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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll