Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman

Judicial review of a Legal Ombudsman decision is concerned with lawfulness, not with a rehearing of the underlying complaint. The court will be slow to interfere with an Ombudsman’s evaluative judgment, particularly where the statutory scheme gives the Ombudsman a broad discretion to decide what is fair and reasonable. Permission should be refused where the claim identifies only disagreement on the merits and discloses no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness, failure to consider relevant matters, or decision outside the range of reasonable responses. A claim may be certified as totally without merit where, even allowing for a litigant in person, it discloses no reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Legal Ombudsman’s decision dated 21 June 2022 dismissing her complaint against her former conveyancing solicitors. The complaint concerned an alleged failure to account for a £500 allowance connected with works to provide a dropped kerb during a 2004 house purchase.

The court first considered delay in issuing the claim, the claimant’s hearing impairment, and the absence of the defendant and interested party from the hearing. An extension of time was granted and the hearing proceeded in their absence. The central issue was whether the claimant had identified any arguable public-law error in the Ombudsman’s investigation or decision.

1. Permission refused. The claimant’s challenge disclosed no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness, failure to take relevant considerations into account, or decision that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached.
2. The Legal Ombudsman Scheme is a statutory scheme created by Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007. It is intended to resolve consumer complaints quickly and informally. The Ombudsman has a broad and subjective discretion to decide what is fair and reasonable. Under Scheme Rule 5.7, the Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, has no reasonable prospect of success.
3. Judicial review does not permit the court to reconsider the merits of the original complaint as an appellate court. The court’s role is to assess the lawfulness of the decision. The court will be very slow to interfere with an Ombudsman’s evaluative judgment, applying the principle stated in R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ 1365.
4. The Ombudsman had considered the complaint response, the completion statements and the claimant’s further evidence, including the estate agent’s letter. The investigation was thorough, the claimant had several opportunities to make representations, and the outcome letter gave clear and intelligible reasons. The Ombudsman was entitled to conclude that £51,500, rather than £52,000, had been paid to the seller because of the agreed allowance.
5. The claimant’s Human Rights Act and Convention allegations, referring to Articles 1, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14, lacked sufficient detail and disclosed no arguable ground. The claim was certified as totally without merit under rule 23.12(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An extension of time was granted for issuing the claim under rule 3.1(2)(a), but the claimant was ordered to pay costs of £2,059.40, subject to the stated procedure for objecting to the costs order.

The judgment records that HHJ Bird, sitting as a High Court Judge, directed on 24 April 2023 that the permission application be resubmitted and re-served, together with any application for an extension of time. The present court granted the extension, refused permission, and certified the claim as totally without merit. A right of appeal to the Court of Appeal was noted.