Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee 28 January 2025
Paul O’Kane’s amendments in the group would place back in statute a requirement for the SLCC to determine whether a complaint was
“frivolous, vexatious or without merit”
before it could investigate a complaint. Placing in statute the eligibility process can make the process more time consuming for both the complainer and the legal practitioner, and it can have the effect of delaying a clearly serious complaint from being investigated swiftly, as the SLCC must proceed through the initial statutory stages or tests of assessing the complaint before an investigation can commence.
All that takes place simply to assess whether a case can be accepted by the SLCC as a complaint to be looked at—something that, in many complaints bodies, is a low-level administrative decision. As a comparison, in England and Wales, under the Legal Services Act 2007, the legal ombudsman is simply required, in relation to a complaint, to determine
“in the opinion of the ombudsman making the determination”
what is
“fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.”
The bill retains categorisation of conduct and service complaints, as that determines who will investigate the matter. The bill will also allow the SLCC to consider whether a complaint is not eligible, according to rules that it sets, or has been made prematurely, and it will provide greater flexibility to the SLCC to make rules about complaints that are considered to be frivolous, vexatious or without merit. That approach is supported by the SLCC, and it will allow for a more proportionate and swifter consideration of legal complaints, including whether they are frivolous, vexatious or without merit. Ensuring that eligibility decisions involve a quick sift is essential in providing a prompt resolution that benefits both consumers and practitioners.
Amendment 316, in my name, is a consequential amendment in the light of other changes being made to the bill. It removes section 4(4)(b) of the 2007 act as a consequence of the removal of section 2(4) of that act, which prescribes the preliminary steps to be taken by the SLCC in making an eligibility decision.
The improvements that are proposed in the bill and in my amendments would allow the SLCC to operate a flexible and agile complaints process that allowed a proportionate approach to be taken to different types of complaint.