Warning - do not use wolstenholmes solicitors

homelessmat

Dobloyerdosh wrote: »

All I can say is that we employed a "proper" solicitor to handle the conveyancing on the sale of our property and she has been fantastic and certainly not overpriced. What a pity or buyer tried to save a few quid using WH. We are now in limbo waiting for everything to complete again after everything ground to a halt on the day we were supposed to complete (16 Dec.). We had requested a mid November completion date from WH on a conveyance that commenced at the end of September which I did not consider unreasonable. Now we will have to pay 3 or maybe even 4 month's council tax by the time we complete on a property that is empty.

I've stayed out of this whole debate until now, but feel it is time to speak. The above is precisely the kind of statement, if any evidence was needed, as to why the "you get what you pay for" argument is completely futile.

Dobloyerdosh has been affected by this whole episode through NO FAULT OF HIS/HER OWN. They have chosen their own solicitor who they seem very happy with. Someone else in their chain, and it doesn't matter whether it was someone they were transacting with directly or indirectly chose a solicitor who with hindsight perhaps they shouldn't have chosen. What drove their decisions to select that solicitor is inconsequential (price, locality, marketing collateral). The fact of the matter is that Dobloyerdosh was affected by this as much as the person who chose WH. In fact more so, because WH's client can claim directly to the LCS for the inconvenience caused in this matter by their appointed solicitors who have acted inappropriately.

With regards the analogies of manual labour, that is, IMHO, garbage. As has been pointed out time and again, we are talking about a regulated profession here. A cleaner is not a regulated profession. Therefore you do, to an extent, take your chances on the quality of service you get from them. Price could be one selection criteria but there could be many other selection criteria. There is no guarantee that an expensive cleaner would provide any better service than a cheap one, but as it is unregulated it is a risk that has to be taken. Service will be variable.
The Law Society has a set of rules that it's members must adhere to. As far as I know it makes no distinction on the fees charged by their members. Their rules are clear and unprejudiced. What has gone on with WH is that they breached a number of the rules and they have been closed down. There is a seperate debate to be had over whether they should have been intervened earlier and whether the aftermath could have been dealt with better, but IMHO, that is best saved for another thread.

I hope that this discussion can now be completed on this thread and rather people can focus on providing support to each other on the practicalities of their positions.

In that regard, Dobloyerdosh, my seller's solicitors have added a figure to my SRA claim to cover the seller's out of pocket expenses. That is now the figure that the SRA have been asked to release for my completion (i.e. original completion money + interest accrued as per the contract + abortive removal fees + sundry other out of pocket expenses). I hope to be able to report later today whether it has been approved.

RRPhantom

anotherproblem wrote: »

I have it on good authority DWF are making pots of money!!!!

You're kidding!

It shouldn't be allowed!

Making money indeed!

The very idea!

We should concentrate on SAVING money instead!

By using cheap solicitors that we found on the internet!



Oh, hang on...

RRPhantom

LSelby wrote: »

Hi all

I also instructed the WH cowboys on my flat purchase (and shouldn't have been difficult as I am a FTB and there was no chain).

Another lawyer.

I am amazed that you bother instructing a lawyer when you are so knowledgable.

LSelby wrote: »

And although the 'you get what you pay for' comment is true to a sense,

Thank you.

RRPhantom

old_dog wrote: »

Whilst people did not deserve to be deceived, there is the fact that we are all so often warned - "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". When you consider the call out and similar charges for very simple manual jobs, is it likely that spending significantly less than that on the most important financial transaction of your life will ensure that you get a first class service?

I appreciate that I will receive vast torrents of abuse having dared to post this - but as a retired Solicitor I'm getting a bit fed up with the continuous totally indiscriminate Solicitor bashing. Posters like Kieren saying that we should all be killed, or told to drop dead etc - along with some of the other vile replies that I have received in response to private messages to other posters when I have tried to be helpful to them - does tend to alienate the sympathy that one should feel towards all those who have suffered.

And one thing that everybody is forgetting - all the Solicitors that have been named here were puppets. Yet the unqualified puppet masters who were really pulling the strings have vanished off the radar. Punish the lawyers who have done wrong - yes, most definitely - but don't let the masterminds get away scot free. They cleared £12 million in the mobile phone scam - I dread to think how much COULD have vanished here.

Take an average mortgage at £150K. Take perhaps 2000 files. The potential for missing money is vast, and we'll only know the score when DWF have concluded their work. And as other Solicitors have commented, it's us who will have to pay additional levies next year to balance the Compensation Fund's books. I don't want you to weep for us - but do appreciate that we will feel some financial heat as well, instead of tarring as with the same brush as being totally justified objects of a lynch mob mentality, when this is in fact totally unjustified

Well done.

