header-logo header-logo

Approval given to practice fee rise for firms that generate the most LeO complaints

08 November 2021
Issue: 7956 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession
printer mail-detail
Conveyancing firms that generate the most complaints will pay the highest practice fees, under radical Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) plans
The Legal Services Board has approved the CLC changes, which will see 30% of the £686,511 the CLC will pay in 2021/22 for the Legal Services Ombudsman’s (LeO’s) services levied on 83 firms on the basis of usage.

Previously, CLC-regulated firms paid the LeO levy through their practice fees, which are calculated according to turnover. Under the CLC’s changes―the first of their kind in the legal sector―the LeO levy will be separated from the practice fee, reducing the practice fee by an average of 23%.

More than 60% of CLC practices do not generate any referrals to LeO.

For the first year, all firms will share 70% of the LeO costs while the remaining 30% will be allocated according to average number of complaints generated in the past three years.

This means 51 practices (23%) will pay more. Of these, two practices will pay an extra £16,000 and £12,000 respectively, 16 firms will pay between £5,168 and £1,044 more, and 33 practices will pay between £821 and £25 more.

The changes will be phased in over four years, starting at 30% of LeO costs being divided according to usage and rising to 80% of LeO costs.

CLC chief executive Sheila Kumar said: ‘Despite the CLC reducing its own operating costs in a sustainable and steady way over the past five years, the LeO’s costs – which are beyond our control – have grown, and continue to grow, very substantially.

‘Introducing a usage fee is fairer, builds in better proportionality into meeting LeO costs and will encourage improvements in complaints handling. We will monitor the impact of the new approach on complaints handling.’

Issue: 7956 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll