Warning - do not use wolstenholmes solicitors

anotherproblem

Originally Posted by Brahan seer

Now I'll just sit back and wait for Another problem to lambast me[/QUOTE]



Not me gov!

anotherproblem

Horrified_Solicitor wrote: »

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

:T and so say I TO THE LATER BUT NO ELEMENT OF TRUTH. JUST OFFENSIVE

anotherproblem

rrphantom wrote: »

oh my god.

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

i have no idea.

how do you know it was simple?

because the sellors were friends of mine and we had already agreed evrything we only needed the soliciters to process it. And they cocked up in a big big way.

do you have any idea what was involved?

very little - the basics of the basics

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

if i had of done i would have done a better job. Having set up the tenancy agreement myself for the grand total of £9.99. Which all went to plan. I will if i ever buy or sell another property.

i bought 2 properties in 22 years - i paid a fortune for the 1st conveyancer who cocked up and left me fighting the land registry over boundries - that took me 7 years to sort out. And the other was wh. I have learned my lesson it's a do it yourself job for me next time.

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

i paid wh to do a job. I got roped in along with at least 5000 others. I am well qualified to comment it's those who have no direct involvement who are not qualified to comment unless they are are giving good advice.

good grief.

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

exactly so what are you doing here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Betty123

Can anyone confirmed whether it is legal for non solicitors to own a company of solicitor? Which is what happened with WH, although those who worked there known that non-solicitors pulled all the string, IH & NI would not confirm who owned the company, they have just confirmed they do not, but according to the SRA being a member of the LLP is classed as owing or being financial responsible for the practice. As discussed in previous threads NI just got greedy, he know what was happening and just got in over his greedy little head (tough!!!!!).

mjmal51

anotherproblem wrote: »

exactly so what are you doing here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ignore it http://www.ehow.com/how_2090771_ignore-message-board-trolls.html

homelessmat

homelessmat wrote: »

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.

Not good news, I'm afraid. The SRA will only approve the release of the original completion money (90% of purchase price as 10% was paid on exchange). The consequential losses (interest accrued as per the contract + abortive removal fees + sundry other out of pocket expenses) needs to go to the LCS and will not be paid anytime soon (apparently the LCS have to consider the claim, adjudicate, make a direction to WH to pay it and then it must be paid by WH or their insurers).

So unless I cover all of their consequential losses personally and make a claim to the LCS and hope that it gets approved and I get the money back, then we are in a sticky situation. I do not have the funds to do this, nor would I want to cover amounts for distress/inconvenience that they are claiming, being unsure as to whether the LCS will approve it.

The best I have suggested to my seller's is that I will cover the interest accrued as stipulated in the contract and, as a good will gesture, cover their removal fees they incurred. We will wait to see if they decide to accept it of whether the deal collapses.

mjmal51

homelessmat wrote: »

Not good news, I'm afraid. The SRA will only approve the release of the original completion money (90% of purchase price as 10% was paid on exchange). The consequential losses (interest accrued as per the contract + abortive removal fees + sundry other out of pocket expenses) needs to go to the LCS and will not be paid anytime soon (apparently the LCS have to consider the claim, adjudicate, make a direction to WH to pay it and then it must be paid by WH or their insurers).

.

Been waiting since last week for the SRA to give full guide on what is included in SRA claim and what has to go to the LCS. They promised a reply in 5 days but nothing yet.

homelessmat

mjmal51 wrote: »

Been waiting since last week for the SRA to give full guide on what is included in SRA claim and what has to go to the LCS. They promised a reply in 5 days but nothing yet.

I think it depends on your circumstances. For me the money needed to complete comes from the SRA's emergency compensation fund. However they will only authorise effectively what I have already paid to WH. The interest accrued due to the breach, whilst not being my fault, has to be claimed from the LCS. They call it consequential losses and I remember a good article a few weeks back that explained it all really well.

Basically let's say I was purchasing for £200k (hopefully easy figures). WH paid seller's £20K on exchange and needed to pay £180K on completion. I also paid WH £2K to cover Stamp Duty and various other amounts to cover searches, fees, VAT etc, etc. The SRA will only release £182k. My additional expenses for removals, lost interest, having my belongings in storage, hotel bills, etc, etc are consequential losses and have to be claimed from the LCS. My problem is some of those consequential losses (the amount now been asked for by my seller's in lieu of "damages") are significant and need to be paid before completion.

In a nutshell, I believe the SRA will refund you any capital that WH are holding on account on your behalf and you have to claim to the LCS for the rest.

The SRA explained it pretty well to me when I rang up, even if it wasn't the news I wanted to hear. Try them on 0870 606 2555.

mjmal51

homelessmat wrote: »

I think it depends on your circumstances. For me the money needed to complete comes from the SRA's emergency compensation fund. However they will only authorise effectively what I have already paid to WH. The interest accrued due to the breach, whilst not being my fault, has to be claimed from the LCS. They call it consequential losses and I remember a good article a few weeks back that explained it all really well.

.

I know the post you refer to it was #896, but the content was incorrect on a few counts. To quote from it
"Consequential Losses are (for example); loss of stamp duty paid to WH - but not paid by WH, expenses paid to another Solicitor to complete the services not completed by WH, and other monetary losses."
"claims for consequential losses and pecuniary damages should be made to the LCS."
But the SRA are accepting claims for stamp duty, land registration, new solicitor's fees.
I think the LCS will be involved when it comes to claims for fines imposed and interest due to HRMC, but it would take no time at all for the SRA to post this info rather than people finding out by default.

Horrified_Solicitor

Betty123 wrote: »

Can anyone confirmed whether it is legal for non solicitors to own a company of solicitor? Which is what happened with WH, although those who worked there known that non-solicitors pulled all the string, IH & NI would not confirm who owned the company, they have just confirmed they do not, but according to the SRA being a member of the LLP is classed as owing or being financial responsible for the practice. As discussed in previous threads NI just got greedy, he know what was happening and just got in over his greedy little head (tough!!!!!).

Currently it is illegal (or more correctly, contrary to the professional rules) for non solicitors to own a solicitors firm. However the rules have been changed to allow external ownership in future. This was to allow solicitors to go into partnership with fellow professionals such as accountants and barristers and to be in firms where they might be in the minority. It is also to allow companies such as insurers to own their own law firms. This is often referred to as "Tesco law" because it's assumed that the supermarkets will want to sell legal services next to the discounted baked beans.

The problem is that all the people who devised this forgot that there are a lot of criminals out there who might find it very handy to own a law firm for the purposes of robbing the public/looting the client account/frauds/money laundering/people trafficking etc. Given that most High Street firms are virtually worthless, it's hardly going to be difficult for a criminal gang to buy one cheaply and perfectly legitimately in future. The safeguard is supposed to be that there will have to be a solicitor somewhere in this set up and he magically will stop the owners from doing anything illegal or unethical. It's all very, very naive.