Welcome to this Justice Committee meeting on a Wednesday morning for a pre-appointment hearing. This is for the members of the Committee to consider the appointment of a new chair of the Office for Legal Complaints, which is an appointment by the Legal Services Board. After the preferred candidate has introduced himself, there will be a series of questions from the Committee. First, the Committee members need to give their declarations of interest.

Good morning. I am Linsey Farnsworth, Member of Parliament for Amber Valley. I was a Crown prosecutor before entering Parliament. My declaration is on the register, but it is relevant for today that I am the co-chair of the APPG on legal and constitutional affairs and a member of the APPG on access to justice.

I am Andy Slaughter, the MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, and I am a non-practising barrister. I am a patron of two charities that are justice-related, the Hammersmith and Fulham Law Centre and the Upper Room for ex-offenders, and I am a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

I am Vikki Slade, Member of Parliament for Mid Dorset and North Poole. My interests are as per the register; none are related to this Committee.

Good morning, Richard. My name is Tessa Munt. I am the Member of Parliament for Wells and Mendip Hills, which is in Somerset. Everything is on the register, but I will accentuate the fact that I am a director and the vice chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a not-for-profit organisation, and I am also the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on penal affairs.

Welcome, Mr Blakeway. I have a few general procedural questions. Could you introduce yourself and explain what led you to apply for this role?

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role with the Committee. In terms of my background, before I come to my motivation to apply, as you are aware, I am currently the Housing Ombudsman, which is a different public appointment. I have been doing that role for almost seven years now, and I was appointed after the devastating events at Grenfell Tower. One of the things I did shortly after I was appointed to my current role was to meet with survivors and bereaved families from that disaster. Hearing about the injustice that they had experienced had a profound impact on me, as it would on anyone. Three years later, I was at a coroner’s inquest into the death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale; before giving evidence at that inquest, I listened to his parents and heard about their experiences of being dismissed and ignored through a complaints process. Putting those things together, they have been catalysts for significant change at the Housing Ombudsman: new statutory powers, a new scheme and a new operating model. That experience is part of my motivation for wanting to chair the Office for Legal Complaints, given the role of the Legal Ombudsman and, from what I can see, some real system pressures within the legal sector. I have other experience that is relevant. I was chair of the Ombudsman Association for three years, and I am a member of the Administrative Justice Council. Prior to those roles, I worked in housing regeneration and public policy, and I was also an election observer in Ukraine and Somaliland with the OECD. Anyone who applies for a role needs to think about what contribution they can make and what difference they can make. When I applied for this one, I was really clear from the start that there are three areas I really wanted to focus on: access to justice, which I know is something the Committee cares about; systemic change, with complaints being not just individual transactions, but tools for learning and change as well; and transformation in the performance of the ombudsman service. That was very clear in my mind then, and that is my motivation for doing this role.

Thank you very much. Remind us how much of your working week you expect the role to take up, and whether you have plans to continue or to take on any other professional or voluntary commitments.

The role is a minimum of 60 days a year. I do not envisage that it would be 60 days; I think it would be more than that—I would want it to be more than that. But, even if it was twice that, it would still be less than a working week, so I would envisage doing things that are compatible and appropriate alongside it. I am a trustee of the British Library, for example.

I think the British Library was in your application. Is there nothing else at the moment?

No.

When do your current responsibilities as Housing Ombudsman end?

I complete my second term as the ombudsman on 31 July, so there is potentially a period of overlap, given that it is envisaged that I would be appointed, dependent on this part of the process, on 1 April. I have had a conversation with the Legal Services Board and the Housing Ombudsman Service, and it is considered that it is compatible to do the two roles alongside each other for the 16-week period. There is actually some precedent for people being involved with two ombudsman services—although this is the Office for Legal Complaints.

You filled in a questionnaire about your previous positions, in which you noted: “I have been appointed to positions by the Prime Minister, Ministers, and the Mayor of London, but these have been subject to political restrictions.” Could you explain what those restrictions were?

Yes, absolutely. Obviously, my current role is an appointment made by the Secretary of State, and it is a politically restricted role. I worked at the Greater London Authority. I was one of the appointments that the Mayor of London can make under section 67, I think, of the Greater London Authority Act. That has political restrictions: you cannot be a candidate or speak in a public forum on behalf of a political party. Those are the kinds of restrictions that applied to that role.

When did you last have any political activities yourself—either membership or responsibility, specifically within a political role?

