FW: Transfer - The Legal Services Act

Many thanks for a concise and informative reply. I am sure others will also benefit from your explanation of what is (after all) something of a minefield for the Layman like myself to understand. I am sorry to say that the "penalty" (if that is the right word?) for doing such a good job is that you end up being asked even MORE questions.

I am very sorry to trouble you AGAIN ... but let us remember that this started... with several Rt. Hon. Ladies and Gentlemen (Beverly Hughes and Jack Straw amongst others) referring my first email to your Office... in a case where the SRA seems to be claiming it believes in time-travel, crystal-balls, reading the tea leaves and, in all probability, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny (I doubt Santa will call because they haven't been good all year)

Anyway... can you provide as good an explanation of the workings of the OLSCC? It bothers me somewhat that the same person seems to be the "Big Cheese" in both offices - does this not cause conflicts? In one role she must look at individual complaints, but in the other the is expressly forbidden from doing so. How does this work?

Is Ms. Manzoor answerable to Parliament in EITHER of these roles?

I think we are long overdue an update. There are numerous reviews going on (Lord Hunt's for e.g.) - How does one go about getting Ms. Manzoor to answer questions? Is this something for the Parliamentary Services Ombudsman, perhaps? How does it all fit together? It's been a while since 2004...

How do we make it happen again? It seems nothing has changed so we must keep right on asking. How do we do this?

Finally, I have attempted to ask a question of the OLSO. Can your office shed any light?

I am sure the OLSO will respond but cannot be sure that their answer will be as good as those you have supplied to date.

Any further wisdom gratefully received.

PS - attached letter received today from SRA. It's only taken them 2 months to send their file to the OLSO. We can never be certain but I believe that my CC'ing the dear old OLSO (and MP's) has helped in this lightning-quick response. I think this is what Ms. Manzoor ment when she said "I often say that they must have persistent genes. I wonder what percentage of complaints do not make it off first base. In these cases we are really looking at the reduction of access to justice for them." in the above article.

Well, if "persistent genes" work THIS time around, I will buy the Lady a pair AND a matching T-shirt ;-)

----- Original Message -----

From: Nichols, Chris

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:46 AM

Subject: RE: The Legal Services Act - The LCS/SRA

Dear Mr Poultney,

Thank you for your email of 31^st March. I also acknowledge your email of 6^th April.

In my last email of 31^st March I explained the reforms that the Ministry of Justice is overseeing to overhaul the way complaints about legal professionals are handled. In your response, you note that your problems are current and ask what the Ministry of Justice can do to ensure the Legal Services Ombudsman (‘LSO’) properly addresses your existing concerns.

I should explain that the Legal Services Ombudsman's office was set up to be independent of both the legal profession and the Government. This is so complainants can be assured that a person who is completely independent will investigate their case. To preserve that independence, the Lord Chancellor (and the Ministry of Justice) is prevented from intervening in, commenting on, or varying the conclusions reached by the LSO.

The Department’s involvement in the operation of the LSO is limited to monitoring its performance against objectives and targets. The Lord Chancellor also appoints the LSO and has the power to remove them from office. However, these powers may only be invoked in restricted circumstances. The Lord Chancellor is prevented from considering individual cases in order to preserve the independence of the LSO’s decision-making, and may only consider complaints made about the personal conduct of the LSO, as opposed to the decisions they have reached.

There is no appeal against the LSO’s decision. However, the LSO’s decisions, like the decisions of other public authorities, are open to judicial review. Judicial Review is not an appeal procedure, and is not generally concerned with the merits of the decision itself, but rather examines whether a public body’s decision has been reached in a lawful manner. I suggest that you seek independent legal advice should you wish to consider this option.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received from a member of staff at the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman, you should write to the LSO’s Business Manager, who will deal with your complaint under OLSO’s Internal Complaints Procedure.

I hope that this helps to explain the relationship between the Ministry if Justice and the LSO and some of the routes available to you if you are unhappy with the way the LSO has dealt with you or your complaints.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Nichols

Many thanks for your email and please forgive the brevity of this reply (I am already late but may not be able to deal with this until the weekend, otherwise).

