Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

Our general experience of ombudsman schemes across the board is that compliance tends to be high. That is partly because the vast majority of cases are resolved by agreement without formal determination, but where a decision does reach the stage where an ombudsman needs to make a binding determination, compliance is also very high. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association’s guidance states: "““Compliance with an Ombudsman’s recommendations is secured by a variety of means—by law, by contract, by a regulator or by the moral force and the standing of the Ombudsman. Non compliance is rare””." That is the context in which we are considering the amendments. We fully expect that to be the case for the ombudsman scheme established by Part 6; but the Bill also provides for situations in which a respondent still does not comply, by providing, through Clause 138, for any compensation payable or fees owed to be recoverable on application to a court. In rare cases where a respondent refuses to pay, Clause 139 provides for the OLC to be notified and for onward notification of the relevant approved regulator. That will, as with other schemes, be treated seriously and as a disciplinary matter by the relevant approved regulator. So a respondent who refuses to comply will have to have very good reasons for doing so, and that will act as a strong incentive. Where a complainant does have to make an application to court, we hope that that may be done before the county court as well as the High Court, with a straightforward procedure and the ability to recover the costs of having to do so. We have a good procedure. However, I have listened carefully to what has been said and my view is that we should look at this again. I do not wish to require the OLC to take action on behalf of the complainant, but I am happy to think about whether we could provide the flexibility for it to be able to do so, bearing in mind the comments that have been made about the particular circumstances that could arise. Perhaps I may take this matter away and consider it further.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1149-50 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Consumers Legal profession Misconduct Patents Ombudsman Regulation Trade marks Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk