Legal Ombudsman Bewertungen 

Disappointed with the Legal Ombudsman’s handling of my complaint. They acknowledged service failures by a law firm but offered no financial or emotional redress. Critical facts were misrepresented, and my detailed evidence was overlooked. Despite being misled for 46 days during a collapsed property transaction, the decision suggested I would have suffered losses anyway—even if the service had been reasonable. After 15+ months, I accepted the decision just to move on, not because it was fair. The process felt dismissive and emotionally draining. Would not recommend relying on this system for meaningful accountability.

First they where acting very diligently, until they transfered my case then mistakes & wrong excuse for closure.
Simple case really just needing answers from solicitors dealing with my late mother's Probate in UK.
It is terrible to think a free organisation, paid by Goverment, can't supply answer ? Looking at other feedback I can only suggest goverment should close & save the taxpayers much needed resource.

I wish I could give them 0 stars

As a UK taxpayer, I am shocked and disappointed that public funds are being used to support what I believe is a compromised and institutionally biased organisation. The Legal Ombudsman is supposed to ensure accountability in legal services — but my experience shows it instead perfects the art of protecting the big fish while leaving ordinary complainants unheard, unsupported, and unprotected.

Despite submitting clear, repeated evidence of solicitor misconduct — including GDPR breaches, discrimination, and outright refusal to engage — my complaints were met with:

Delays,

Demands for documents I had already submitted,

And repeated refusals to investigate or escalate.

The Ombudsman failed to enforce basic statutory rights, ignored medical evidence of my disability (PTSD), and completely disregarded its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
⚖️ Serious legal and procedural failings:

CPR 1.1 – No evidence of fairness, proportionality, or proper handling.

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Reasonable adjustments not made or respected.

GDPR 2018, Article 15 – Solicitors denied access to my personal data with no enforcement from the Ombudsman.

Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 – Decisions must be rational and evidence-based — the Ombudsman failed this standard.

R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935 – They refused informal, early resolution, and prolonged injustice.

If I could give zero stars, I would.
This isn’t just a service failure — it is a structural denial of justice.

As a disabled individual and citizen, I must say clearly:
Access to justice is not a charity. It is not a privilege. It is a fundamental human right.

The Legal Ombudsman has turned its back on that principle.

I will now be taking legal action against three corrupted solicitors, and the Legal Ombudsman will be the second defendant — not just for procedural failure, but for its complicity in perfecting protection for the big fish in the legal industry.

This organisation no longer serves the public — it shields power, avoids accountability, and contributes to the erosion of public trust in justice

1 Star - Utterly Failed Me

The Legal Ombudsman is a complete and utter failure. After a five-month wait, my legitimate complaint against negligent solicitors was dismissed with shocking immaturity and incompetence. They ignored the core professional negligence, focusing on trivialities, and ruined my chances of a fair resolution. I'm left with substantial losses and zero support. Avoid this organization at all costs.

Shockingly poor service. Long delays and a poor outcome when things are so blatant

I have nothing but praise for the Legal Ombudsman service. I brought them an unusual wills & probate case which I and my family had already been battling for five years on our own before we finally contacted the LeO in April 2022. It has taken just short of three years to investigate to completion, but that is perfectly ok, because in that time they were absolutely forensic in their investigation and got into every nook & cranny, literally no stone unturned.

The investigator who was initially assigned my case was a lovely lady, and she did the very best she could, with the knowledge she had. She initially fell for the lies the firm told in their defence, which was reason enough to have it passed on to an Ombudsman for review, because I knew they were lies. It turned out that the case was so complex it needed an Ombudsman with an excellent working knowledge of the law to take it over, and oh boy, did he put in some man hours on it. I can only imagine how much that level of work would have cost us had we been able to get a solicitor interested enough to take it on!

Our Ombudsman also got us the very best outcome possible, better than we ever dared to hope for.

Even better than that, the case has now gone to the SRA, which is why I can’t put any actual details about it, but I’m quite confident that proper justice will now soon be done and, hopefully, other families will be spared the trauma of what we have suffered.

If I have a little bit of advice for anyone who is having problems with a legal service provider, it’s to do what I did, which is keep a diary/dossier. Keep it up to date & concise. Try to keep emotions out of it and just stick to the facts (yes, that is very difficult, but it can be done!). Collect and incorporate into it any & every piece of evidence you can. Get signed & dated receipts for everything you give them. Don’t throw anything away. If you have a meeting with them, get a notepad and take notes throughout the meeting. Keep all emails they send to you and keep emails from yourself to them. It might even be worth printing off phone records for proof of phone conversations etc. Whatever constitutes evidence, however small or seemingly insignificant, is worth keeping hold of in my personal experience.

