Warning - do not use wolstenholmes solicitors

Catwoman8950

happy_to_help wrote: »

I had conveyance done by Wolstenholmes that turned out to be conveyance done by Stirling Law that was completed just before Christmas.
When they sent the monies from the sale they neglected to pay the estate agents infact they not only sent me the full funds from the house sale but an additional £2300.
As it was just before Christmas this was not corrected before the end of banking. I moved out to turkey, as was my plan, on 28th dec.
With no Internet yet and a defunct mobile phone contract. The only address that was left was an unused address in England which would serve as a hodling address until our return date which was then still unknown.
I received an e mail some weeks into January having now hooked up to the internet from first my estate agent explaining that he had not been paid. Payment was sent via a cheque for the full amount. Some time after that an e-mail from the solicitors asking for their funds to be sent. This email I did not respond to as I was in the process of setting up a new house life and paying back monies I shouldn’t have been sent was low on my list. No other e-mails were received from the solicitors. In fact not until my partner returned to England on Feb 22 did I find out they had tried to get in touch at all.
First letter in the middle of Jan and then in Early feb with a statutory demand for funds that totalled £1234 on top of the monies owed with the threat of making me bankrupt and Police involvement as they said I was defrauding their company. I was given to the end of the week to transfer funds or costs would esculate.
I tried to phone the gentleman dealing with my case to plead that \I was unaware of their letters demanding payment and costs until now and would gladly pay the funds owed via cheque or bank transfer but not the extra charges. I was unable to get a hold on the phone the man in charge and just received further demands via e-mail and copied versions of the charges.
I did pay the full amount but feel I was unfairly treated. I am posting this letter in the hope that someone who understands the law may feel I have a case to claim back my overpayment and could either act on my behalf or know of someone that would.

I wonder if DWF should be involved in this? As part of the intervention procedure I think they may have been keeping an eye on Stirling Law.

This is not the first time I've heard of Stiling Law completing a conveyance on behalf of WH. My estate agent told me a similar story back in February.

Another firm of solicitors told me that WH may have "sold on" clients' case files to other firms of solicitors before the SRA intervened. I don't know what this means, or what it implies though.

distresses

mjmal51 wrote: »

Finally received the compensation from SRA (although no interest included), so that is a relief.
After all these months and the worry caused for at least the first 2 months (only helped by this forum) I now intend to pursue a claim for distress and inconvenience with LCS.
Anybody have any idea how to present a case and how much is a reasonable claim?
May get nowhere but at least I'll have tried!

Also interested in pursuing a claim with the LCS for the stress, and inconvenience etc.
Have sent a report through to the LCS, got an email acknowledgement from them but with forms to complete for the SRA. Looking at these forms there is nothing we can really complete on these, but did want to pursue a claim for all the hassle we have had since August of last year.

Any ideas anyone?

K

mjmal51

distresses wrote: »

Also interested in pursuing a claim with the LCS for the stress, and inconvenience etc.
Have sent a report through to the LCS, got an email acknowledgement from them but with forms to complete for the SRA. Looking at these forms there is nothing we can really complete on these, but did want to pursue a claim for all the hassle we have had since August of last year.

Any ideas anyone?

K[/QUOTE

I emailed my original contact at LCS today and had a reply saying there is no form for this and you have to send in a letter stating the facts of what happened, what distress (worry, anxiety,etc) what was the inconvenience, writing letters, phone calls,whatever you can think of. basically.
You do not have to say how much you are claiiming for but it might help, although they could have different ideas.
There are some examples on the LCS website re. compensation and amounts awarded.

distresses

mjmal51 wrote: »

distresses wrote: »

Also interested in pursuing a claim with the LCS for the stress, and inconvenience etc.
Have sent a report through to the LCS, got an email acknowledgement from them but with forms to complete for the SRA. Looking at these forms there is nothing we can really complete on these, but did want to pursue a claim for all the hassle we have had since August of last year.

Any ideas anyone?

