Warning - do not use wolstenholmes solicitors

anotherproblem

Hi I am doing as I was advised by the SRA which was to fill in a form ASAP - others have been told to claim once things have been completed. I feel that at least my foot is in the door so to speak. If I have to put in another claim when things are sorted I will. I am sorry that I cant be more exact. But if you read the messages in the forum you will see that this is one of the biggest problems people are being given conflicting information. I just fill in everything and keep copies of it all.

mjmal51

anotherproblem wrote: »

Well I finally got the letter from DWF with a form to fill in so that I can claim the few bits of paper that they found in relationship to my property. Here we go again. Part of the form indicates that one needs to send in proof of identity and residence, and guess what. They have to be a certified copies. SO I ring them up in my ignorence and ask who certifies the copies. Lo and behold they have to be certified by a solicitor or accountant.

Think I did misread! You are actually claiming back paperwork from your WH file it seems. I authorised my solicitor to get back the file from DWF about 8-9 days ago and yes he had to then sign copies of my id in order to satisfy DWF.
The only other way is to claim back in person from DWF taking original proofs of id.
As far as the SRA claim goes and until the file reveals the full extent of what is necessary I will not know the value of the claim. The solicitor will sort out IR and LR and will presumably require payment.

Just noticed that we have now gone over 1000 posts!

monicamj

Sorry I haven't read all of this but my husband paid £300 to these guys in Nov on my CC and our house sale fell through. I emailed them to say and ask if they would refund the cash. On the 6th Dec they said that they would but it still hasn't been returned and now emails to all the address are bouncing back. Can anyone help me please!

Horrified_Solicitor

anotherproblem wrote: »

Excuse me, but I have rung the SRA more than once and there is no guarantee that people will get compensated. I keep getting told "fill in the forms and we will look at it". .

And as you are aware the 1. 2. 3. in your post was much more involved than that. The Regulaters have failed dismally - the way I see it they jumped in without ensuring that ALL clients files were safe (otherwise there would not be so many missing). Surely they could have instructed DWF to work alongside the WH staff in some way. There were good staff within WH doing a good job, under difficult circumstances.

There's no way that the SRA are going to tell you over the phone that they are going to settle your claim. Obviously, they are going to check the postion first. Please bear in mind that fraudsters might make false claims.

The problem with the missing files seems to be that a lot of them were removed well before the intervention. As for using the WH staff, the problem is that the intervention agents cannot tell who is trustworthy and who is not, particularly as the problems at WH seem to be endemic and not confined to one or two rogue solicitors.

Horrified_Solicitor

monicamj wrote: »

Sorry I haven't read all of this but my husband paid £300 to these guys in Nov on my CC and our house sale fell through. I emailed them to say and ask if they would refund the cash. On the 6th Dec they said that they would but it still hasn't been returned and now emails to all the address are bouncing back. Can anyone help me please!

If you go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority website you will find detailed guidance relating to the Wolstenholmes intervention and what clients should do.

bin_dun

Just when I thought my new solicitor was getting hold of my file from DWF, having supplied all they had asked for regarding authorisation & ID certification, DWF are now insisting that the bank with whom I have a mortgage on my sale property must write to them confirming their agreement to the release of the file. Can anyone explain why this would be necessary? All DWF will say is that "It's because they have an interest in the property being sold". We haven't even exchanged yet! When asking them why this is required for me to change solicitors but isn't required for me to appoint a solicitor in the first place (when they still have the same interest in my property), they will only say, "We've been told by our senior partner that's what the SRA insists upon". There appears to be no logic in this as far as I can see. Obviously this will mean a further delay & I'm in danger of losing my new house, an equity release offer on the new property & my buyer, & my interest-only mortgage has to be repaid very shortly. Can anyone advise whether DWF's action has a better reason behind it than they appear to be able to offer, or whether it might be a misunderstanding by DWF staff? I can understand the need for mortgage sources to be consulted where they are offering funds on the properties concerned, but there are no mortgages involved in the purchase of my house or in my purchase of my new one

Horrified_Solicitor

bin_dun wrote: »

Just when I thought my new solicitor was getting hold of my file from DWF, having supplied all they had asked for regarding authorisation & ID certification, DWF are now insisting that the bank with whom I have a mortgage on my sale property must write to them confirming their agreement to the release of the file. Can anyone explain why this would be necessary?

The file may contain some documents that the bank has been holding which are subject to a solicitors undertaking to hold them to their order. Banks can be very heavy handed over this even when all they have is copies of documents rather than anything original and of importance.

anotherproblem

Ring this number and talk to them about it - I have found DWF to be very helpful I am sure they will explain everything to you.

DWF 0161 603 5000

anotherproblem

bin_dun wrote: »

Just when I thought my new solicitor was getting hold of my file from DWF, having supplied all they had asked for regarding authorisation & ID certification, DWF are now insisting that the bank with whom I have a mortgage on my sale property must write to them confirming their agreement to the release of the file. Can anyone explain why this would be necessary? All DWF will say is that "It's because they have an interest in the property being sold". We haven't even exchanged yet! When asking them why this is required for me to change solicitors but isn't required for me to appoint a solicitor in the first place (when they still have the same interest in my property), they will only say, "We've been told by our senior partner that's what the SRA insists upon". There appears to be no logic in this as far as I can see. Obviously this will mean a further delay & I'm in danger of losing my new house, an equity release offer on the new property & my buyer, & my interest-only mortgage has to be repaid very shortly. Can anyone advise whether DWF's action has a better reason behind it than they appear to be able to offer, or whether it might be a misunderstanding by DWF staff? I can understand the need for mortgage sources to be consulted where they are offering funds on the properties concerned, but there are no mortgages involved in the purchase of my house or in my purchase of my new one

Ring this number and talk to them about it - I have found DWF to be very helpful I am sure they will explain everything to you.

DWF 0161 603 5000 Dont trust your solicitor to do everything stay one step ahead. Thats my advice.

anotherproblem

Horrified_Solicitor wrote: »

There's no way that the SRA are going to tell you over the phone that they are going to settle your claim. Obviously, they are going to check the postion first. Please bear in mind that fraudsters might make false claims.

The problem with the missing files seems to be that a lot of them were removed well before the intervention. As for using the WH staff, the problem is that the intervention agents cannot tell who is trustworthy and who is not, particularly as the problems at WH seem to be endemic and not confined to one or two rogue solicitors.

It seems to me that you appear to be speaking for and supporting the SRA - and soliciters in general. On whose autherisation do you make these comments please