header-logo header-logo

08 November 2021
Issue: 7956 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession
printer mail-detail

Approval given to practice fee rise for firms that generate the most LeO complaints

Conveyancing firms that generate the most complaints will pay the highest practice fees, under radical Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) plans
The Legal Services Board has approved the CLC changes, which will see 30% of the £686,511 the CLC will pay in 2021/22 for the Legal Services Ombudsman’s (LeO’s) services levied on 83 firms on the basis of usage.

Previously, CLC-regulated firms paid the LeO levy through their practice fees, which are calculated according to turnover. Under the CLC’s changes―the first of their kind in the legal sector―the LeO levy will be separated from the practice fee, reducing the practice fee by an average of 23%.

More than 60% of CLC practices do not generate any referrals to LeO.

For the first year, all firms will share 70% of the LeO costs while the remaining 30% will be allocated according to average number of complaints generated in the past three years.

This means 51 practices (23%) will pay more. Of these, two practices will pay an extra £16,000 and £12,000 respectively, 16 firms will pay between £5,168 and £1,044 more, and 33 practices will pay between £821 and £25 more.

The changes will be phased in over four years, starting at 30% of LeO costs being divided according to usage and rising to 80% of LeO costs.

CLC chief executive Sheila Kumar said: ‘Despite the CLC reducing its own operating costs in a sustainable and steady way over the past five years, the LeO’s costs – which are beyond our control – have grown, and continue to grow, very substantially.

‘Introducing a usage fee is fairer, builds in better proportionality into meeting LeO costs and will encourage improvements in complaints handling. We will monitor the impact of the new approach on complaints handling.’

Issue: 7956 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll