by SRA is identified in that report as 26
cases. "

A better answer was to be had in the above report.
"we would expect between 1,795 and 3,206 cases to
have an outcome that was not reasonable."

OR

"However,this also means that almost 25% of all consumers who
complained to LCS or SRA about a solicitor had an outcome that
showed failings."

26 does not sound like many whereas 3,206 is a LOT of people
suffering because of the failings of the "all new" SRA/LCS - and
this after YEARS of campaigning and 10's of 1000's of hours and £'
millions spent.

To put it another way... one QUARTER of folks who have already
suffered at the hands of an incompetent and highly overpaid
solicitor must then suffer further incompetence from the
"regulator".

It's STILL a raw deal for the public and even a target of 90% (if
met) will still leave 1000's of people each year with no access to
justice.

... and THEN we find Ms. Manzoor giving the fines back to guilty
party. A very poor show when you dig far enough - but I'm GLAD I
asked.

Thank you again for your reply

Yours sincerely,

Spenser Poultney