Warning - do not use wolstenholmes solicitors

Brahan_seer_3

Catwoman8950 wrote: »

Will the fact that WH has gone into administration have any effect on claims to the LCS, or are such claims dealt with purely through insurance?

Also, who now has control of WH's accounting records - the Administrators or DWF, or both? When I met with DWF in early February they told me they were still waiting for access to WH's accounts, however they sent me a document recently (which I need for my claim to the SRA) which would indicate that they now have access.

The administration should not affect claims. My understanding is that all "qualifying insurers" must also pick up the excess in any such situation. So it will be down to LCS to make any relevant awards and communicate their decision not only to the claimant and the administrator but also to the qualifying insurer

rfsp

mjmal51 wrote: »

Quiet on here recently! No news from anybody? Still waiting for official reply from SRA on my post completion claim but did phone SRA today.
Apparently they have now received a policy decision that the SRA will handle claims for the HMRC late payment fines, there had been discussion whether this would be a consequential loss claim to the LCS.
This leaves LCS only responsible for distress and inconvenience, anybody have ideas on how much that should be?
I've still not had a fine from the HMRC even though my stamp duty was paid (out of my own pocket) 3 months late so would be interested to hear from anybody on their experience with this.

i am also same situation as yours! paid stamp duty and registered property.....there is no news about HMRC fine and interest... dont know when i will get that letter from HMRC.

No reply from SRA regarding my claim...i dont know what they are doing! very poor service over all..thats what i can say.

mjmal51

rfsp wrote: »

i am also same situation as yours! paid stamp duty and registered property.....there is no news about HMRC fine and interest... dont know when i will get that letter from HMRC.

No reply from SRA regarding my claim...i dont know what they are doing! very poor service over all..thats what i can say.

Apart from the couple of people who reported that Cara of the SRA dealt with their cases very quickly, it does seem that they are now being extremely slow, would love to put all this behind me!
In respect to the HMRC fine I found this on their website
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/sd7.pdf
"Penalties
Penalties are a fixed charge imposed when an SDLT 1 form is received at HMRC after the filing date. These are automatically generated when the form has not been submitted by the filing date.
Penalties are charged at set rates depending on the date the return is received.
For example, if the SDLT 1 is returned after the filing date but within the next 90 days, there is a £100 fixed penalty charge. If it is returned over 120 days later than the effective date, a £200 penalty is charged"
The filing date is 30 days after completion (or the effective date), so as I paid 3 months after completion I guess I qualify for the £100, instead of the £200. There is a list of circumstances for appeal but a problem caused by the purchaser' advisor (WH), unless death, serious illness, will not be accepted.
So rfsp and I are still waiting to be fined , anybody else? Any chance that they might miss it?

Brahan_seer_3

mjmal51 wrote: »

Apart from the couple of people who reported that Cara of the SRA dealt with their cases very quickly, it does seem that they are now being extremely slow, would love to put all this behind me!
In respect to the HMRC fine I found this on their website
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/sd7.pdf
"Penalties
Penalties are a fixed charge imposed when an SDLT 1 form is received at HMRC after the filing date. These are automatically generated when the form has not been submitted by the filing date.
Penalties are charged at set rates depending on the date the return is received.
For example, if the SDLT 1 is returned after the filing date but within the next 90 days, there is a £100 fixed penalty charge. If it is returned over 120 days later than the effective date, a £200 penalty is charged"
The filing date is 30 days after completion (or the effective date), so as I paid 3 months after completion I guess I qualify for the £100, instead of the £200. There is a list of circumstances for appeal but a problem caused by the purchaser' advisor (WH), unless death, serious illness, will not be accepted.
So rfsp and I are still waiting to be fined , anybody else? Any chance that they might miss it?

Not a chance. You can normally expect to receive notice of your fine within 30 days of the filing of your SDLT return. When was it submitted? You cannot get round the situation by not filing as the Land Registry will not register you without sight of the required SDLT certicate which you can only get by filing the SDLT return.

mjmal51

Brahan_seer wrote: »

Not a chance. You can normally expect to receive notice of your fine within 30 days of the filing of your SDLT return. When was it submitted? You cannot get round the situation by not filing as the Land Registry will not register you without sight of the required SDLT certicate which you can only get by filing the SDLT return.

SDLT was filed over 30 days ago now but still expect it to land on doorstep, will be handled by SRA anyway so not too concerned.

mjmal51

An update into the investigation from Google News

Still no figure for liabilities at bulk conveyancer where clients lost money

The newly-appointed administrator at Wolstenholmes Solicitors is to investigate the role played by undischarged bankrupt Wasim Saddique at the bulk conveyancing firm before it was closed down by regulators.

Stephen Berry, of Manchester-based insolvency firm Berry & Co, said he still does not know how much the firm owes creditors, who include clients whose deposits on house purchases have gone missing.

The administrator was appointed last month following the intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which led to Wolstenholmes closing abruptly on Christmas Eve.

Berry, who has been unable to gain access to the firm's records, said: “As part of the administration I can confirm that there will be a thorough investigation into the affairs of Wolstenholmes leading up to the insolvency and any parties who were involved either formally or informally.

“I would encourage anyone with any information to contact me on 0844 310 1111.”

Five of the firm's partners were suspended for “suspected dishonesty and breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts and Practice Rules” after the SRA's intervention, including its former partner, Nasir Ilyas, who left the firm in September.

Imran Hussain, who took over as managing partner for the three-month period prior to the firm's closure, was also suspended.

