Talk:Legal Ombudsman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legal Ombudsman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

}

Question for administrator[edit]

My addition , which I think more accurately explains what the legal ombudsman cannot do has twice been deleted. Please advise. People generally only use the service when they have problems with unsatisfactory service from a legal professional. They expect the legal ombudsman to be able to judge the quality of service from such a professional. In fact, the scope of what the LEO can do is very limited.One only finds this out after extensive reporting and complaining. Meanwhile the legal professional, who is aware of the situation, is content to let things proceed, knowing that the likely outcome from the LEO is no action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John timbrell (talk • contribs) 19:17, 4 February 2013‎

This is not a forum for discussing your opinion on the service. Come back when you have reliably sourced published material on the subject.--Charles (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal Ombudsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107131834/http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/our-team.html to http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/our-team.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]