K[/QUOTE

I emailed my original contact at LCS today and had a reply saying there is no form for this and you have to send in a letter stating the facts of what happened, what distress (worry, anxiety,etc) what was the inconvenience, writing letters, phone calls,whatever you can think of. basically.
You do not have to say how much you are claiiming for but it might help, although they could have different ideas.
There are some examples on the LCS website re. compensation and amounts awarded.

Thanks - will look at the LCS website again then re-send what we already had sent. We attached a spreadsheet with a log of all the phone calls and emails etc., including WH responses (very few and far between) and details of the extremely embarrasing and upsetting interview that we had to go through at the bank to prove we were not part of some fraudulent scheme.

K.

happy_to_help

Many thanks for that I will send my letter, or at least an edited version to LCS .

Simply

Dear All I haven't managed to post on here for a while as I couldn't remember password details and so I've had to re register but most of you will know who I am.

I have made a claim to the LCS which consisted of a letter of claim detailing my dealings with every and anyone leading up to the mess I found myself in with Wolstenholmes. My complaint also names a series of individuals as well as Stirling Law.

Unlike the service I received from the SRA the LCS has been less diligent, please note that any reports by the LCS that refers to the date of intervention as the 21 December and they duly dismiss you complaint should be challenged. The date of intervention as we all know was 24 December 2009 and not the 21 December as wrongly stated by the LCS. My claim for compensation regarding Stamp Duty was dismissed by the LCS on the basis that my loss was a direct result of the intervention which took place on 21 December and not due to poor service received from Wolstenholmes. The LCS concluded that I was therefore not entitled to a refund of Stamp Duty on the basis that intervenion took place on 21 December. I challenged this succesfully.

I did not submit a fixed amount I have detailed expenses that I could identify such as telephone calls, stamp duty, etc and supplied evidence in support.

Hope this helps.

sanquhar2010

Months ago, I tried to claim the money from the credit card company and was asked to fill a form. I told the Barclaycard in the form I cancelled the service from WH but never got my deposit back. Within one week Barclaycard told me I can't get the money because I have no proof to support my cancellation. Last week I called Barclaycard again and said I cancelled the service by email and voice message and never got response from WH. WH has so many complaints from its clients because there was no communication between WH and its clients. That's the reason why WH went for liquidation. Then the lady in phone told me they will reopen my case. Today I checked my account the money is there.
Hope others have a not too bad end as well

mjmal51

Couple of new articles pulled from Google
"Solicitor shot after quitting failed law firm