Thousands of customers are believed to have been affected by the intervention, and the SRA announced an emergency fund of up to £3m to help homebuyers and sellers who had handed over money to the firm.

The SRA will recover the money by way of a charge over the firm's assets which will rank above that of secured creditor, Lloyds TSB.

Bankrupt
Ilyas had brought in Saddique and another consultant, Mario Cardinali, as consultants to advise on sales. However, former staff at the firm told Crain's that Saddique was effectively running the business and had authorised the transferral of funds from client accounts to office accounts.

Saddique was declared bankrupt last April following a petition by a number of creditors and an investigation from the administrators of his failed mobile phone venture, Dialamobile, which collapsed in 2007 with debts of more than £7m.

Dialamobile offered cashback deals to customers at the end of mobile phone contracts but thousands were left out of pocket when it was placed into administration. The company was owed around £1.4m by Everplus Ltd, another business owned by Saddique.

Robert Keyes, joint administrator of Dialamobile, is also investigating the sale of assets by the firm prior to it being placed into administration and other creditors are attempting to recover money for which Saddique provided personal guarantees.

These include asset finance firm Lombard, which has a claim for more than £50,000 against Saddique. Dextra Solutions, part of Crewe-based 20:20 Mobile Group, is believed to be pursuing a claim for more than £300,000.

Ilyas is challenging his suspension by the SRA on the grounds that he was not a principal in the practice at the time the intervention occurred.

His lawyer, Andrew Blatt of London-based Murdochs Solicitors, said Ilyas would not be making any statements about his role at Wolstenholmes because of pending High Court litigation, but added that his client had “never participated in dishonest activities”.

The SRA declined to comment.

Catwoman8950

mjmal51 wrote: »

An update into the investigation from Google News

Still no figure for liabilities at bulk conveyancer where clients lost money

The newly-appointed administrator at Wolstenholmes Solicitors is to investigate the role played by undischarged bankrupt Wasim Saddique at the bulk conveyancing firm before it was closed down by regulators.

Stephen Berry, of Manchester-based insolvency firm Berry & Co, said he still does not know how much the firm owes creditors, who include clients whose deposits on house purchases have gone missing.

The administrator was appointed last month following the intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which led to Wolstenholmes closing abruptly on Christmas Eve.

Berry, who has been unable to gain access to the firm's records, said: “As part of the administration I can confirm that there will be a thorough investigation into the affairs of Wolstenholmes leading up to the insolvency and any parties who were involved either formally or informally.

“I would encourage anyone with any information to contact me on 0844 310 1111.”

It is a shame, and not right in my view, that this article has been published in a subscription-only journal (Crain's Manchester Business News) and that only a limited number of people will see it as a result, especially as the Administrator appears to be asking the general public for information. It is only because of this forum that the victims of WH have been able to find out what has been going on and this article goes a long way to prove that what has been said on this forum is not hearsay. I think the whole situation with WH deserves much wider media coverage.

I also find it worrying that even the Administrator is unable to gain access to WH's (accounting) records. I assume by this that the SRA will have great difficulty in reconciling anyone's claim without the evidence to back it up from the accounting records. The onus will be entirely on us to prove that WH owed us money. In my case it is going to be a slow and laborious process

Catwoman8950

mjmal51 wrote: »

Ilyas is challenging his suspension by the SRA on the grounds that he was not a principal in the practice at the time the intervention occurred.

His lawyer, Andrew Blatt of London-based Murdochs Solicitors, said Ilyas would not be making any statements about his role at Wolstenholmes because of pending High Court litigation, but added that his client had “never participated in dishonest activities”.

If Nasir Ilyas is blameless, then why did he bring in an undischarged banktrupt with a known history of failed business ventures to run the WH business?

The more I read about all this, the angrier I get!

mjmal51

Received a letter from my MP yesterday and he enclosed a recent letter to him from the SRA.
Some quotes from SRA
"Despite the complicated nature of this operation, we are pleased with the progress and are confident that the process can be completed asap to ensure that any clients' outstanding concerns are addressed shortly"
"The SRA has provided an emergency fund, now totalling £5.5 million to provide assistance. £4.33 million of that has now been used and we have approved a further £600,000."
"SRA, along with DWF and Gordans working hard to ensure that the process proceeds as quickly as possible"

No mention of why they delayed in tackling the problem of course. My own case is supposed to be getting made ready to go to the adjudicator, don't make it too easy do they?

homelessmat

Hi All. Not posted for a while. Just an update on my position and what I know. I've put a claim into the LCS now for my "consequential losses" that occurred due to Wolstenholmes not completing on the day they were supposed to, despite having all the funds available. This totals a significant amount of money, to me. Probably about 20% of my gross annual salary. The LCS have advised that they can look at it and put it forward for adjudication, but there is no guarantee they will adjudicate in my favour. Apparently the LCS can only adjudicate on whether I received "poor service". Also once the adjudication is made, it will be passed to the partners of WH who will be ordered to pay, but there is little or no chance that they will, particularly as the firm is now in administration. My only option then will be to put a claim into WH's insurers to pay. However at this point the LCS involvement stops and to quote my LCS caseworker "the LCS has no power over the insurers to enforce them to pay". Apparently the LCS can only adjudicate on whether I received "poor service" and cannot adjudicate on whether WH were "negligent", only a court can decide that, and the insurers may choose to only pay out on negligence claims. So I think I'm in for a long and drawn out process and suspect that the last few remaining dark hairs on my head will succumb and become grey before it's finally resolved!