I completed the questionnaire. In the last five years, as you know, I have had no political activities. Looking further back, I would say that my involvement has always been pretty limited politically. I think I was last a member of a political party about 10 years ago. I am not currently a member of a political party, and I do not envisage being one either.

Lots of people are members of political parties. Have you ever been active in a political party or in political roles?

Yes—a very, very long time ago. I was active in student politics when I was at university in the late 1990s, but I have not been an agent, a councillor or anything like that.

I don’t want to be at all rude, but I am not sure chair of the Office for Legal Complaints is a job that many people would have heard of—certainly in the general public. I just wonder whether you might be able to explain what the role involves and how it relates to the Legal Ombudsman, please?

Of course. I don’t think that is a rude question. You are right that it is not a household name, but it does an incredibly important role, which probably affects people’s lives without them realising. The Office for Legal Complains is obviously part of the architecture that exists around legal services. It was established as part of the Legal Services Act back in 2007. I see it as having a dual role. Its primary role, which most people will look at it doing, is to provide the governance for the Legal Ombudsman service—it is a scheme administrator, or it commissions the scheme. The Legal Ombudsman can resolve any disputes that come to it involving a regulated provider. Therefore, the office will establish the scheme, and if there are any scheme changes to be made, it can do that through a process. It will set the budget, monitor performance and do all the good governance that you would expect it to do around audit, risk, financial controls and so on. Crucially, it also appoints the chief ombudsman. I said that it has a dual role, though. The other part of it, which is perhaps less focused on, but is so important, is that as part of the complex architecture of bodies established by the Legal Services Act, it has to ensure that it makes its contribution to the regulatory objectives set out in that Act. They are really important; they relate to the rule of law, public access to legal services and professionalism in legal services. There is so much that an ombudsman service can do to provide insight that can contribute to the better performance of a system, and there is so much it can do to contribute to the insight that regulators need—the data and information. I think the Office for Legal Complaints has a really important role also in ensuring that there is a framework for providing that information to the system for regulators, others and, indeed, the services themselves to perform and improve.

You have referred to some of your expertise and experience in that area. Is there anything you would like to highlight in particular?

As the current Housing Ombudsman, we have been part of a significant change to the regulatory landscape in relation to social housing following Grenfell Tower. I think that is the most immediate and relevant example. Our powers were changed as part of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, which was passed in 2023. That saw our role change in isolation, so we had new powers—for example, powers to establish a statutory local complaint handling process and code of practice, and to undertake systemic investigations—and a memorandum of understanding with the Regulator of Social Housing. Alongside that, we also have a separate relationship with the Building Safety Regulator. That required working very closely with those regulatory bodies and working closely with officials, parliamentarians and others as part of that changing regulatory settlement. I have good, very immediate experience of working with regulators, and more extensive experience if you go back of working with several stakeholders—sometimes stakeholders where there is tension, because they have different things that they want to do; it is not necessarily universal. My period working at the GLA involved working with a whole range of different bodies, including regulators.

I wondered about your experience of the legal services sector generally and the regulatory environment in which they operate.

As you will know, there are eight regulators under the Legal Services Act. Some of those bodies are ones that I have had a relationship with already as part of my current role. Three bodies that I have done work with over the last few years are the Ministry of Justice, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I have had some contact with the Law Society. Those are very important bodies in terms of the work of the Legal Ombudsman; the majority of the casework that the Legal Ombudsman handles would be solicitor-based, for instance. I have some relationships there already. There will be other bodies and regulators that I have not had a relationship with previously, and I look forward to establishing one; I have good experience of doing that.

What do you think will be the most difficult bit of your job? What is the most challenging thing?

That is a really good question. There are many challenges, but in terms of the system, I think one of the big challenges is changing perceptions. I think there is quite a lot of tension. There is sometimes what I describe as slightly unhealthy commentary around things, which no one wants. There is something about changing that relationship. That involves listening to those bodies and their concerns. A lot of it has come down to the focus on the performance of the Legal Ombudsman. From what I can see, the Legal Ombudsman has probably performed better than it is sometimes given credit for, and a lot of hard work and dedication has gone into that by the people there, but it has not performed as well as it needs to, and it knows that. It has cost more, and that creates tension. I also think there needs to be a bit of self-reflection out there. One thing that has really struck me through this process is that in 28% of the cases that the Legal Ombudsman receives, the complainant says they never got a final response from the legal provider. That is not an experience I would have in social housing. For all the challenges in social housing, which you will be very aware of, that does not happen. I would have thought that less than 1% of the cases that we see do not receive a final response. That suggests that there are cultural and behavioural issues. It also suggests that if you are not seeing that happen on the handling, you are not going to elevate complaints to make them tools for learning, not just transactions. I think a bit of reflection is also needed in the system, on what is the role and purpose of complaints and how we ensure that the ombudsman is not a surrogate for effective local complaint handling.