Also, don’t forget that if you disagree with the investigators’ initial findings, don’t be frightened to say so, don’t just accept something that you know isn’t quite right. Ask for it to go to the Ombudsman for review with your reasons for why you disagree. Remember that the investigator only knows what they have been told, they have not suffered all the emotional trauma, frustration & anger that you have suffered, so you do need to give them as much information & evidence as you can.

I am quite certain that without the help of the Ombudsman service, the behaviour of the firm I reported would never have been exposed, and they would be free to do it again. So, in conclusion, I believe this service is absolutely vital.

I will never be able to thank them enough for everything they have done for us. 😊

You must prepare yourself for disappointment if you choose to use this 'service'.
The extraordinarily long time it takes for each stage of your complaint to be dealt with indicates just how ill-equipped and understaffed the legal ombudsman service is at present. The other inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that finding a competent, honest and diligent solicitor these days is all but impossible.
The website onto which one has to upload evidence is woefully inadequate - you cannot upload a reasonable quantity of documents. This leads to the initial investigation being virtually useless because they do not have ALL the facts.
Also, from my experience, they appear to be extremely biased against the complainant.
I would certainly NOT recommend anyone to use this service. Better to just issue a claim through the small claims court if you are confident of your case.
My experience was doubly disappointing because I have used the Energy Ombudsman service on a number of occasions and found them to be excellent.

After reading many of the other reviews here, I can understand why a number of customers have expressed similar concerns.

Based on my own experience, I found the service disappointing. Communication was poor, progress was slow, and I was left feeling that my concerns were not always given the attention they deserved. Overall, the experience fell well below my expectations.
While I can only comment on my own case, my experience was consistent with many of the issues raised by other reviewers. I hope the organisation takes this feedback seriously and makes meaningful improvements to the service it provides.

Clueless, spineless, toothless, biased, and corrupt.

Utterly pointless - useless, and NOT fit for purpose!

The Legal Ombudsman is not fit for any purpose. It has no right to call itself impartial because it simply is not – it is not transparent nor fair. It permits the law firm to make multiple challenges to have a complaint overturned, even before any of our material evidence can be considered. Whilst one Ombudsman upheld one of our complaints, a different ombudsman then reversed that decision because she misunderstood the ‘new information,’ supplied by the law firm. When we pointed out that this ‘new information’ was irrelevant to that particular complaint. She made illogical excuses and refused to accept her mistake and to reverse her decision, saying her decision was final and if we were not happy then we should take the matter to judicial review. It was nothing short of appalling. It is little wonder that the law firm who was the subject of our complaint was very happy for this to be referred to the Legal Ombudsman. Save your precious time, save your sanity and turn away from these muppets who simply have the negligent law firms working their strings. A complete waste of time and effort.

This authority is just there to be there it may get paid from the solicitors companies as they don’t care, they ignoring, pretending they don’t get the information, even if they get
They are protecting the companies which are robbing people and not the people as they have mean to be doing that.
Case reference no F181424

Legal Ombudsman Not Fit For Purpose!
A recurring problem in the negative response's they quote Rule 5.7 as a reason for dismissal

Changes to the Legal Ombudsman's Scheme Rules
28th OCTOBER 2022

Earlier this year the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) undertook a review of its Scheme Rules to identify opportunities to improve the customer experience by enhancing operational efficiency, removing historic obstacles to resolving cases both quickly and with minimum formality, and to create a platform for the continued evolution of the Scheme in the years to come.

The review also focused on ensuring that any proposed changes continue to support the delivery of the regulatory objectives and reflect LeO’s new operational processes. Following consultation between February and April 2022, the final proposals were submitted to the Legal Services Board (LSB) and approved in July.

The new Scheme Rules, which are outlined below, will go live on 1 April 2023. There are three key areas for change, alongside several additional minor technical changes. These are outlined below:

Rule 5.7(b)
LeO will be introducing the word ‘significant’ within Rule 5.7(b) which will allow an Ombudsman to consider whether it is a proportionate use of resource and time to investigate a complaint where the detriment to the complainant is not significant.

The introduction of ‘significant’ provides for cases to be dismissed if the loss, detriment, or impact is deemed minor enough that it would be disproportionate to conduct a full investigation whereas under current wording a complaint can only be dismissed under this rule if there has been no loss or detriment.

As with all dismissals under Rule 5.7 it is important to note that this is a discretion to dismiss that can only be exercised by an Ombudsman and only after the parties have been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed.

