Reporting solicitors to ombudsman/SRA

NYM

Perhaps, instead of asking 'strangers' and then criticising them for posting their opinions, just follow the advice your friend gave you. "....a solicitor friend of mine has suggested I am duty-bound to report this to the SRA as it is unacceptable for solicitors to misinform, or potentially knowingly lie, to their customers..."

Not reporting them in the hope you'll receive some compensation would be failing to follow your Solicitor friends advice.

marksoton

eshroom wrote: »

I wish members of this forum would sometimes be more helpful instead of picking things out and commenting on them, without knowing the full facts and without being asked for any advice about.


I don't see why I need to be explaining myself, if you want the full ins and outs and are willing to help and are a legal adviser, by all means I will send you the last 9 months of correspondence (yes the sale commenced in March, 9 months ago), otherwise please don't jump to conclusions and if don't you have nothing constructive to add, don't add anything at all.

I wish some people didn't expect salient advice when they are so openly aggressive and rude from the outset.

If you want legal advice stop being cheap and pay for it. It's a forum, not a free legal firm.

Honestly...

eshroom

marksoton wrote: »

"I think they need to improve their internal process and be held to account for their actions."

Well clearly the above statement has a price at which you're happy to not be bothered about their actions or internal processes...

I do generally like this forum, and the site in general is fantastic. As you can see I have been a member for a number of years and while I don't post much, I do give as well as take.

marksoton, I apologise if you think I came across as rude or aggressive but that's exactly how your post came across to me.

This is a forum, "a medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged", which is why I posted. But instead most of what I received was negative presumptions of my motives.

marksoton

eshroom wrote: »

I do generally like this forum, and the site in general is fantastic. As you can see I have been a member for a number of years and while I don't post much, I do give as well as take.

marksoton, I apologise if you think I came across as rude or aggressive but that's exactly how your post came across to me.

This is a forum, "a medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged", which is why I posted. But instead most of what I received was negative presumptions of my motives.

Fair enough. I accept i'm far from an :A when it comes to my posting style.

As regards your issue.. If you believe you have a genuine complaint i'd pursue both avenues initially.

ReadingTim

The difference between the SRA and Legal Ombudsman, and to whom you should report what appears to be answered here.

If you genuinely think "they need to improve their internal process and be held to account for their actions" then report them to the SRA, but note that the SRA "does not have the power to award compensation for poor service, or to reduce or refund your legal fees."

If you're actually after more than £100, then head to the Legal Ombudsman with a complaint of poor service and see where it gets you. But the fact that the solicitors have only offered £100 as a goodwill gesture (ie to shut up and b*gger off!) they either think you won't go through with bringing a complaint, or don't think you'll win.

Unfortunately, given you say you've exhausted the solicitor's own internal complaints procedure and still only ended up with £100, I'd suggest they've come to the latter conclusion.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear.

TBagpuss

As I understand it, you used these solicitors for the sale of a property. You didn't use them for the purchase and didn't keep them informed about the progress of the purchase, so they were not aware that the transaction was time sensitive or that a delay would potentially result n major problems with a linked transaction. The issue was ultimately resolved with no financial loss to you.

You say "I was told by my selling solicitors that the freeholder's solicitor (or the freeholder depending how you choose to interpret the email) had agreed the buyer's proposed variation in principle." so you knew that there was not a definite or enforceable agreement, and seem uncertain as to who had given the indication they were willing to agree.
Did you clarify that with them?

Clearly if the solicitor deliberate misled you, or lied to you, then that is wholly inappropriate. On the other hand, this all sounds fairly vague - have the solicitors accepted that they misled you, or does their explanation suggest that its a miscommunication.
If they have accepted that they misled, and are concerned about tightening up their procedures, have you communicated that to them an asked whether they have taken steps to avoid the same issue happening again? You seem to accept that it may well have been an honest error on the part of the individual concerned, and they seem to have done what they can to put things right. Why do youyou think that it would be reasonable to have a 50% discount bearing in mind that the error, or miscommunication, did not cause you any loss, and that they had no way of knowing that it would cause you extra stress because you had not kept them informed of your related purchase? It does seem a little greedy

If you have a genuine concern that they intentionally lied or misled you, then the SRA is the appropriate organisation to contact.

davidmcn

TBagpuss wrote: »

As I understand it, you used these solicitors for the sale of a property. You didn't use them for the purchase and didn't keep them informed about the progress of the purchase, so they were not aware that the transaction was time sensitive or that a delay would potentially result n major problems with a linked transaction. The issue was ultimately resolved with no financial loss to you.

You say "I was told by my selling solicitors that the freeholder's solicitor (or the freeholder depending how you choose to interpret the email) had agreed the buyer's proposed variation in principle." so you knew that there was not a definite or enforceable agreement, and seem uncertain as to who had given the indication they were willing to agree.
Did you clarify that with them?

Clearly if the solicitor deliberate misled you, or lied to you, then that is wholly inappropriate. On the other hand, this all sounds fairly vague - have the solicitors accepted that they misled you, or does their explanation suggest that its a miscommunication.
If they have accepted that they misled, and are concerned about tightening up their procedures, have you communicated that to them an asked whether they have taken steps to avoid the same issue happening again? You seem to accept that it may well have been an honest error on the part of the individual concerned, and they seem to have done what they can to put things right. Why do youyou think that it would be reasonable to have a 50% discount bearing in mind that the error, or miscommunication, did not cause you any loss, and that they had no way of knowing that it would cause you extra stress because you had not kept them informed of your related purchase? It does seem a little greedy

If you have a genuine concern that they intentionally lied or misled you, then the SRA is the appropriate organisation to contact.

I concur with the above. If you want to rely on your solicitor's advice before concluding some unrelated contract elsewhere, you really need to tell them about it. And I'm not sure why there's thought to be some sort of fundamental problem with the firm's procedures, it sounds like a straightforward human error about what stage the transaction was at.

bouicca21

Surely the essence is what exactly your solicitors told you. Your original post seems to suggest an ambiguity as to whether they told you that the freeholder's solicitors were happy, or whether they said the freeholder was happy. There is a considerable difference between the two statements.

TBagpuss

bouicca21 wrote: »

Surely the essence is what exactly your solicitors told you. Your original post seems to suggest an ambiguity as to whether they told you that the freeholder's solicitors were happy, or whether they said the freeholder was happy. There is a considerable difference between the two statements.

Added to which they only said that the freeholder/their reps were happy 'in principle' - so on the face of it they did not tell you that it was definitely OK - an in principle agreement would alsways be ssubject to detailed consideration of the (proposed) small print.

bouicca21

Yes. And I'd add that when I bought a flat with a problem lease, I (or rather my solicitor) tied the freeholder and management company down in knots and obtained a quote for their costs for rectification (to be paid by the vendor) before proceeding.