I agree with the view of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. If I follow the argument correctly, the premise for the making of an award of costs against a complainant would be that the ombudsman had formed an opinion, under either subsections (1) or (2), that the complainant had acted improperly or unreasonably in relation to the complaint, or had been responsible for an unreasonable delay. That is culpable conduct.
There is a provision in the financial services legislation in more or less the same terms, although I am not aware of any case in which an award has been made. However, it is a residual power intended to deal with the sort of complainants I referred to when speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the previous occasion. I said that there was such a thing as an unreasonable complainant. I do not view this as an unreasonable provision. It need not act as a deterrent to any complainant who comes forward with a case because if they take advice, they will be told, as I have said, ““You will not get an order made against you unless you have behaved in this unreasonable manner. So you need have no fear””.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Neill of Bladen
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 February 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1112 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:08:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378876
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378876
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378876