The chief ombudsman has been in role for a month, I think. How do you think your role differs from that of the chief ombudsman, and how might you work together?

I have had the benefit of meeting the chief ombudsman already, and hopefully, subject to the outcome of the process, I really look forward to working with them. In an ideal world, you would not have a new chair and a new chief ombudsman at the same time, but that is the way it has happened. It is also an opportunity for fresh perspectives. The roles are really clear and different. The first thing, and the clearest thing, and one of the things that I did say to the chief ombudsman when I met them, is that I am not the ombudsman—I am really clear about that. I am aware of perceptions that I am coming into this role potentially as a current ombudsman, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not. The decisions are matters for the chief ombudsman and his team, and it is really important that neither the chair nor the board get involved in that work. Clearly, our work is to do what a good board would do, which is to provide test and challenge, and strategic direction, and have a focus on culture, and the people within the organisation, and making sure that there is the right support. That is our work internally: providing the absolutely proper oversight and making sure that we are doing things in the way that should be happening, while managing public money—the FReM and so on. There is then the external environment, and I think there is a touch point there, because there is an expectation on the chair that there is engagement in the system. Obviously, there are formal relationships, which are set out in lots of memorandums and tripartite agreements with the Ministry of Justice and the LSB. Those are really important relationships—and there will be with the wider regulators. Those are relationships that I think the chair has to have a critical role on, as envisaged, but there is a much wider stakeholder piece. I would really hope that, alongside me and independently, the chief ombudsman has the bandwidth to be active there as well.

I have a last question—one of my favourites, actually. The role is described as being home-based but it requires significant attendance at the Legal Ombudsman’s office in Birmingham. Have you thought about how many days a week you might attend in Birmingham? Will you go there every week, or in blocks of time? Have you thought about how that might work in practice?

I have very clear principles. I cannot give you a quota of days because I need to understand more about how the rhythms and the meetings work. Other than that, I think that board meetings should be in person. The current Chair—I really like this—established a practice that when there is a board meeting, during the lunch break all staff are invited to have lunch with the board. That is such a good thing to have established; Elizabeth has done a really smart thing there. I would like to be visible. I would like to be present. I would like to be visible and present not only in Birmingham but in Leeds and Cardiff, where the hubs are. In addition to the board meetings being in person and rotating between those locations, I would like to spend as much time as possible in person in those places. I know the chief ombudsman lives near the Leeds office and is very present there. I would like to do the same for the majority of the time. It is certainly an in-person commitment, but I need to work through what proportion.

May I ask a very personal question? How long would it take you to travel to Birmingham from wherever it is you are based?

I am based in London, so we are looking at roughly 90 minutes or a couple of hours.

Thank you very much.

You have already talked to some degree about tensions and your relationships with some of the regulatory bodies. You have been really clear about the importance of stakeholder engagement, but can you share more about the “how”? How do you plan on engaging specifically with the legal sector, which has this tension, and the regulators you do not already have a relationship with?

There are different touchpoints. This is something that I need to understand and get into in more detail, but some are led by the Legal Ombudsman itself. Some are led by the Office or the chair. One of the things which I am aware the Legal Ombudsman has done is establish a regulatory forum, and it did that relatively recently—possibly in this financial year or the previous one—as a way of convening the regulators together as a group and engaging them. That is good. As chair, I would like to understand how that works, what you get from that, and then if there are any gaps. As someone coming new into the role, I would want to reach out to all those bodies. I am sure I will be able to meet the leadership of those bodies and understand what their relationship has been like and how to develop it further. I also want to understand the nuances between them, because there will be nuances. There is something that I would really like to talk to the board about that goes beyond the individual relationships and personal contact, some of which will be formal and some more informal. I would really like to understand what the information is that we are providing to the system and to them. There is the individual casework, and the budget, which will be a large focus of the conversation, I am sure. However, there is this thing about the information being provided to the system. There is the example of SSB, which you will be aware of. There have been shocks in the legal system with Axiom and SSB. You will have seen the report that the LSB published last week in relation to the SRA. Clearly there were complaints. Those complaints came over to the Legal Ombudsman, but they also indicated issues. Adopting the principle that complaints can provide insight and be an early warning indicator—that they might be the kind of canary in the coal mine, which is all the stuff that we have sought to do at the Housing Ombudsman—I would really like to understand how we develop the framework for information sharing within that system. I would like to have that conversation with the board and the Legal Ombudsman, but also with those regulators and other bodies to understand what the insight and intelligence we can provide is. I would really like to see a step change in what we do. The Legal Ombudsman is doing some really great stuff at the moment. I have read it and seen it. Some of it is really innovative and high quality, but there is so much more that could be achieved.

