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:

• “The investigator explained in plain language what they would do and when they would do it by.” (consumer)
• “I really cannot think of anything, the process was utterly painless, everything was explained in clear terms and with time lines. The advice and support was incredible, very knowledgeable but understanding and impartial throughout. In this day and age it is rare that a complaint process is a clear and simple process, the SLCC made the whole thing virtually stress free. I felt I was in safe and confident hands throughout. Thank you.” (consumer)
• "The service was efficient which is very important to the complainer and the practitioner. The complaint was handled swiftly and diligently. From my dealings with the SLCC I do not have anything to submit regarding improvement of their service.” (practitioner)
• “Highly impressed with the service despite the stressful circumstances. I think the SLCC were fair and impartial with good attention to detail and a good grasp and identifying and considering the issues with a well reasoned and fair response.” (practitioner)

We also receive a lot of comments on what we could do better. Some of these are repeated each year, but are often issues where we agree it’s important we strive every year to make improvements. For example:

• You said: “Improve the speed with which complaints are handled”. Both consumers and practitioners raised the issue of timescales. This year we increased headcount to deal with a greater volumes of complaints, we delivered a project to review how we manage time extensions offered to parties where they ask for additional time to respond, we piloted a fast-track approach for certain complaints relating to the failure of a particular firm, and we worked with Scottish Government on reform to our legislation to address structural barriers to more efficient complaint handling.
• You said: “Explain the process from start to finish at the beginning of the discussions.” This year we concluded a four-year project looking at the clarity of our communications and when and how we share information with parties. We reviewed the information on our website and in the emails and letters we send and all our staff attended training. Our Service Experience Team also focuses on where we could improve our customer service, including providing information on the complaints process at appropriate points to aid understanding.
• You said: “SLCC appears to be strongly biased in favour of legal firms” (from a consumer) and “There is still an impression given that there is strong bias in favour of the complainer” (from a solicitor). 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.

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

• You said: “The time for the insurers to respond had to be extended and payment was delayed. Whilst this isn't in the control of SLCC it added further anxiety for us and extra work for SLCC.” Concerns were raised at delays in payment of awards by the Master Policy professional indemnity insurers. We were also deeply concerned at these delays, and we worked with the Law Society, the brokers and the insurers to tackle this issue, committing significant time and resource to try to ensure complainers received the compensation they were entitled to as swiftly as possible.
• You said: “My complaint was regarding a firm of solicitors based in Scotland. The SLCC explained that they were unable to investigate further because the trust was set up under English law”. A number of consumers raised concerns relating to jurisdiction issues this year. We worked with the Legal Ombudsman and Solicitors’ Regulation Authority in England and Wales to ensure we were all able to advise and support people to make their complaint and have it considered in the correct jurisdiction.
• You said: “I was told that whilst the LSS was investigating their matters a concurrent investigation would be done by SLCC over their matters. This did not seem to take place as SLCC awaited a response from LSS before they investigated. This meant the process was longer than it should have been.” We have been working with the Law Society to transition to simultaneous investigations to reduce the time it takes to investigate complaints with both service and conduct issues. This is now fully rolled out for all cases.

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. For example, how people can appeal our decisions, how we are funded and the proportionality of the current eligibility process. However, we have been proactive in suggesting alternatives as part of the reform debate.