Legal Ombudsman Bewertungen 

If I could give 0 stars I would. The Legal Ombudsman is not fit for purpose - it takes months to deal with anything but when they want any further information from you there is a deadline of 2 weeks. They then dismiss the case and in my case they were condoning solicitors who were unwilling to explain their charges properly, gave totally inaccurate estimates and failed to reply to several reasonable requests for explanations. The solicitors also charged me for something they didn’t do so in my opinion were dishonest

The upshot is don’t waste your time with this lot as they I believe are in the pockets of the solicitors so you don’t stand a chance

Absolute disgrace and don't even bother one star too many. LeO used 5.7 to dismiss 25 complaint headings for my complaint sustained over a 5 year period as an excuse not to investigate. They are extremely biased and they evidently protect the Legal profession from absolute below par standards of service!!! Let the negligence continue shall we...The LeO's service is the worst!!!

Absoloute waste of space, Laura wheeler can speak to me like shit and over talk me when im trying to get my point across and yet when i told her what i thought of her conduct and her rudeness im the bad one. Then the original investigator, John Oakes messd up and didnt explaint the whole process and missed bits out and they wont take responsibility for their poor service and their lack of knowledge of their own service. Even got it in email they have messed up yet still wont takr accountability. All in the pockets of the solicitors to make complaints go away. If your thinking of using this Ombudsman what i would do is write it all down on a piece of paper and set fire to it for what these useless people can do for your complaint

Dismissed our complaint with a clearly standard letter because they said we never lost anything (when we absolutely did and told them multiple times but was ignored of course). The solicitor involved complained to them that our claim was frivalous etc; Ombudsman didn't agree but then dismissed our claim because the Ombudsman claimed we lost nothing!

NB: NOT a gov. site (but partly funded by your taxes), a private industry protecting BS faux. I'm considering a criminal compaint (wilful neglect in public office and fraud) againt the person who claims to be a Senior Ombudsman.

Waste of time. Not fit for purpose. A parasite on the public purse. Jusr look 100% of the reviews here are 1 star complaints! WORST review history for any organization.

This service is not fit for purpose. It is deeply corrupt blatantly favouring the law firms who bank roll it. The LO totally failed/refused to recognise the detailed evidence of legal incompetence provided around the service I received from Stowe Family Law. They inexplicably favoured what the firm claimed they did versus the actual evidence/outcomes of the case. My evidence was essentially ignored despite its significance. An absolutely disgraceful sham of a process. I fail to understand how the LO and its unethical staff can be taken seriously.

Should really be zero. Do not waste your time with the LO. Its 99% a foregone conclusion, clearly toothless and in bed with the law firms it seems. After over 3 years had matters not looked into where at all when they clearly should have been, and then latterly told unless it is "obviously wrong", i.e. a high hurdle, the firm will not be found at fault. Waste of time, this is not a justice process, its a sham, and should be closed down as it gives false hope and is a waste of taxpayers money.
I escalated my final decision to the Ombudsman and I am shocked to see that they profile is what of a BA degree, with no legal qualifications ,and appear to be early 30's from the profile information I found via google. It's a layperson's opinion, what a joke when dealing with legal matters and crafty and sneaky firms. The UK justice systems/firms are basically completely unregulated in reality. There is no justice, what happened to me was fraud and so far they have got away with it, just like what happened to the post office people. The worst part is there is plenty of evidence but they are choosing to ignore it and so you can see just how biassed the process is. The organisation should be shutdown and just admit its the wild west out there and lawyers and firms are essentially completely unregulated. The only people suffering are laypeople, ordinary poor hard workers like me. It is completely disgusting how they behaviour, its a sham of an organisation. The LO once referred appears to have come back with a decision in less that a few days, despite the case worker dealing with it over years, that about sums up the whitewash it is!

This even where the firm admitted they have "failed" to stick to their fee alert levels in their formal complaint process.

The firm also missed several fee alerts overrunning billing by about £18k, but it seems the ombudsman rules that its not a service issue that they can deal with because the cost court already has the firm told them apparently, only the costs court judge clearly stated they will not be looking at any service issues.

This organisation should be shutdown as it is not fit for purpose at all, and just wastes peoples time when they are already beaten down by the law firms shoddy service for whatever the case matter was originally, and when they act that way, they are aiding and abetting the fraud in my case, and sham of service by the firms.

Questioned initial investigators decision, argued against their senior's decision who downplayed it all.

They're all in bed with each other. Shambles. Should be abolished.

My mental and physical health have been devastated by my FOUR year (and counting!) experience in 'battling' the Legal Ombudsman. I honestly feel like I'm in an abusive toxic relationship.
So far I've had three successive investigators.
Each time an investigator resigned, my case was reassigned and I had to go through the whole tortuous process of submitting evidence from the beginning again. Thank God the NHS provides free mental health - not sure I'd still be here if they didn't.