Can I touch on something you said earlier about social housing complaints? They have an outcome, and then they come to the ombudsman, whereas you were saying that, in this area, a lot of the cases do not have a final outcome. What do you think the relationship is between the complainant and the sector? How is that different in the legal sector as against the housing sector? As a non-lawyer, I think there is a deference to the legal sector that you probably do not have with the housing sector. You talked about the stakeholders on the supply side, but what about the other side of the stakeholders—the consumer, the litigant who has been failed? How do you see your relationship in helping to improve the system by engaging with that set of stakeholders?

I agree that there is a difference, although there may be more commonality than at first it appears. I talked about the difference in relation to the 28%. It was not always the case in social housing. Certainly, predating our code of practice you would have seen some of those same behaviours, with people not getting responses, complaints not being registered and all of that. Some of that will still go on now, but far less. There is far more discipline. In social housing, one of the big challenges is the imbalance of power. However poor the service, and whatever the outcome of the complaint, you are probably still going to live with the same landlord. That was an inhibitor on people raising complaints, because they did not want to be seen as troublemakers, were worried about being evicted and so on. I think that deference, as you refer to it, existed in social housing. You are seeing behaviour change starting in legal services, where obviously you have more choice. But some people have more choice than other people, and there are some big challenges around unregulated bodies, given that legal advice is not a reserved matter. There are some real issues there. One of the indicators you could look at, and which the LSB publishes on, is what are described as silent sufferers. Go back a few years—2020, I think—and 36% of people who felt that their case was not handled well by the legal service would not make a complaint. Now it is about 26%. You are starting to see people feeling more empowered and pushing a bit more. Legal services need to respond to that and think differently about it. The gap and really big difference that exists at the moment is the discipline, structure and framework around local complaint handling. The Legal Ombudsman has produced a model complaint procedure, which is really good. Back to your question about conversations with the regulatory bodies and the representative bodies, there is something about how we go much further on that and get it really embedded into practices. A pilot is planned at the moment, but we need to see a real step change there. That is definitely what I have seen happen social housing; complaints were sometimes seen as a bit of a sideshow and there was a reluctance to invest in them—it takes money.

A bit of a tick-box.

Yes, exactly. That mindset has shifted overall, but we need to see the same happening in legal services.

You mentioned that the budget is going to take up a fair amount of time. Do you think it is likely to be approved? If you are not sure it is going to be approved, how are you likely to be able to respond to that? What is plan B?

Where are we at the moment? The budget itself is being led by the current chair and the board. The stage they are at is that they have a budget proposal, which is going to be considered by the Legal Services Board later this month, and then it is into MOJ. We are now at the very late stage of the budget. If it is not approved, there are clearly implications for the ability of the Legal Ombudsman to handle casework in a timely and effective way, because it has experienced a 30% increase in complaint volumes. The reality is that you need investment to be able to manage that, but the organisation also needs to go through a transformation. It has done lots of really positive work, but I would describe it as evolutionary compared to the transformative work that needs to happen. One thing that it is really important that stakeholders and representatives see about the role of the OLC is that proposing a budget means that the scheme can be fulfilled and delivered, but it is also there to ensure value for money. It is there to make sure that performance is happening. It is part of the assurance process, if you like, for the system that this is working, and that this is money that has been invested sensibly and well, and is needed. It is important to look at it both ways; there is both proposing the budget and ensuring that value is being delivered. The consequence if it does not happen? That is a really important thing to consider on the risk register for the organisation: what are the implications of certain things not happening? The most immediate thing is that you would end up with a backlog that is not being tackled and that would lead to a further breakdown in trust.

Given that you are coming in at the end of a process and you have been really clear about your priorities being access to justice, systemic change and transformative performance, if that is at risk, how do you see your ability to be able to achieve your outcomes? A 12.1% increase in what they are paying is quite a lot of money in a difficult financial climate for the members to accept. Do you think that your ambition is in someone else’s hands, because you are not the one who is able to secure that budget? Presumably, that will happen before you make the transition across, or will you be able to personally influence it at this stage in the process?