It is good to hear of future plans - based on your email I can certainly update the "history" page here

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/history.htm at least with what is planned.

It may interest you to learn that (based on my previous dealings with the OSS and CCS) I contributed material to the Clementi review team t the invitation of the (then) secretary Susan Samual - so I am no stranger to the more recent history, either.

My problems are clearly NOW and PRESENT. What do you suggest I do about them? What pressure can the MOJ put upon the Legal Services Ombudsman (for example) to do a proper job (in the face of what can only be described as garbage from the SRA)? This is clearly not acceptable behaviour from ANY office - surely they don't REALLY have (working) crystal balls or time-travel? Even if they did - they manifestly have not dealt with the issues/complaints at all - their response can only be regarded as an insult to the meanest intelligence.

I look forward to hearing from you.

----- Original Message -----

From: Nichols, Chris

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:30 AM

Subject: RE: The Legal Services Act - The LCS/SRA

Dear Mr Poultney,

Thank you for your email.

I work in the Legal Services Regulation Branch, and as your email concerns the complaints handling system for legal professionals, our team is best placed to respond to the points you have raised.

Firstly, I am very sorry to hear of your initial grievances and your dissatisfaction with the manner in which your complaints have been handled.

It was in response to similar concerns expressed by consumers of legal services that Sir David Clementi undertook his review of legal services in 2005. His report, The Future of Legal Services: Putting Consumers First, proposed a number a reforms aimed at putting consumers' interests back at the centre of the regulation of legal services. Following extensive consultation, to which a number of consumer groups responded, the Legal Services Act was drafted in line with Sir David Clementi's proposals.

On 30^th October 2007 the Legal Services Act received Royal Assent. The Act completely overhauls the system for dealing with complaints about legal professionals. Responsibility for handling complaints from the public will be transferred from individual regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board to an ombudsman scheme administered by a new independent body, the Office for Legal Complaints ('OLC'). This ombudsman scheme will ensure that consumers have access to fair redress where they have a complaint upheld. Where a determination is made in favour of the complainant, an ombudsman will be able to award compensation of up to £30,000.

The OLC will be independent from government and from the professions. It is bound by statute to, so far as is reasonably practicable, act in a way which is compatible with the regulatory objectives contained within section 1 of the Act. These include "protecting and promoting the interests of consumers". It will also be accountable to the new oversight regulator of the legal professions, the Legal Services Board (which is also being set up under the Legal Services Act 2007).

Progress has already been made in implementing the proposals. The chair of the OLC, Elizabeth France, has been appointed, as has the Chief Ombudsman, Adam Sampson. However, the OLC is not anticipated to be fully operational until 2010. .

While they will lose the power to handle complaints, the current regulators will retain their role in respect of misconduct and will remain responsible for authorising individuals to practise in their area under the new system brought in by the Legal Services Act 2007.

However, approved regulators will be accountable for all of their activities to the new oversight regulator of the legal professions - the Legal Services Board. The Legal Services Board is an independent body bound by the "regulatory objectives" contained within section 1 of the Legal Services Act. More information on the Legal Services Board can be found on its website (www.legalservicesboard.org.uk). It is anticipated that the Board will be fully operational in early 2010.

In addition to the "regulatory objectives", the Legal Services Board is statutorily bound to make rules on certain key issues. One such issue is the separation of the representative and regulatory functions of approved regulators, like the Law Society and Bar Council.

The Legal Services Board has recently launched a consultation on its proposals for ensuring such separation is effective. This can be found at: http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news_publications/press_releases/2009/04_2009.htm. Once these rules have been finalised and enter into force, the Legal Services Board will be able to direct a regulator whose regulatory functions are being prejudiced by its representative functions, to take such steps as it considers necessary to remedy, mitigate or prevent the recurrence of the prejudice.

I hope this response helps to explain the measures that the Government is taking to ensure that consumers of legal services have access to effective means of redress when they are unhappy with the service that they have received and that the legal profession is subject to effective, independent regulation.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Nichols