Select Committee on Justice Seventh Report

3  The pre-appointment hearing and outcome

Our approach

12.  Our consideration of Elizabeth France's appointment was influenced by the guidance given by the Liaison Committee in its report Pre-appointment hearings by select committees and our own view of the demands of the role.[6] We therefore considered Elizabeth France's competencies relevant to the role, her experience, and her proposed strategies for meeting the key challenges and objectives of this new position.

The hearing

13.  Given Ms France's background and experience, she is clearly a suitable candidate for this role. We did not feel therefore that we could add a great deal to the appointment process already carried out by the Legal Services Board. Nonetheless, we welcomed the opportunity to question Elizabeth France on a number of key issues relevant to her appointment as the Chair of the new Office for Legal Complaints, not least the crucial issue of the independence of the regulator.

Efficacy of an Ombudsman in this field

14.  We asked Ms France to describe the impact of an Ombudsman, from her own experience, in areas that produce numerous complaints to MPs, such as energy and telecommunications. Her view was that an Ombudsman's role was to ensure those who are the subject of the complaint endeavour to resolve it, only becoming directly involved in areas where the complaint remains unresolved but then feeding back into the customer services cycle to create a 'virtuous circle'.[7]

Preventing delay

15.  We asked Ms France about the risk that attempting to secure local resolution can lead to delay, with the result that the complaint become too stale for resolution. Ms France confirmed that she was likely to create a set time limit for local resolution—probably between 8 and 12 weeks, in line with other ombudsmen. She also noted that the aim of an ombudsman was to resolve a dispute rather than find for or against the client or firm.[8]

The Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints as a lay person

16.  Another area of interest to us was the impact of the Chair's status as a non-lawyer on the work of the Office for Legal Complaints. Ms France indicated that the Chair and the Ombudsman would not only be independent of those over whom they were making decisions, but perceived to be independent as a result of their status as laypersons. The work of the OLC would be to examine the individual customer's experience and perception of how they had been treated; it would not involve second-guessing legal opinion. There would be no devolution of decisions to the professional regulators; however, she would draw on the enabling provision in the legislation to use their expertise.[9]

Relationships with regulatory bodies

17.  A key issue of concern to us was the development of the relationship between the Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints and the regulatory authorities—with particular regard to the use of their resources, data sharing and reporting processes. Ms France stated her intention to develop memoranda of understanding with key stakeholders such as the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board. The aim would be to create a 'triage' system where all complaints would be considered on submission, which would allow for immediate regulatory action or appropriate law enforcement investigation if criminal conduct could be involved. The regulatory authorities would be informed of the OLC's findings in anonymised reports, which would be available publicly.[10]

Benefit to consumers

18.  We sought to identify how this new regulatory regime would benefit the consumer, and how the criteria for the appointment of the Ombudsman and Chief Executive would reflect this priority. She stressed that the statutory regime should be looked at as a whole and, she hoped, the framework would give the consumer confidence. The stage of the legal process at which clients are informed of the complaints procedure would be a matter for discussion. However, there was a need for clear signposting assuring clients that the procedure was reasonably swift and independent. A further issue would be the progress of the case while the complaint is resolved, and it was anticipated that this would be informed by the experience of the Law Society and Bar Council in handling complaints.[11]

19.  We are entirely satisfied that Elizabeth France meets the criteria necessary for the role of Chair for the Office for Legal Complaints. We wish her every success in establishing the Office for Legal Complaints and look forward to seeing her in future as part of our continuing scrutiny of the provision of legal services.

---

6   Op. cit.  Back

7   Q 2  Back

8   Q 3 & 4 Back

9   Q 5 & 6 Back

10   Q 11 & 12 Back

11   Q 13 & 14 Back

---

Prepared 31 October 2008