Spot on.

RRPhantom

anotherproblem wrote: »

I dont call £500 for a simple transaction to good to be true. One sellor one buyer no other parties involved. Simple mid terrace tiny freehold property. I think it's about time people realised that the £99 conveyance did not exist. I think £500 is a fair price for a simple house purchase (no estate agent) only the very basics of searches as I new the property. Hips Pack in place. I earned £10.50 an hour before I retired. Am I qualified yes I am very qualified. What on earth makes solicitors think they are worth so much. They are not in the real world.

Oh my god.

What proportion of that £500 was fees, and what was expenses?

How do you know it was simple?

Do you have any idea what was involved?

If so, then why didn't you do the conveyancing yourself?

If not, then you're not qualified to comment, are you.

anotherproblem wrote: »

I think £500 is a fair price for a simple house purchase (no estate agent) only the very basics of searches as I new the property.

Good grief.

I cannot understand why the government allows some people into the community.

mjmal51

homelessmat wrote: »

I hope that this discussion can now be completed on this thread and rather people can focus on providing support to each other on the practicalities of their positions.

Totally agree, pity that a troll has now intruded. Ignore him and he might go away!

RRPhantom

Do me a favour.

Just because I challenge some of the moronic comments on this thread doesn't mean I am a troll.

Pretty lame comment, tbh.

If you have nothing to say in response, then that's fine, because I know I'm right.


Go on, tell me that I'm wrong.

Brahan_seer_3

Simply_Me wrote: »

If the SRA have any sense they will call in the Police to deal with those two as clearly they do not have the resources or accumen to.

Further let's understand one thing clearly, I did not use Wolstenholmes because they were cheap, my new solicitors are as cheap, if not cheaper than what I paid Wolstenholmes. I was impressed by their speal which turn out to be a lot of bull. Clearly there is a great disparity between what solicitors charge for a conveyancing transaction.

When I was looking for a new solicitor quotes ranged from £350 plus VAT to £700 plus VAT, now which one do you think I went with. If the profession is that confused about what is an appropriate fee to charge then maybe they need assistance and a charging band set out by the Law Society to insure consistency in prices.

Imagine, we keep hearing talk about what must be one of the biggest transactions of your life and you would risk going cheap, well imagine this I am buying a car, make it two luxury cars, garage A has it on sale for £10,000 more than garage B, same car, same deal now which garage do you think I would do business with.

The disparity in quotes does not surprise me, but there is abosolutely no way solicitors would ever be allowed to go back to scale fees. Horrified Solicitor sounds to be of an age when he can probably remember Austin Mitchell and his Conveyancing bill. This was at a time when the Grimbsy Law Society was effectively operating a fee scale locally which had been outlawed.

The Law Society used to recommend half of one percent plus time. Then it was estimated that a proper job would take 5 hours on a sale and 6 on a purchase. Those were the days, but we are not going back to them. The unfortunate thing is that you do tend to get what you pay for. Because of the way conveyancing is charged for now it is the paralegal or secretary who does most of the work in an effort to let the solicitor do more lucrative work.

Now I'll just sit back and wait for Another problem to lambast me

Horrified_Solicitor

RRPhantom wrote: »

Do me a favour.

Just because I challenge some of the moronic comments on this thread doesn't mean I am a troll.

Pretty lame comment, tbh.

If you have nothing to say in response, then that's fine, because I know I'm right.


Go on, tell me that I'm wrong.

Although there is an element of truth in what you are posting, you are being unnecessarily offensive.

Horrified_Solicitor

Brahan_seer wrote: »

The disparity in quotes does not surprise me, but there is abosolutely no way solicitors would ever be allowed to go back to scale fees. Horrified Solicitor sounds to be of an age when he can probably remember Austin Mitchell and his Conveyancing bill. This was at a time when the Grimbsy Law Society was effectively operating a fee scale locally which had been outlawed.

The Law Society used to recommend half of one percent plus time. Then it was estimated that a proper job would take 5 hours on a sale and 6 on a purchase. Those were the days, but we are not going back to them. The unfortunate thing is that you do tend to get what you pay for. Because of the way conveyancing is charged for now it is the paralegal or secretary who does most of the work in an effort to let the solicitor do more lucrative work.

Now I'll just sit back and wait for Another problem to lambast me

I am old enough to remember Austin Mitchell and his conveyancing bill. I even lobbied my MP about it, and he said that lawyers were so unpopular that anything that was seen to hurt them would be passed through Parliament automatically.