You said, we did

Those discussions help us to identify improvements we could make to our service or actions we could take based on the feedback received. Some of the key actions from the past year are outlined below. Our thanks go to everyone who took the time to provide us with helpful feedback this year.

We were pleased to receive a lot of positive comments in our feedback from members of the public and lawyers. These are a real morale boost to staff who work hard dealing daily with challenging issues. Some examples from this year include:

• “I really appreciate your input into solving the situation. You have been so approachable and understanding of my dilemma and I thank you for everything you have done for me.” (complainer)

• “The service I received has been excellent. I was kept updated with personal phone calls and emails. I can now close the door on my complaint thanks to your prompt actions and outcome.” (complainer)
  
  
• “I feel that the SLCC have been very efficient and professional in dealing with the complaint made against my firm.” (practitioner)
  
  
• “The service I received was first class and although it did not get the result that I hoped for I have no complaints about the very professional way my case was dealt with.” (complainer)
  
  
• “Your caseworker was very understanding about how the company that I complained about has affected my mental health and actually saved me from doing something stupid to myself.” (complainer)
  
  
• “We feel that we are being treated with total understanding and curtesy. Not understanding the legal terms we have had everything explained to us in a very reasonable way.” (complainer)

We were also pleased to receive feedback about our work to help resolve complaints, which is a core focus of our approach. For example:

• “Although I did not need to take my complaint further due to a satisfactory resolution, I do believe that informing my solicitor of my intentions to lodge a complaint with you helped to settle my dispute.” (complainer)
  
  
• “I don't what you did, but the solicitor concerned returned my documents to me after two or three weeks, which is what I wanted as there had been no correspondence from her.” (complainer)
  
  
• “Overall the service was excellent and I have no complaints. I'm still waiting for the firm to act on the agreement but I feel confident that I can come back to the SLCC should they not fulfil their side of things.” (complainer)
  
  
• “My main disappointment was that we were unable to resolve this at mediation but following that process probably assisted in subsequently resolving.” (practitioner)

We also receive a lot of comments on what we could do better. We also saw a significant rise in complaints to us about our service this year, although we have not yet identified key common themes in these. Some issues are repeated each year but often relate to areas where we agree it’s important we continue to strive to make improvements. For example:

• “The procedure was clear and the SLCC always adhered to their own deadlines. Communication was also clear. I feel the length of the process is far too long and simply prolongs what is already a very stressful time.” (complainer)

We continued to receive feedback on our timescales. Even where people were complimentary about our service, they often said timescales were too long. We will continue to make contact with parties regularly to share updates and we are looking at our resourcing to ensure we can meet demand and bring timescales down. We also continue to pursue firms who delay providing information to us which causes delays in complaint handling.

• “My complaint was sanitized and distilled so that it didn't resemble the original complaint.” (complainer) and “I feel the complaint was handled professionally but I also feel more can be done to screen out the few complaints that are clearly vexatious or ill-conceived and without merit”. (practitioner)

We receive regular feedback from complainers and practitioners about the preliminary steps we take when we receive a complaint. We have been considering updates to this approach and impending reform and the outcome of a court case this year has led to us testing a new approach to streamline the preliminary steps of our process which will help to address these concerns.

• “In my case the complainer was not even a client, but a third party. Extra consideration should be given to such complaints being driven by disappointment or anger at the outcome, rather than any actual conduct by the solicitor involved.” (practitioner)

We regularly receive feedback from practitioners about how difficult non-client or third-party complaints are to deal with. While non-client complaints are allowed under our system, we do carefully consider whether the complaint raises a concern about the practitioner’s conduct or whether the complainer has been directly affected by the practitioner’s service. It’s an issue we continue to monitor closely as we look towards implementing the changes in the 2025 Act.

• “The whole process appears weighted more towards the solicitor and their opinion rather than viewing how this has affected the person who complained and addressing my concerns. The process does not appear to be impartial and independent and looks to me more like a boys club to protect the interests of its members rather than review and deal with the issues raised by the public.” (complainer) and “This whole system is weighted against solicitors and gives clients (and even third parties we've had nothing to do with) a "free hit". The whole system isn't fit for purpose and should be overhauled entirely.” (practitioner)

Every year we receive comments from both consumer and lawyers who perceive the system as biased against them. We take bias seriously. We provide mandatory unconscious bias training for our complaints staff. We also have a robust quality assurance process in place where cases can be reviewed by peers or managers to identify any potential bias or issues needing addressed. This year we also started scoping work to address perceptions of bias, drawing on learning from other complaints bodies and regulators.

Some new issues came up which we tackled within the year.

• “I find it stressful that everything has to be done online. I cannot talk to anyone human and I do not have the know-how to upload documents.” (complainer)

We received a small number of concerns about our accessibility for those unable or less confident using our website or online forms. While we do already offer offline alternatives across our service, we made sure that option was clearly visible in our communications and signposted people to our enquiries line for help as required. We ran a staff discussion session on accessibility and reshared our guidance. We also continue to make alternative channels and adjustments available to anyone who needs them. 

• “The only issue I have is the SLCC having the power to impose a levy. This means that the SLCC has a financial interest in the outcome of a complaint and because of that, though it may wish to act impartially, any finding in favour of a complainer is tainted by the possibility of bias, particularly in marginal cases.” (practitioner)

We regularly receive feedback from practitioners about the complaints levy they pay when a complaint is upheld and the feeling that “there is nothing to deter the complainer from taking the matter further even though they are acting unreasonably” (practitioner). However, we were concerned to see some comments from practitioners which suggest confusion about our funding arrangements so we will be updating our communications about our funding to help address this misunderstanding. 

In addition, we have identified a number of issues we will consider taking forward in the coming year.

Finally, there are some issues which are simply a matter of the current law. Much of that feedback over recent years – for example where we can offer swifter resolution and how people can appeal our decisions – has fed into our proposals for legislative reform and we’re looking forward to being able to implement them soon.