It will have been considered by the LSB before 1 April. While there is still a role for the MOJ, you are in a place where that budget is very close to being finalised. I accept absolutely the position that we are in. Were it not approved, there would clearly be an impact, in terms of what could happen around transformation, particularly the potential for digital and AI, which I know is a very strong part of the transformation programme that the Legal Ombudsman needs to go through. That would be the immediate risk there. There would then have to be some difficult choices around the casework. One area that I am very keen to look at and explore with the chief ombudsman, and I am keen for the board to look at it too, is what happens around in-depth investigations, which is obviously where the cost will be. From what I can see, about 51% of cases are going into in-depth, full investigations. Part of the reason for that is because of the complainant not receiving a final response. Part of it is that, but there will also be issues around complexity, or customer vulnerability. I think a lot of focus has quite rightly gone on, if you like, the front end—how can there be earlier resolution? You have really seen a change there in the performance of Legal Ombudsman. This year, I understand that it is averaging 63 days to complete a case through its early resolution. That is really good. The challenge is the in-depth investigations, which is the other side of the coin. However, it is also the in-depth that is going to have some of the gnarliest issues. It obviously has some of the most challenging issues, but also some of the richest learning comes from it. That is where I would like a real focus. But without more budget, you will not get the focus there.

That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

Yes—and I am aware of the Committee’s inquiry. I watched some of the evidence sessions that you had, I read some of the written submissions and I look forward to seeing the report. The Committee is doing a really timely inquiry. You asked about my assessment; I have a couple of thoughts. The first one, which has been highlighted in some of the evidence, including by the Legal Services Consumer Panel, is that this is not just around unmet need, but also unregulated bodies and the jurisdictional gaps in the redress system there, which are a real and valid concern. There is then the question of what the experience is of people who do have access to redress. I have highlighted that there needs to be a step change in the effectiveness of local complaint handling, and there is very clear evidence around that. That needs to be a focus for the system. There is also the question of how all the different bodies work together. I have actually thought about this a lot. I went back and looked at the origins of the Legal Services Act—I hope that this is not going too broad from your question. There was the review by Clementi, for example, which led to the White Paper and then the Act. I was struck by the consolidation of redress that happened in the Legal Ombudsman, and then the creation of the other bodies. It is about how that Legal Ombudsman and the Office for Legal Complaints work with those other bodies. That is why I come back to the idea that the insight that the ombudsman produces is part of the insight that the office can provide to the system, as part of meeting its regulatory obligations. We are only just at the start of what could be drawn out from that. That is so important for building trust in legal services, because trust can be fragile in legal services.

Yes, absolutely. Clearly the ombudsman needs to go through a transformation to handle a rising volume of casework, but it is absolutely right to focus on what the causes of those complaints are. In a way, it is important to change the mindset around complaints to make sure that you have a positive complaint-handling culture that is not defensive or dismissive about complaints, and recognises that if something has gone wrong, it is an opportunity to put it right and to learn from it. You need to have that kind of non-defensive mindset. For the Legal Ombudsman, if more people are coming to that service, as they are, then that shows a level of trust and the difference it can make, as well as the fact that there is more insight that can then be provided to the system. That is positive as well. You have the 28%—hundreds of people reporting that they are not getting a final response—a 120% increase in casework since the pandemic and an average uphold rate of around 70%, which means a service failure of 70% from the investigation. Those are three really striking facts that need to be reflected on by the system. In terms of areas and causation, there are areas where we know there are higher volumes, such as residential conveyancing, wills and probate. There are areas from which more traffic comes to the ombudsman and consistent reasons for service failure, such as poor communication delays and failure to advise. Within some specific areas there will be issues around fees, costs and transparency. That is obviously a big thing in the system at the moment. I have been struck by looking at SSB. I recognise that I have fairly limited information at the moment, but there is a regulatory requirement around indemnity, after-the-event insurance and things like that. However, from what I understand, a number of the issues in the cases that are coming to the ombudsman are about that. That is a really good example not only because of what you can learn in relation to that provider but because of the lessons it provides more widely and provides for regulatory requirements. A really positive conversation could be had about what information could be provided as part of the transparency work that the ombudsman has already started, of which the Office has some oversight—for example, it has a committee that looks at public interest reports and approves those publications. How far can that go? What data can be captured and provided to address some of the recurring reasons for people having to escalate their cases to the Legal Ombudsman?

Based on my interpretation of what I know at the moment, which is largely what is in the public domain, some of the reasons for the increase in complaints will be societal. Most ombudsman services—certainly the Housing Ombudsman—would report a rising volume of casework. That reflects changes in consumer behaviour, digitisation, awareness of rights and a sense of empowerment. I think that there is a societal change around complaint handling and that people are more likely to complain. There will then be things that are more specific to legal services.

