Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 133A: 133A: Clause 134, page 69, line 14, at end insert— ““( ) In considering what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the Ombudsman shall take into account the relevant law (including levels of damages awarded by courts in similar circumstances) and relevant codes of practice, professional rules, standards and guidance.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give some guidance to the OLC as to the approach to be taken in determining what is fair and reasonable for the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction under the Bill. The amendment is inspired by, and indeed reflects, a very similar Scottish provision passed at the end of last year in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, which established a new complaints system for Scotland. The Legal Services Bill will change the basis for the jurisdiction for consumer complaint schemes. The main consumer complaint schemes currently operate on a jurisdiction relating to inadequate professional services. They will be replaced by a power for the OLC to decide matters on the back of what it considers fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The proposal contained in the Bill accords with the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is generally considered to be a successful consumer redress scheme. Furthermore, we entirely accept that there have, on some occasions, been difficulties in determining the appropriate scope of ““inadequate professional service””. For example, it was once thought that inadequate professional service did not cover situations in which clients suffered as a result of a breach of conduct rule by the practitioner, or where a remedy for negligence existed. So we support the change overall, but none the less propose that it would be desirable to include some statutory guidance as to exactly what is meant in the Bill by ““fair and reasonable””. The amendment would make it clear to the ombudsman exactly what should be taken into account, by referring him to the law and professional rules that bind authorised persons and to the level of damages awarded by courts in similar circumstances. We therefore believe that this amendment would articulate the Government’s intentions more clearly. I beg to move.