---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 137ZB: 137ZB: Clause 146 , page 76, line 32, leave out ““a person (““the defaulter””)”” and insert ““an authorised person”” The noble Lord said: The amendment would ensure that the Office for Legal Complaints can enforce requirements to provide information or produce documents only against an authorised person. Clause 144 enables the ombudsman to require parties to complaints to produce documents and provide information which the ombudsman considers necessary for the determination of a complaint. Where a person fails to comply with the requirement under Clause 144(1), Clause 146 enables the ombudsman to certify the defaulter’s failure to comply with the requirement to the court. The court can deal with the defaulter as though the person concerned were in contempt. That provision seems to us to be rather heavy-handed. It would surely be sufficient to entitle the ombudsman to deal with the complaint on the basis of the complainant’s account, and to report the failure of the authorised person to comply with the direction to their authorised regulator for disciplinary action to be taken. Even if a power of this sort is thought appropriate in respect of authorised persons, it surely cannot be justified in respect of the individual complainant. Where a complainant fails to provide information which is necessary for the determination of a complaint, the ombudsman should no doubt be able to reject the complaint. It may also be appropriate for an award of costs to be made under Clause 133(1). But to initiate proceedings which may lead to the person being dealt with as though in contempt of court surely is disproportionate. I beg to move.