Yes, more aware and they do not want to be fobbed off. There will be things specific to legal services. I think that is part of changing perceptions of the way complaints can help. It is a changing and challenging environment for lots of legal providers, with moves towards law tech and more competition. Structural changes are happening within legal services. Some of that will mean that poor practice will result in more cases coming to the ombudsman. It is about providing information on what I would describe as thematic trends, and about targeted interventions in the areas where you see particular spikes, increases or outliers. The role of the ombudsman is to do both. The role of the OLC is to ensure that there is a framework, and the resources, in place to be able to do that, and that it is performing effectively in fulfilling that function.

You are right. Despite clear improvements, I understand that overall, the time taken on cases has reduced by about 22% this financial year. There is a clear trajectory of improvement, but it is not where it needs to be. Very clearly, the longer it takes to investigate, the more it not only impacts the individuals, but means that there is a delay in providing timely insight to the system and providers. In terms of what can be done, there are many things in train at the moment. In the next financial year, as part of the budget consultation, a lot of that involves putting in place things that have been thought through and worked through. For example, there was a lean exercise to make sure that processes were efficient. It is embedding some of the recommendations from that exercise, which I think are really positive. Some of it is about that process change. The second area, which is potentially more in the transformative space, is looking at the potential for artificial intelligence and digitisation within the ombudsman. Many ombudsman services are looking at that—we are looking at it at the Housing Ombudsman, and I have had conversations with the Financial Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. There is a lot of interest there. That could really help. People are vital—and individual caseworkers are vital—but it is about empowering and supporting them and unlocking their potential. The third area—where I do not know enough at the moment, but hopefully I can explore it—is what happens around in-depth investigations. I know that there has been an improvement there. I believe that this financial year there has been a 10% increase in the number of in-depth investigations closed. That is good, but there needs to be a greater step change there. I want to understand what process improvements can be made specifically around in-depth investigations.

I worry about that. You are right; I think sickness is averaging about 12 days, which would be above the average that you would expect in the service. I think there is also attrition of about 11%, which again I would worry about. The first thing is about being really clear with the chief ombudsman that we need to make sure that colleagues are healthy and motivated and that there is a real focus on wellbeing. There is something about being really clear with the chief ombudsman around that. The role of the board is to get assurance around the people strategy. I do not know yet when that strategy was last looked at, but it is about understanding that people strategy and, if we are seeing new challenges—such as mental health—how it addresses those. Then it is about the reporting that will come through the people committee and to the main board around key indicators such as sickness, attrition and so on, and how we could see improvement there. From what I can see, there has been some improvement—attrition and sickness have reduced—but it is obviously not where it needs to be. It is having clarity with the chief ombudsman around this being a priority; it is the people strategy and stress testing that; and then it is regular reporting and seeing a clear trajectory of improvement.

I am conscious of time, but Linsey, did you want to come in?

I think it will be quick. I wanted to return to the increased demand and the increasing complaints. Conveyancing has been identified as a big area where that has increased. Are you aware of any work that has gone into looking at the reasoning behind that, and whether there is any correlation with the increased number of in-house conveyancers or conveyancers online, who use almost a tick-box system on the computer? Is there any correlation between the increased number of those services and the increased complaints?

Because it is a significant area of demand on the ombudsman service, I have looked at it a bit and I would encourage the ombudsman to look at what more it can do to provide insight to the sector. I think it has done some work over quite a long period of time. It did a report around stamp duty changes to try and get ahead of those changes; that report was aimed at being preventive and looked at what good practice could be adopted to prevent complaints. There was a report by a previous ombudsman on residential conveyancing—it is quite old now, but I read it and it is really good. At the moment, I believe residential conveyancing is about 36% of complaints, so that is an area for focus. What are the issues? From what I understand, the causes are hidden fees, delays and poor communication. I believe that about half of the complaints can be resolved through the early resolution route, which suggests that fairly straightforward steps could be taken at a local level to provide a satisfactory outcome for the complainant so that those cases do not escalate to the ombudsman. There are probably some quick wins that could be adopted. There are some insights that need to be explored further on how legal services are changing. For example, online legal services have changed beyond residential conveyancing, and customer behaviours are changing in terms of people using those. They may look cost-effective, but they could potentially result in delays or there are hidden costs. There is probably something there, which you are seeing in residential conveyancing, but is much broader than that, about the way in which legal services are evolving and what that means for the customer, and about the customer being clear about what the implications might be for them. That is work that the ombudsman needs to do to provide insight to the system. I think the job of the OLC is to make sure that there is a framework in place for that activity to happen, and then for that information to be provided to the right actors.