Re: The introduction of ‘significant’ provides for cases to be dismissed if the loss, detriment, or impact is deemed minor enough that it would be disproportionate to conduct a full investigation

WHAT IS DEEMED AS SIGNIFICANT £500,00
£1000.00 £5000.00? THEY DON'T APPEAR TO EXPLAIN IN ANY OF THERE DISMISSALS!

Re Paragraph: Rule 5.7(b)
"LeO will be introducing the word ‘significant’ within Rule 5.7(b) which will allow an Ombudsman to consider whether it is a proportionate use of resource and time to investigate a complaint where the detriment to the complainant is not significant."

The word significant appears to give the Ombudsman the power to dismiss a case without reason!

The twitter account of the Legal Ombudsman blocked me after I criticised them. This even demonstrates what kind of an organisation this is.

Yet the LeO still claims that they are transparent.
Please go to their twitter account and criticise them there. I want to see how much time they are willing to dedicate to silence criticism against them, while trying to back up solicitors.

My review on Trustpilot has been deleted too (for no obvious reason). Please contact me first to ask for evidence, before you delete genuine review. This even shows how cunning the Legal Ombudsman is!

A disgraceful, sham organization that is allowed to flourish under the guise of a fair arbitration system! Don’t waste your time with these clowns!

They do not even have the motivation or intelligence to read through details of your case. Instead, they ask the lawyer to give them their viewpoint and they pass verdict accordingly! They will lie and twist information to rule in favor of the lawyer whatever the situation may be!

Please investigate this sham, crooked organization and shut it down! It serves NO PURPOSE other than to give employment to dishonest, crooked people!

Wow - didn't think I'd be in this much company with my 1 star review but there you go...
As probably everyone else discovered, they let the solicitors I was complaining about provide a load of legal jargon against my pile of time stamped evidence and dismissed me out of hand. My legal case going pear shaped? An inconvenience (apparently). My £500 owed to me? All happily gone and not an issue.

Not fit for service - just a legal firm defence team to keep solicitors all nice and safe...

Firstly, the staff that handled the case against my conveyancers at each stage were great - pleasant, informative and helpful. I had really high hopes.

…but be prepared for disappointment because it seems the level that solicitors need to meet to be vaguely competent is set so low. So there is little the staff could do - even if they escalated it further, the solicitor has already met the low threshold and would “win”

It didn’t seem to matter that my solicitor had misunderstood simple information from the other party and probably lost me thousands - it was *almost* enough for the ombudsman that the solicitor asked for the information at all and I should’ve second guessed they’d make an error. My case nearly got kicked out twice for this reason.

They ultimately ruled in my favour but I got little in return except for a moral victory over the solicitor.

So staff = five stars
System = no stars

Worth it to wipe the smile off your solicitor’s face, but for not much else

Dismiss complaints without even looking at the evidence!

This organisation, who appear to be answerable to no-one, don't even bother to look at evidence and simply dismiss complaints. I have proof as they needed to check evidence on a gov.uk which proved my case and I can show was never viewed. They then use a section in their regulations, Section 5.7, to dismiss complaints as having no merit, and couldn't care less whether they had merit or not.

Anyone who expects a 'fair and reasonable' adjudication is going to be disappointed. It is high time this organisation was exposed by a consumer rights champion or someone within government who actually cares about what members of the public, in our case a very vulnerable elderly lady, experience at their hands.

After all, if solicitors know this organisation is not going to bother to investigate complaints put before them and will simply side with the solicitors, what onus is it on solicitors to do a competent job in the first place?

Totally corrupt and incredibly inefficient .

1) Made a very basic mistake which skewed their entire assessment. The mistake is primary school level incompetence.

2) They then basically threaten you with enormous costs should you choose to take it to a judicial review.

3) The whole system is corrupt the solicitors involved are laughing at me on their way to the bank with my money and I cannot do a thing about it.

3) Local MP office unwilling as such to get involved.

Don't expect any form of justice, no matter how much evidence you have, most cases get thrown out without ANY investigation. The initial "investigator" knows that the Ombudsman won't take it further so should say so at the start, they are so arrogant, it's just a game. Any small offer will be deemed as fair from the law firm and the Ombudsman uses the 5.7 clause to dismiss the case without looking at it because of this. They have a lot of complaints and it's no wonder when nothing is done to rectify the law firms shocking behaviour, in particular dishonesty. The law firms know this to. The whole system is broken and it's the same with every other regulatory body as well right now. There is no appeal, judicial review is the only way forward. They even limit and control complaints on their own service, it's a total racket and makes a mockery of any form of justice.

After waiting more than 8 months for an investigation into incompetence with our ex solicitors.
No help whatsoever despite strong evidence charges were not investigated or explored, not even progressed to the actual ombudsman.
This is one government agency that needs closure and remove financial support from the taxpayer!!!