|CookieConsent||https://www.clc-uk.org/||Stores the user's cookie consent state for the current domain||1 Year||HTTP|
|_ga||https://www.clc-uk.org/||Registers a unique ID that is used to generate statistical data on how the visitor uses the website.||1 Year||HTTP|
|_gat||https://www.clc-uk.org/||Used by Google Analytics to throttle request rate||Session||HTTP|
|_gid||https://www.clc-uk.org/||Registers a unique ID that is used to generate statistical data on how the visitor uses the website.||Session||HTTP|
|collect||google-analytics.com||Used to send data to Google Analytics about the visitor's device and behaviour. Tracks the visitor across devices and marketing channels.||Session||Pixel|
|GPS||youtube.com||Registers a unique ID on mobile devices to enable tracking based on geographical GPS location.||Session||HTTP|
|VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE||youtube.com||Tries to estimate the users' bandwidth on pages with integrated YouTube videos.||1 Year||HTTP|
|YSC||youtube.com||Registers a unique ID to keep statistics of what videos from YouTube the user has seen.||Session||HTTP|
7 September, 2021
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) is planning to start recharging the cost of the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) based on how many complaints each law firm generates, rather than spread the cost across the profession.
The cost of LeO (£14.5m this year) is recovered from all of the legal regulators in proportion to the number of cases arising from their regulated communities.
In the first move of its kind, the CLC has submitted to the LSB for approval a change that removes this cost from firms’ annual practice fees, which are calculated as a percentage of turnover. This will reduce practice fees by an average of 23% across all practices.
The LeO levy will then be collected separately in two parts: a basic availability fee that all firms will pay in recognition of the importance of LeO to consumer protection, and a usage fee based on the number of cases from a firm that have been accepted for review by LeO.
Though CLC firms generate small numbers of complaints – an average of 256 cases over each of the last three years, only about 4% of the total handled by LeO – the charge from LeO amounts to 23% of the CLC’s total expenditure and LeO’s cost per case continues to increase.
Nearly half of the practices regulated by the CLC do not generate any complaints which are referred to LeO and many more have an average level of complaints. Their costs will generally remain the same or fall. Firms with disproportionate numbers of complaints referred to LeO will see their costs rise.
The CLC held a consultation on separating the cost of the LeO levy from the practice fee, which listed the benefits of the change as a clearer distinction between direct regulatory costs and activity-based costs, a fairer distribution of the cost of complaints handling, and an incentive for practices to improve their service levels and complaints-handling processes.
Responses expressed some concern that the approach would instead encourage firms simply to settle disputes rather than address underlying issues – although this is already an issue as LeO also charges firms case fees for complaints it handles. Equally, it can be argued that the user pays approach encourages firms to deal swiftly and appropriately with complaints.
The CLC has clear expectations of regulated entities in relation to their complaints handling and ensures that problems are not being hidden as part of its monitoring and inspection regime.
Separately, the CLC is also submitting to the LSB for approval a new clause in the minimum terms and conditions for regulated firms’ professional indemnity insurance to clarify the extent to which cyber-related losses are covered.
This follows a consultation responding to directions from both the Prudential Regulation Authority and Lloyd’s of London to manage ‘silent’ risk by being explicit on whether coverage is provided for losses caused by cyber events.
The new clause, which will take effect from 1 October, subject to approval by the Legal Services Board, is not intended to increase the coverage provided; rather, it expressly spells out the cover for cyber-related losses that the existing policy was already understood to offer. As a result, it should not affect consumer protection nor insurance premiums.
The range of cyber-related risks covered by the clause include problems with accessing systems; “unauthorised, malicious or criminal” acts; the receipt or transmission of malware, malicious code or similar; and internet failures.
CLC chief executive Sheila Kumar says: “It is vital that regulation is proportionate and both of these changes achieve this in their own ways.
“We believe that placing more of the cost of LeO on those who generate it will encourage those firms to address service issues and improve their complaints-handling procedures, both of which are vital to the client in the relatively small proportion of cases where issues occur. It will also be clearer to firms what they are paying to the CLC for the oversight we provide as a regulator and what is needed to fund LeO’s complaints handling activities.
“At a time of ever-increasing cyber-attacks on businesses of all types and sizes, the clarity brought by the new insurance clause will also help focus minds as to responsibilities.”