Do the complaints on conveyancing tend to be more about communication and fees, rather than whether the advice was correct or not? Or would that not come to you?

Failure to advise would certainly come, but that has not been flagged to me. This is an area where the chief ombudsman and his team are responsible for the decisions and will be able to establish what the insight is. I think that the job of the chair, the board and the OLC is to make sure that there is a framework in place for that to be shared in the system.

On the same topic of residential conveyancing, I wondered whether your experience as the Housing Ombudsman has given you some insight into why that is behind 36% of complaints?

It will be more limited than it would seem, because housing redress has kind of been salami sliced. From my time as the Ombudsman Association chair I know that, across many sectors, there can be fragmented routes to redress for people, and that is a real issue. It would typically be the ombudsmen that deal with agents—the Property Ombudsman service or the New Homes Ombudsman for some new build, that would probably see those issues more than the Housing Ombudsman. We will see some, though, and we probably see it in the space of, for example, shared ownership. From what I know of what the Legal Ombudsman has seen, I can definitely see parallels—hidden costs or delays in the process. Typically, what we would see at the Housing Ombudsman is someone saying, “My landlord was too slow providing the information to my solicitor, which meant that I incurred additional stamp duty or the sale fell through”. I probably see it from the side of the landlord’s actions rather than the solicitor’s, but yes, the delays in the system very much occur there as well.

Thank you for being so honest. The Legal Ombudsman has evidence that the development and use of generative AI in complaints is increasing their volume and level of detail. How might you respond to that?

That is absolutely right and I have seen that elsewhere. The Housing Ombudsman would say that we are potentially seeing the use of generative AI. There are two sides to this. On one hand, it can help people who might otherwise struggle to access the system because English is not their first language or because of low literacy or something like that, so it can be a positive. Unfortunately, sometimes we see bits of statute or other things incorporated into the complaint that are either not relevant or wrong. It is still relatively early in terms of adoption, so it will ease through the system, but right now, although people are accessing the system, what they are bringing might struggle to get through the system because it is misconceived. Some ombudsmen have started to provide advice to potential complainants to tell them, “Use it, but you need to check it”, “This is how to check it”, and so on. That is interesting. Maybe there is something in that.

While we are on the subject of AI, are you saying that you think it can be used to process complaints? Is that just in a summarising role, or in a decision-making role as well?

I think it could be both, potentially, but caution needs to be exercised. Were I appointed, I would really like to understand the Legal Ombudsman’s digital strategy and the adoption of AI. There is huge potential there, but eyes need to be open around it. If I could just build on your question, there is something about establishing an ethical framework around the use of AI—for example, transparency that you are using it. It is also perfectly possible for employees to use it themselves independently of the organisation as part of their job, so we need the right guardrails around that. Then there is how you use it in your process. What is more common, and what the Housing Ombudsman has done, is to use it to make the process more efficient rather than necessarily to draft or even make decisions. For example, file preparation, which is a key element of an ombudsman process, can be a real challenge. It takes twice as long for the Housing Ombudsman to prepare the case file as it does to investigate the case. Anything you can do with technology to make those processes more efficient is very positive. AI is really valuable in file preparation—sorting documents, and so on. I think it does have a role in drafting decisions, but then there is the question of your quality control and quality assurance around that. Some areas are more difficult—compensation, for example. Large language models can struggle with that at this stage. That is where it is about augmenting your processes rather than replacing your process or your people. If you can free up your people’s capacity to exercise judgments around the decisions and remedies, that is really important, but we are not at the stage where we are going to get a totally automated process and the machines issuing the decisions independently.

Another issue arises out of rising demand. The OLC is proposing a scheme transformation review, and we noted that the Legal Services Consumer Panel has said that the ombudsman needs radical reform. Is that what the role of the scheme transformation review is, and will it work?

I agree with the point about radical change, and the scheme transformation is a critical element of that, subject to the budget being approved for it to happen. At the moment, the information I have is largely the information that is available and in the public domain, so it is fairly limited. The next 12 months are really what I would describe as a discovery phase on what scheme transformation could achieve. Some elements within it, such as the fee regime and the levy, could help drive behaviour change at a local level, given some of the issues highlighted, and some of it is about changes within the ombudsman service itself and how it does things. In my mind, where I am at the moment, I would want to apply three tests on the success of it. When you ask, “Will it work?”, three tests for success would be: access, so whether it improves access; agility, so whether it allows the ombudsman to respond more rapidly to changes in demand; and automation, as we have just touched on.

