I support both amendments, although I would like to up the figure to £100,000. The important point that has been made is that there must be some rationale for it. Certainly, there has been discussion on linking the maximum award to that which is awarded by the financial ombudsman scheme. As I understand it, that figure was agreed by the bodies prior to merger and was apparently arrived at because it was based on the price of an average house. If that were to be translated and used as a rationale in this case, the figure would be a great deal higher than the maximum amount currently under discussion. From the record of the financial ombudsman’s awards, the other important point is that it is rare for anything above a few hundred to be awarded—the maximum is awarded extremely rarely. So perhaps that should be taken into account as well.
I think that an unrealistically low limit would deter a would-be complainant who might have an excellent case but who, frankly, would be unwilling to pursue it because the recompense would be too low, possibly too low even to cover the time and cost of registering and pursuing a complaint. Finally, I believe that the Bill should give the OLC sufficient powers to ensure the implementation of any awards that are eventually agreed on.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness D'Souza
(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 c1129-30 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:09:19 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378917
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378917
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378917