DO NOT BOTHER. Total waste of time. They do not care about the public. From the get go it was clear the person who took on my complaint had already made their mind up not to uphold my complaint, they had not even seen my evidence. I even got an email advising me the solicitors were willing to make an offer, but it was never mentioned again it was like she blocked it. 16 months wasted. In total she emailed me on 5 occasions and we spoke twice for the whole investigation, unreturned phone calls and missed appointment to call me. The call was pointless and I haven’t even bothered reading the report, I just went to the end saw the not upheld which was what I expected. Please don’t put yourself through the stress. I would not even give them one star if it was possible.

Delay of nearly a year. Incompetent case management. Replies to my emails addressed to ‘Ms Owen’ obviously cut and pasted from another file. A complete and utter waste of time and energy. Seems that 92% of users agree with me. The Ministry of Justice needs to have a good hard look at how they are wasting tax payers money.

Do not waste your time and energy trying to make a complaint. I waited two years for an outcome, within that time the firm I was claiming against got closed down for fraud. When my complaint finally got handled, they legal ombudsman decided £100 was sufficient, despite the firm overcharging me £929.

Being disappointed with the complaint procedure of Healys solicitors, I took the case up with the Legal Ombudsman (LO), although I hadn’t realised at the time that their criteria is restricted to only investigate if the solicitor acted reasonably and, it seems to me, a low bar is all that is necessary. They advised me they do not look at negligence nor dishonesty of a solicitor, as that is something the complainant would have to undertake with legal redress themselves with another firm of solicitors.
I learned afterwards from other sources too that the function of the LO is not to investigate the details of any complaint made against a service provider by a service user; the Ombudsman's role is better understood as investigating the manner in which the service provider handles the service user’s complaint. Not very helpful or really fit for any purpose .

A second complaint had to raised against Healys as the LO didn’t include all the aspects of the first complaint. LO didn’t find against Healys in the first comaplaint, but upheld the second and I was awarded a paltry sum of £100 for distress , whilst the LO charged Healys £400.

I have asked our MP to raise questions in parliament about this on the following basis:


Executive Summary
The Legal Ombudsman (LO) is failing to provide the "free and fair" alternative to the court system mandated by the Legal Services Act 2007. Current data reveals a service characterized by chronic delays, a "toothless" remit that excludes findings of negligence, and an overwhelming lack of public confidence.

Key Statistics & Evidence
· 70% Failure Rate: In its 2024/25 Annual Report, the LO admitted to finding evidence of poor service in 70% of all complaints investigated.
· Systemic Backlogs: As of late 2025, the Legal Services Board (LSB) expressed "significant concerns" over the LO's viability, noting a queue of over 3,200 unallocated investigations.
· Public Dissatisfaction: The LO holds a 1.1-star rating on Trustpilot, with 365 reviews (and counting) predominantly citing "gross incompetence," "unreasonable delays," and "perceived bias" towards solicitors.
· Funding Conflict: The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) is funded via a compulsory levy on the legal profession. This "polluter pays" model creates a perceived conflict of interest that undermines its status as an independent arbiter.
The "Remit Gap"
The LO’s current remit is strictly "service-based." As confirmed in official correspondence to Mr. Gibson (10 January 2024), the LO cannot determine negligence or dishonesty, even when evidence is provided. This forces consumers back into the high-cost court system, defeating the purpose of an Ombudsman.

Proposed Parliamentary Actions
1. Tabling Questions: Use the refined questions regarding the 70% poor service rate and the funding model's impact on impartiality.
2. Ministerial Inquiry: Request that the Secretary of State for Justice reviews the Office for Legal Complaints' effectiveness in light of the LSB's concerns over its operational viability.
3. Select Committee Referral: Propose the issue for the Justice Select Committee’supcoming work programme on legal regulation.

I spent days providing detailed evidence about serious issues with my conveyancing solicitor, who was later intervened by the SRA. Instead of investigating properly, the LO dismissed my complaint on technicalities and repeatedly relied on “limited evidence” - even though the firm’s collapse meant they were the only body able to investigate.

At every stage of my complaint, my concerns were minimised or reframed. The Ombudsman ignored the financial impact, the stress, and the delays I experienced, and treated the intervention of the firm as a reason not to look deeper. I was told that completion dates are “never guaranteed,” even though my complaint was about avoidable delays, not guarantees. They also dismissed the issue of fees despite the fixed‑fee service I was sold.

Overall, I felt invisible throughout this process. After months of bureaucracy, letters, and explanations, I was left with no support, no accountability, and no sense that my experience mattered. The system is supposed to protect consumers, but instead I was passed between organisations and left without any meaningful resolution.

