A first-time buyer complained that her conveyancing transaction had been delayed and that poor communication left her uncertain about what was happening. The firm then failed to answer the complaint or engage with the Legal Ombudsman. What might have been resolved promptly became an in-depth investigation, a payment equivalent to one month’s rent and a case fee.
The case is a useful reminder that conveyancing complaints are not always driven by an underlying legal mistake. Delay, silence and a failure to recognise what a particular client needs can be enough to turn an ordinary transaction into a costly service complaint.
What happened?
The buyer instructed a conveyancing provider to act on the purchase of her first home. After completion, she complained that the transaction had taken longer than it should have and that there had been periods during which the firm took no action to move matters forward.
Her complaints fell into two broad categories:
- Delay: she said that avoidable delay, including delay following a change of case handler, caused her to incur two additional months of rent.
- Communication: she said that the firm did not provide the level of explanation she needed as a first-time buyer, was difficult to contact by telephone and did not act promptly on her instructions.
The firm did not reply to the complaint. It also failed to provide the Legal Ombudsman with a copy of a final complaint response. That meant the case was unsuitable for early resolution and had to proceed to an in-depth investigation.
The outcome was agreed, not imposed
Once an investigator became involved, the firm accepted that its communication had been poor and that it had directly caused one month of avoidable delay. It offered to pay the buyer the equivalent of one month’s rent as a goodwill remedy for the delay and communication failings.
The buyer accepted that offer and the matter ended as an agreed outcome. It is important not to mischaracterise the result as a formal determination that the firm was legally responsible for all additional rent claimed.
The Legal Ombudsman indicated that it is generally unlikely to direct reimbursement of additional rent or mortgage payments unless the evidence establishes that the transaction would certainly have completed sooner but for the service failing. In this case, however, the firm accepted responsibility for one month and chose to make an offer. Because both the underlying service and the handling of the complaint were considered unreasonable, a case fee was also chargeable.
The complaint became more expensive when nobody answered it
The original complaint concerned delay and communication. The firm’s failure to respond created a separate problem.
A prompt investigation could have established the chronology, identified the admitted month of inactivity and enabled an early offer. Instead, silence removed the opportunity to contain the complaint at first tier and required greater involvement from the Ombudsman.
This is not simply a matter for the designated complaints partner. Every firm needs a system that ensures:
- expressions of dissatisfaction are recognised as potential complaints;
- complaints are immediately sent to the responsible person;
- the applicable response deadline is recorded and monitored;
- the file and communication history are reviewed promptly;
- any admitted failing is identified honestly;
- a proportionate remedy is considered at the earliest opportunity; and
- a final response containing the required escalation information is issued.
A complaint should not remain unattended because the fee earner is busy, absent, defensive about the allegations or no longer employed by the firm.
First-time buyers may require a different communication approach
Providing the same number of updates to every client is not necessarily the same as providing an appropriate service. A first-time buyer may not understand the stages of a transaction, why nothing appears to be happening or which matters depend on third parties.
The firm should use what it knows about the client when agreeing how the matter will be handled. That does not mean promising daily telephone calls or guaranteeing a completion date. It means explaining the process in a way that allows the particular client to understand:
- the principal stages of the purchase;
- which stage has been reached;
- what the firm has done;
- what remains outstanding;
- who is responsible for the next step;
- whether the client needs to do anything; and
- when the next update can reasonably be expected.
Our earlier article on managing client expectations in conveyancing considers why a short update during an apparently quiet period can prevent silence being interpreted as inactivity.
A communication record is also evidence
When a client alleges that nothing happened for several weeks, the firm needs a reliable chronology. File notes, task histories, emails and attendance records should show what work was undertaken, when it was undertaken and what the client was told.
An internal note stating “updated client” is of limited assistance if it does not record the substance of the update. Equally, a case-management system containing repeated automated status messages may not demonstrate that the client’s actual question was answered.
A defensible file should enable a complaints handler to distinguish between:
- delay caused by the firm;
- time reasonably needed to undertake legal work;
- delay caused by another conveyancer, lender, search provider or managing agent;
- a period during which the firm was waiting but failed to explain that position; and
- a client expectation that was unrealistic because it was never corrected.
Poor communication can therefore turn defensible third-party delay into a service complaint. The client sees silence and assumes that nobody is progressing the matter.
Staff turnover must not stop the transaction
The complaint referred specifically to delay following a change in case handler. Staff leave, move departments or become unexpectedly unavailable. Those events are foreseeable operational risks, not an adequate explanation for allowing a live purchase to become dormant.
A transfer process should identify urgent dates, outstanding enquiries, lender conditions, promised client updates and the next action on every file. Supervisors should be able to see whether reassigned matters have been accepted and reviewed by the new case handler.
At a minimum, the firm should consider:
- a documented file-handover checklist;
- a named person responsible for reallocating live work;
- automatic reports identifying files without activity;
- supervisory review of matters approaching exchange or completion;
- notification to clients of a change in responsibility; and
- an escalation route where the new handler cannot absorb the transferred caseload.
If a firm does not have capacity to protect service standards following foreseeable absences or departures, the problem is one of supervision and workload management rather than individual resilience.
What caused the financial loss?
The buyer attributed two months of additional rent to the firm’s conduct. The provider accepted responsibility for one month. That difference illustrates why complaints concerning consequential loss require careful causal analysis.
The relevant question is not simply whether the transaction took longer than the client hoped. It is what the probable completion date would have been if the admitted service failing had not occurred.
The answer may depend on the readiness of the chain, mortgage conditions, search results, enquiries, availability of funds and the intentions of the parties. A period of inactivity by the firm may be unreasonable without being the sole cause of the whole delay claimed.
Firms should neither dismiss a claim automatically nor reimburse every consequential expense without analysis. They should construct the chronology, identify the period they caused and make a proportionate offer where the evidence supports one.
Client care policies must operate in practice
A written policy cannot protect a firm if staff do not use it. The firm’s communication standards, file transfer arrangements, supervision controls and complaints procedure need to operate consistently across the conveyancing department.
Our guide to whether a CQS Client Care Policy remains compliant explains why the policy should be a working control rather than a document retained only for an assessment.
The firm’s law firm terms and conditions should also explain communication arrangements, responsibilities and the complaints process. However, contractual wording does not excuse avoidable inactivity or a failure to respond to a complaint. The service actually delivered must match the standards the firm describes.
A practical review for conveyancing firms
This case provides a useful test for current systems. Firms should ask:
- Can supervisors identify every live file on which no substantive action has been taken within the firm’s expected period?
- Does the opening process capture whether the client is a first-time buyer or has particular communication needs?
- Are update frequency and preferred communication method agreed and recorded?
- Can another fee earner understand the position immediately if the handler becomes unavailable?
- Are complaints recognised and escalated even when the client does not use the word “complaint”?
- Does somebody monitor the deadline for the final complaint response?
- Can the firm make an early, proportionate offer without unnecessary internal delay?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, the lesson from this complaint is operational rather than theoretical.
The real cost was not limited to one month’s rent
The agreed payment was only one consequence. The firm also incurred a case fee, management time, investigative work and reputational risk. It lost the opportunity to resolve the dissatisfaction directly with its own client.
The most striking feature of the case is not the complexity of the legal work. It is that periods of inactivity, poor communication and an unanswered complaint combined to create an avoidable escalation.
Conveyancing firms cannot control every cause of delay. They can control whether files are actively monitored, whether handovers are managed, whether clients understand what is happening and whether complaints receive a prompt and honest response. Those controls are often what determine whether dissatisfaction is resolved in a telephone call or becomes an Ombudsman investigation.