Should I take my Solicitor to an Ombudsman

TBagpuss

LewisG7 wrote: »

As a first time buyer no one gives you any of this information in the beginning and we have certainly learned from the experience.

Like in the original post the advice i am seeking is because when i contact now and ask for any correspondence i am met by a very rude and abrupt solicitor. I therefore contacted the senior solicitor who owns the firm, told him of the treatment i was getting and asked for his complaints procedure, to which he responded via email and asked me to call him. I am guessing so they didn't have anything in writing.

It is my understanding that if you ask for the company complaints procedure, they are supposed to give it you. All of which is why i am here; if you are paying hundreds of pounds you don't expect service like that.

It's fairly common for a firm's complaints process to start with a senior person speaking to you, or inviting you for a meeting, to try to resolve issues.

Did you actually respond to the senior solicitor's request to call him?

If so, what was the outcome of that conversation?

If you did speak to hi, and are not satisfied, then pout your complaint in writing. Specify what you are unhappy about and what, specifically, you would like the firm to do to fix things.

It does sound as though the delays have been caused by you, more than that solicitor. THey should perhaps have advised you sooner that they were not on the panel for your lender but this may be something which they anticipated being able to sort - in some cases they can get onto a panel relatively swiftly.

TBagpuss

Just to add, you can generally only go to the ombudsman if your solicitor has not resolved your complaint to your satisfaction within a reasonable time. At the moment, it sounds as though your solicitor has responded to your concerns by inviting you to speak to a senior person but you haven't done so.
ALso, check your original client care letter / term of business and the solicitors website as their complaints procedure may well be shown in either or both of those places.

martinsurrey

Sl0tH wrote: »

If you paid someone for a service they had advertised, regardless of the cost for the sake of this thread, you'd expect to receive what was advertised am i right?
and YOUR solicitor has done the service YOU asked them to do (you're ready to exchange, so job done), YOU instructed them to act for YOU, which they have done. The delay is caused by YOU picking a lender who wont work with YOUR solicitor.

I am asking the question because the other parties involved, who are all professionals and do it for a living, all agree that it shouldn't have taken this long. One of them saying that knowing that they (the solicitor) shouldn't have accepted the case knowing they weren't on the panel.

that is 100% not true, not being on a panel is not a reason or a solicitor to turn down work, its a good reason for YOU not to instruct them in the first place, but YOU instructed them before YOU had even told them who YOUR lender was.

its time for some personal responsibility.

Sl0tH

martinsurrey wrote: »

its time for some personal responsibility.

Is this advice from experience from someone in the industry if you don't mind me asking?

It just seems to contradict everything that I have been told in regards to being here and asking my question?

The mortgage was chosen was a mortgage broker, not by ME. Again i can't say it enough that i have certainly learned from this experience, but as a first time buyer with no knowledge of how to handle this whatsoever, surely there is some due diligence on their part?

So from what you also answered above, it is okay for them to take on a case knowing they aren't going to be able to handle it to the best of their ability? Surely not

nkkingston

Sl0tH wrote: »

So from what you also answered above, it is okay for them to take on a case knowing they aren't going to be able to handle it to the best of their ability? Surely not

You're assuming the solicitor knew. I don't think they did. The lender knew, and you were expected to know, and probably some admin in the bowels of the solicitor's office has a list in a filing cabinet somewhere, but your solicitor doesn't have to know because it's not his job to check, it's yours. It's like expecting the girl at the tills in Tesco to know whether or not the milk in your fridge at home is about to go off - sure, if you'd bought it there she could ask someone in stock rotation to figure out what the most likely best before date is, but it's not going to occur to her that you might issue a complaint because actually the milk at home was fine and you've just wasted £2 on buying more.

Also, some people do have two solicitors - one for the lender and one for the searches - because the solicitor they've worked with on other stuff and know and trust doesn't happen to be on the panel. So they're not going to turn down work on that account, because they assume you've instructed them having done the due diligence expected of a person undertaking a massive legal transaction and made your decision accordingly.

The onus is on the buyer to make sure the solicitor they instruct is acceptable to their mortgage lender. Your broker should have told you this, and checked for you if you asked. You'll also find it mentioned in almost all first time buyer guides, since it's not an uncommon stumbling block. Personally, at this point I'd be worrying about what else I overlooked.

economic

check the terms and conditions of the agreement of the service they promised you. if any of that is broken then go to legal ombudesman. simples.

when i bought mine i went with a normal solicitor but one of thos high volume ones on a panel from my bank lender. they were terrible and nearly cost me the flat. so i got compensation through legal ombudesman. dont care if it cost less then others. they should still provide a minimum level of service as agreed.

SmlSave

Sl0tH wrote: »

The mortgage was chosen was a mortgage broker, not by ME.

No. A mortgage broker suggests a deal to and you choose to accept it.

Your solicitor shouldn't have been rude but rudeness is not something the legal ombudsmen are interested in.

When your solicitor found they aren't on your lenders panel they should have advised you (which it sounds like they did after investigating if they could get on it) and suggest a firm who could deal with the lender (which they did).

You then had the ultimate decision to either find a new firm who could act for you and your lender, cheaper and quicker, or continue with the existing firm and the lenders solicitor. Being ignorant of the implications does not mean (sorry) that you are no way at fault for not researching your position or asking more questions.

Put it down to a lesson learned, write a written complaint to the firm by all means but I wouldn't waste the ombudsmens time.

P.S. If the solicitor dealing with the lender is Enact (or a similar firm) then they are a slow, nit-picking pain to deal with.

agrinnall

Sl0tH wrote: »

The mortgage was chosen was a mortgage broker, not by ME.

This is surely not correct, the broker may have recommended a mortgage provider to you but the decision on whether to go with them must have been yours - after all, it's you that'll be paying the mortgage, not the broker.

Sl0tH

Obviously it was recommended to me and they did not choose it, apologies for my poor grammar. I chose the best mortgage product for me recommended to me by the broker. It was then i told the solicitor who the lender was and asked me to proceed and pay the money upfront for the searches which as far as i am aware is standard practice.

Ultimately i am asking the question because other professionals involved are all of the same opinion that it shouldn't have taken this long.

Everything else that has already been discussed aside i paid the monies for the searches this earlier this year. But received an email yesterday saying they were conducted more searches? Poor practice or i am just being naive?

All the other parties involved are literally in awe that they didn't conduct all the required searches when the monies were paid, simply on the basis of (I'm told) that when a solicitor is conducting searches for a lender they quite literally have a checklist to go through.

BJV

I understand your frustration, waiting for a completion date is horrible. I also know that this is MSE but why why would you not of used a local solicitor. God I hate paying for something I see no benefit it but to save a few pounds on a house / flat purchase which is costing you how much ???

I have just had a terrible terrible house move. I still can not believe that it is finally over. I had a fab solicitor but as good as she was and honestly she was they have to wait for paperwork documents, reports things that they can not control. Once they have all the information and access to the funds then Ok start going for it but before then ? Not really much they can do.

Ref complaints? You can always complain. On what grounds ? That they could not complete on a date? Not thier fault if they do not have all the information. Don't forget that even thought you are paying them as soon as you have a mortgage they are not only working for you but also the lender and have a responsibility to them as well.

Honestly I understand really I do. I was left with no house having to rent, horrible horrible but that was not my solicitors fault. I also understand the feeling of treading water and feeling like you are just waiting but why not get the keys and then when you are ready take things further.

Strange but it is only now that I understand that during the mess of a house move I was so stressed that little things that normally would not bother be became massive mountains.

Get the keys and then decide what you want to do.