A very disappointing experience that has completely undermined my trust in the legal system.

They used their T&C’s to get out of hearing my case, ie having accepted it! Sounds weird? Yes, they accepted my case, but decided if l included more of the claim, with evidence- and wording they didn’t want included; they would cancel my case, despite evidence of clear breaches. And It was clear, when navigating their proforma, they didn’t want to protect the client, but the law firm - and do shy my case, which showed breaches, was rejected. And not just on equality issues too they could have heard, ie on tampering with medical evidence (to undermine my case by lawyers complicit with financial institutions too) and other evidence that would show that for two years the lawyers didn’t even action my case. Talk to the defendants. And this was owing to a conflict of interest. And the LO didn’t want to find against this law firm x 2! So, they just said wrongdoing isn’t enough to make us hear this case, if you won’t be confined a) to only the words the ombudsman wants you to use - ie so with lots of omissions b) to help the law firm escape accountability. And the SRA have been found to be complicit too! In the legal gazette. And the FCA says it will do more- but only talking to WHich? Not those of us - consumers - that they should start with, ie looking at cases with/of 100% rate of success, that fails, with no resolution of quantum, or because rights are ignored! And when insurance and lawyers make deals with themselves that are not in customer interests- but their own. No one oversees that lost to the innocent, relying on good legal practice. Or SRA. And LO piles in on their behalf. Because yr not legal!!! Or s Frat buddy.

We’ve just had the first response from the solicitors protection agency. They ask us for proof we made a 48 page preliminary complaint. They have accepted “an offer” made by the crooked solicitors, but we never even received a reply to our complaint. Anyhow the final version of the complaint will include collusion between six legal firms who have fraudulently misrepresented legal documents, taken advantage of our mental health and wellbeing issues to protect a bully who is actively encouraging my suicide.

The entire process was dragged out unnecessarily. It took a year just to get started. Then over next 12-month period, four different investigators were assigned, yet no actual investigation ever took place. Each new investigator began by challenging the Heads of Complaint all over again. My lawyer’s file was accepted at face value, while my evidence was dismissed.

When it came to Judicial Review, there is only three weeks to apply. The Legal Ombudsman process does not require a solicitor, but if one becomes necessary at the end, there is no realistic time to find one. My advice to anyone is clear: instruct a good solicitor at the very beginning — do not attempt to navigate this process alone.

In my case, I was completely shut out by solicitors dealing with my late mother’s estate, worth approximately £500,000. Her will was effectively ignored, and the solicitor proceeded as they wished. One solicitor retired during the process. Another laughed at me on the phone — twice — and told me I could not afford to challenge the situation.

The estate remains unresolved. Accounts with the investment company are still open. A run-down property was not sold. I still cannot understand why no investigation ever took place.

Closing the case was a constant battle. In the end, they simply closed it. There was no accountability and no care for the consequences.

The impact on my life has been devastating. I have been left in limbo, permanently tied to these solicitors. I am living with stage 4 cancer, and it feels as though everything has been structured to wait me out — so that when I die, everything will fall into the hands of the solicitors.

At this point, it feels like nothing more than a waiting game.

Complained about firm who refused additional treatment, refused to acknowledge GP/hospital records (as if their medical agencies are perfect), wasted three years only to remove themselves at the last minute from the court because of a social media post. No other law firm will uphold my complaint.

Questioned initial investigators decision, argued against their senior's decision who downplayed it all.

They're all in bed with each other. Shambles. Should be abolished.

Maladministration the internal policies need a overhaul.

Dismissive, unwavering and not transparent

A corrupted and inefficient service. They protect the solicitors.
I have no other option that take the solicitor to court.

I approached the Legal Ombudsman expecting an independent and meaningful review of a complaint about legal services. Unfortunately, my experience has left me with very little confidence in the process.

While the staff were courteous, the handling of my case felt heavily constrained and procedural rather than investigative. I was informed that delays were due to an overwhelming caseload, and that the investigator did not have a legal background but was there primarily to “facilitate” an outcome rather than assess legal competence. This was concerning given the nature of my complaint.

The process focused strongly on encouraging early settlement, with repeated emphasis that rejecting a modest offer could result in dismissal of the complaint without a full investigation. This created pressure to accept an outcome that did not reflect the time, stress, or financial consequences I had experienced.

Most disappointing was the limited consideration given to actual financial loss and subsequent developments that materially supported my position. The scheme gives the impression of robust consumer protection, but in practice the remedies appear narrow and the scope of review very limited.

Based on my experience, consumers should manage expectations carefully. The service may resolve minor service issues, but those seeking thorough scrutiny or meaningful redress for serious failings may find the process inadequate.