I want to go back to the use of AI and automation. You have just talked about that within the service. In your questionnaire response, you also talked about the future operating model embedding automation, AI and modern digital tools. I wondered how you might go about bringing that operating model into use.

Bearing in mind that I have limited information on what the legal ombudsman has done yet, the first thing is that the digital strategy needs also to be a data strategy. One key challenge is to make sure that the data and the information that any applications might learn from, or base decisions on, is really robust and that there is data integrity. That is a really large part of it and a key enabler of any digital strategy. I think there is something about the OLC receiving assurance on data integrity and robustness to then enable that strategy. On the strategy, in terms of embedding it in an operating model, there are different routes to take. The first one is to understand what system—the casework management system, for example—the ombudsman is currently operating off. Is that the route you take and build off it? Some organisations would say that their digital strategy is a “Microsoft first” approach, and so they build off that. You can then make a series of discrete interventions, for example, on cloud-based systems, which are more straightforward to embed into an operating model. One of the big things for me, and this really speaks to the customer’s experience, is the channels for reaching an ombudsman. There will be a big push, I am sure, for digital first—digital by default. There are two things with that, one of which you will be very aware of, which is about asking, “What if you haven’t got access?” Every ombudsman service, and this one, would need to be really aware of happens with people. The other is for people changing channels, because some people will largely do things digitally, but then they will suddenly use a different channel, the phone, for a particular contact or transaction. They might think they will get a different or better outcome, or they have waited a long time, so now they are going to pick up the phone, because they are fed up with using the online system. The challenge can be that the systems are not necessarily integrated, so the operating model has not integrated those systems. That is where things start to fall between the cracks or customer service is impaired. So I think this is about channels and channel integration, and then system integration, as part of that operating model. It is still early for me to understand, but there is real potential there and it absolutely would change the operating model.

Do you have any good practice from your time as the Housing Ombudsman that you could bring to that process?

Yes, there is some. We are making our own digital and data changes, and we have changed some parts of our process that have been very digitally led. As I alluded to earlier, it is about getting the right process. Minimising the number of handovers, for example, is a key part of an ombudsman process; there can be too many handovers. So it is about sorting all of that and then seeing how it can be augmented by digital. For example, we have looked at how we triage our casework. Then we thought, “How can digital help us with file preparation?” The other area, briefly, relates to my time on the board of the British Library. You may be aware that it experienced quite an extensive cyber-attack, and it was obviously a very challenging time for it. As a board member there, there has been a lot of focus on cyber-security, as you would expect, and I have used some of that insight in my work at the Housing Ombudsman. Clearly, a risk that the OLC will need to consider is cyber-security as part of a more digital-based service. So I think that is relevant and hopefully helpful.

That is not an experience people want to receive, but it is probably useful going forward. I have one last question—I want to go back to the SSB Law Group, the current approach to legal services complaints handling and the Legal Ombudsman’s role within that. I know the Legal Services Consumer Panel has said that the complaints handling was “siloed” between different bodies, and it feels that smarter, integrated regulation would be useful. What are your reflections following the case of the SSB Law Group and the way that complaints are handled?

In the way that the Legal Services Act was set up, it made a clear distinction between redress and misconduct. I think that is right—so matters for the SRA are around misconduct, but redress clearly sits with the Legal Ombudsman. In the customer experience system, it is important that there is a “no wrong door” approach. There should not be a great onus on the individual to navigate their way through a system to go to the right place. Those actors should work together to ensure that the right information is in the right place, and that person is navigated in the right way rather than having to do it themselves. I mentioned the LSB’s report on SSB; clearly, it validates the fact that complaints are an early-warning indicator. The LSB has made clear its view that the complaints the SRA were receiving should have been a warning to the SRA rather than signposted to the Legal Ombudsman, but that is that decision. What is interesting for me is the fact that it clearly demonstrates that those complaints are an early warning. For me at the OLC—hopefully—I would want to know: are we collecting this data, sharing it, and are the other bodies we share it with using it? That is a role for the OLC to be proactive on. Within the individual cases that the Legal Ombudsman is investigating, there are really interesting observations coming through on after-the-event insurance and conditional fee arrangements. Those are worth sharing so that people can reflect: “How does the system work?” and “What does it mean for the customer?”

Mr Blakeway, thank you very much for your time and for your very full answers to our questions. We have nothing else to ask, unless there is anything you want to raise with us.

Thank you for your time.

On that point, we will draw this session to an end.