Ex-Wolstenholmes lawyer targeted at his home by pair of balaclava-clad gunmen

A former solicitor who worked at Cheadle-based law firm Wolstenholmes was shot in the leg at his Salford home within months of leaving the firm to set up his own practice, Crain's has discovered.
Gavin Wall, who worked at the firm between February and July last year, left to start Swinton-based Home Solicitors in August — a two-partner practice which he co-founded with Darren Rich.
It is not known whether the shooting was related to Wolstenholmes and Wall declined to comment on the matter.
Greater Manchester Police confirmed to Crain's that a man was shot in the leg at Wall's home address on October 23 last year.
“The victim heard banging at his door and when he opened it, two men wearing balaclavas were outside,” the police said. “One was carrying a handgun and shot the victim before they both ran off.”
A GMP spokesman said that two men were subsequently arrested in connection with the incident, but there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges. It is not pursuing any other lines of enquiry, but has appealed for anyone with any information relating to the incident to report it.
Wall's new firm specialises in the same area — bulk conveyancing — as Wolstenholmes did prior to its closure by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA) on December 23. Five partners from Wolstenholmes were suspended by the SRA following its intervention for “suspected dishonesty and breaches of the Solicitors Accounts and Practice Rules”.
Wall has adopted many of the same web-driven tactics to generate leads as Wolstenholmes and even recruited several former colleagues to help him build the business.
Despite this, he argues that comments on various consumer web forums linking his firm to Wolstenholmes were both untrue and damaging. He argues that no former member of Wolstenholmes' management is involved with Home Solicitors. Moreover, he was never involved in the partnership at Wolstenholmes and is not facing any action from the SRA.
“We have suffered as a result of this,” he argued. “We've had people saying that they won't deal with us because we're linked to Wolstenholmes.”
He argues that he has taken steps to ensure that things are run differently to his former employers. Before leaving to set up his own practice, he said he warned Wolstenholmes' former management that they were taking on more cases than they could handle.
He says that he has spent a lot of money ensuring that his new business didn't make the same mistake.
“We were spending £60,000 on a case management system, but it was crap so we bought another,” he said.
He said that Home Solicitors had yet to make a profit because the bulk of the cash generated so far had been allocated to increasing resources. It now employs 34 people and is currently recruiting more staff. He added: “We're not in profit at all yet. In fact, I turned off our online marketing a couple of months ago for fear we were generating a backlog.
“We're also in the middle of a Lexcel accreditation and have the Law Society looking at all of our systems.”
Commercial leases
Wall said he is now planning to roll out a similar bulk, web-driven offer for commercial leases through a site known as Lease Expert. He argues that the city's professional firms charge an average of £750 on standard leases for single properties such as shops, for which he is proposing to charge £249 plus VAT. “I'm going to offer it for that price because I know I can deliver it,” he said.
Meanwhile, Crain's has discovered that provisional steps were being taken as early as last summer to bring new funding into Wolstenholmes, which is believed to have had liabilities of at least £2.5m prior to its closure.
Companies House records show that a company called Wolstenholmes 1818 Ltd was registered in May 2009, but changed its name to Addison Read Solicitors Ltd a month later. The business was registered at the same address as Wolstenholmes' Birmingham office. Imran Hussain, who was managing partner at Wolstenholmes at the time of the intervention, is listed as the company's sole director.
Hussain was contacted but did not reply to a request for comment. However, last month he told Crain's that he had been threatened following Wolstenholmes' collapse.
“My life has been ruined by this,” he said. “I've reported to the police threats of violence against me and I've also had to leave my flat, which was vandalised.”

AND

"Another week and another story regarding Cheadle-based law firm Wolstenholmes, which was shut by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority in December, causing chaos for the thousands of clients of the firm whose house purchases were caught up in the crossfire.

The intervention by the SRA was the largest (in terms of the number of partners involved) that the regulator has undertaken in years, so it is perhaps understandable that it is taking time to sift through the wreckage before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken against the five former partners. However, the longer the investigation goes on, the more difficult it will be to piece together what happened and who was ultimately to blame for its collapse.

Moreover, once the firm's administrator repays the £3m owed to the SRA, it is doubtful whether there will be enough assets left to pay its secured creditor Lloyds Bank, let alone embark on any costly enquiry into its affairs. Yet lessons must be learned. If a proper investigation is not carried out, former clients will feel short-changed and the potential for abuse of the system elsewhere will be heightened.

Catwoman8950

mjmal51 wrote: »

Couple of new articles pulled from Google
"Solicitor shot after quitting failed law firm

Ex-Wolstenholmes lawyer targeted at his home by pair of balaclava-clad gunmen

My my, Crain's has certainly got its teeth into Wolstenholmes

It makes interesting reading. Keep 'em coming, mjmal51 :T

Catwoman8950

mjmal51 wrote: »

Couple of new articles pulled from Google

"Another week and another story regarding Cheadle-based law firm Wolstenholmes, which was shut by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority in December, causing chaos for the thousands of clients of the firm whose house purchases were caught up in the crossfire.

The intervention by the SRA was the largest (in terms of the number of partners involved) that the regulator has undertaken in years, so it is perhaps understandable that it is taking time to sift through the wreckage before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken against the five former partners. However, the longer the investigation goes on, the more difficult it will be to piece together what happened and who was ultimately to blame for its collapse.

Moreover, once the firm's administrator repays the £3m owed to the SRA, it is doubtful whether there will be enough assets left to pay its secured creditor Lloyds Bank, let alone embark on any costly enquiry into its affairs. Yet lessons must be learned. If a proper investigation is not carried out, former clients will feel short-changed and the potential for abuse of the system elsewhere will be heightened.

I sincerely hope this doesn't all get swept under the carpet.