header-logo header-logo

14 February 2014
Issue: 7594 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Legal ombudsman

R (on the application of Crawford) v The Legal Ombudsman [2014] EWHC 182 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 43 (Feb)

The Legal Ombudsman scheme was created by Pt 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Section 122 required the Chief Ombudsman to be a lay person, but permitted assistant ombudsmen with power to determine complaints to be legally qualified. Section 113(1) indicated that the purpose of the scheme was to enable complaints to “be resolved quickly and with minimum formality by an independent person”. Section 137(1) provided that a complaint was to be determined “by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman making the determination, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”. There were two important aspects of the scheme revealed by those and other provisions. First, it was intended to resolve complaints swiftly and informally. In order to achieve that, the Ombudsman would often have to do the best he could on limited material and without hearing detailed evidence. To assist in those objectives, he could rely on evidence which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll