Hayhoe: Standardisation call
It is “an indictment” on all the legal regulators that “nothing substantial” has been done to tackle the problem of “complex and difficult to read” client-care letters (CCLs), the chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has said.
Tom Hayhoe also claimed it was “not satisfactory” that frontline regulators have not standardised how complaints information is provided to clients.
Mr Hayhoe said that, back in 2016, independent research showed how most of the CCLs studied were complex and difficult to read, with dense bodies of text, unfamiliar terms, and heavily caveated language.
He went on: “It is an indictment on all the regulators that nothing substantial was done to address the findings of this research, which was jointly commissioned by all the regulators and the Consumer Panel.”
Responding to a consultation on the Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO) 2025/26 draft business plan, Mr Hayhoe said that in general the LSCP supported the plan and noted that the growing demand for LeO’s services was “exacerbated” by legal services providers’ inadequacies in handling first-tier complaints.
Complaints information provided to clients should be standardised, meaning “all consumers across all the regulated communities [would] receive the same information, in the same format and with the same words”.
Mr Hayhoe said: “We have consistently said that allowing each provider to design their own form or words and/or template is not effective.
“Despite the evidence available, frontline regulators have not moved towards collective standardisation or even standardisation within their respective regulated communities. This is not satisfactory.”
LeO was now offering “to help devise a set of templates, forms of words and anything else within its expertise” to achieve the goal of standardisation.
“The offer from LeO now needs the full support and backing of front-line regulators and a stronger prescription by the LSB [Legal Services Board].
“Regulators must tackle this worsening situation. Consumer focused and responsive regulation demands that deficiencies such as this, spanning many years, are met with appropriate regulatory intervention.”
On the publication of LeO’s decisions, which the LSCP wants to be published in full, Mr Hayhoe said there was “an undertone of reluctance” in the draft plan that did not match the “positive oral messaging” from LeO.
Given that the issue had “been on the table for close to 10 years” and that the Office for Legal Complaints – the body the oversees LeO – has consulted on it previously, Mr Hayhoe said the panel expected LeO to “outline a more insightful, considered and convincing path to achieving this goal, drawing on learnings and approaches from elsewhere”.
Mr Hayhoe said the panel was “disappointed that one or two regulators have queried the importance of fuller transparency in this area”. Those regulators have argued that thematic reviews or periodic insights would give them better insights and intelligence.
“We strongly disagree with this position and emphasise that it need not be one or the other. Comparable ombudsmen do both; they share thematic insights and publish ombudsman decisions in full.”
Mr Hayhoe said the panel did not support redaction of certain information in published decisions, one of the suggestions in the consultation, because it would be “meaningless to consumers and their representatives”.
To get moving on publication, the LSCP was “open to the possibility of publishing summaries of Legal Ombudsman decisions within 18 months, if in turn the ombudsman commits to full publication a year after it begins publishing the summary of decisions”.
Leave a Comment