Black Norman Solicitors, Liverpool Reviews & Information
Are you this solicitor?
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information
4877 page views
All content on solicitor.info is viewed and used at your own risk and we do not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information.
Based on 9 review(s)
Legal services at this branch
- Commercial property
- Conveyancing - residential
- Crime - fraud
- Crime - general
- Family - general
- Immigration - nationality and citizenship
- Landlord and tenant - residential
- Litigation - general
- Personal injury
- Private client - Probate
- Private client - Wills
04/01/19 - Reviewed by David Smith
Was recommended by a friend to use these guys over a commercial debt. Had them write a letter, but had to chase to see if this had been sent. Not interested and finally received the copy of the letter after numerous requests. Not one apology about the service yet still wanting to get paid. Customer skills lacking despite their claim on their website. Still unhappy with their response.
10/10/18 - Reviewed by david markham
as requested by shoab panwar,i delivered in person bank documents to his office receptionist,who then photocopied and so far been mislayed,is this normal practice for a person in law to be so careless with important personal bank details.
10/10/18 - Response by Jonathan Beck
Mr David Markham is not a client of ours. We are acting for a connected party and he was requested to come in with ID and bring in proof of his Bank Account details. He came with the details written on a scrap of paper. Whilst we copied these, it was deemed insufficient and he was asked to come back with a Bank Statement confirming his Bank Details.
17/10/17 - Reviewed by Anonymous
Tried not get help from this solicitor, got a quote through that was suggesting several unnecessary things they would do to help with ridiculous costs attached. Was advised they were trying to confuse me to either make more money or they didnâ€™t want my business so sent it to deter me from using them. As I never had a follow up from that email I assume the latter. Glad I went somewhere else.
17/03/18 - Response by B
24/09/16 - Reviewed by Anonymous
I used Black Norman to purchase a flat, they were efficient and thorough. I recommend them absolutely!
General Legal advice
22/07/16 - Reviewed by Pauline
Peter Skinner-Thank you for all the help you provided me in my legal matter. You guided me skillfully through the process with the claim I had filed. Because of your efforts, I was able to receive a cash sum without having to go through the time, effort, and cost of state trial. Your professional services were excellent. I have already recommended your outstanding legal services to several friends of mine
Thank you for helping me stand up for my rights. I owe a debt of gratitude to you.@SEO Ltd, The Old Bakery, Duke Street, Ruabon, Wrexham LL14 6DE I can assure that there is no need for obscene language
General Legal advice
22/07/16 - Reviewed by Charles
Peter Skinner of Black Norman is a great lawyer!!
General Legal advice
22/07/16 - Reviewed by Jenny
I wanted to express my gratitude for your efforts and dedication for my claim.It was quite a long and upsetting process and I could never thought anyone would stay by my side for this long but you were very generous regarding it. It is really hard to make someone who doesnâ€™t know you believe that you are innocent but you still put all your efforts in clearing my name.
I am grateful to you that you took all the stress and restored everything out for me. Your faith, knowledge and determination were something that solves my worries. Thank you.
22/07/16 - Response by Jenny
Sorry Peter Skinner's name (a solicitor) was omitted from my comment. Thank you once again Peter.
General Legal advice
22/07/16 - Reviewed by Charles
Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website
Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
1. Jonathan Beck of Black Norman Solicitors (SRA ID: 615680) of 67 - 71 Coronation Road, Crosby, Liverpool, Merseyside, L23 5RE agrees to the following outcome of the investigation into his professional conduct under reference TRI/1151214-2015.
2. Since January 2013 and at the material time, Jonathan Beck was the Practice Manager and Compliance Officer for Finance & Administration ("COFA") for Black Norman ("the Firm") (SRA ID: 62666) which was the predecessor firm to Black Norman Solicitors.
3. On 19 September 2014, the Forensic Investigation Unit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") commenced an inspection of the Firm and produced a Report dated 16 June 2015 ("the Report").
4. The Report identified that the Firm had provided a banking facility for two clients during the period December 2010 and August 2015 and had received substantial loans from clients over a number of years. The relevant loans were from clients who were long-standing personal friends of Mr Howard Samuel Norman (SRA ID: 108484 Admitted solicitor) who was the owner, a partner and the Principal of the Firm at the material time. In addition, the Report also identified that the Firm dealt with payment of costs in a manner resulting in a breach of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 ("SAR 2011").
Provision of banking facilities through a client account
5. The Firm held money for 2 clients, JB and JJ, both of whom spent much of their time abroad. Rule 14.5 of the SAR 2011 requires any payments into, transfers and withdrawals from the client accounts to be in respect of instructions relating to an underlying transaction (and funds arising therefrom) or to a service forming part of the Firm's normal regulated activities. Client money should not be held in client account for prospective transactions but should be returned to the client promptly when the original transaction is no longer effective as there is no longer any proper reason to retain those funds.
6. The SRA issued a Warning Notice on 18 December 2014 entitled "Improper use of a client account as a banking facility" and case studies which provided guidance to all regulated persons holding client monies and highlighted the associated risks.
7. The client ledger for JB was opened on 27 October 2009 and remained open/active until 15 April 2015. In the period from 27 October 2009 to 23 February 2015, the ledger recorded sums received of approximately ?5,950,000.00 (via 9 transactions) and payments out were made of approximately the same amount (via 45 transactions) but no bills were recorded on the office side of the client ledger. A number of transactions occurred after the initial meeting with the FI Officer when the Firm was made aware of the FI Officer's concerns about the use of JB's client account ledger as a banking facility. When interviewed during the SRA investigation, Howard Norman appreciated that it could be interpreted that the Firm was providing banking facilities but he never saw it as such.
8. The client ledger for JJ was opened on 26 November 2013 and recorded receipt of client monies in the sums of ?49,994.00 and ?250,816.78 on 26 November 2013 and 5 March 2014 respectively. During the SRA's investigation, Howard Norman advised that the monies were held for JJ to be used by JJ should an investment opportunity arise. Mr Norman accepted that a banking facility had been provided for JJ as there had been no specific underlying legal transaction.
Withdrawals and transfers from Client account in breach of Rule 20.3(b) SAR 2011
9. The Firm acted for client DB in relation to a litigation matter. During the course of the matter, the Firm improperly transferred excessive amounts of costs received from the client account to office account. Subsequent transfers from office to client account were necessary to put the ledger in funds in order to allow a payment to the client.
10. The Firm's costs in relation to the DB matter had not been settled or determined by detailed assessment. Costs draftsmen advised the Firm on the potential costs to be recovered depending on the settlement reached. Despite the advice received, the Firm took costs which exceeded both the costs estimates provided by the costs draftsmen and the estimate provided by the fee-earner with conduct of the case. As a result, the withdrawals from client to office account were in breach of Rule 20.3(b) of the SAR 2011 which states that office money may only be withdrawn from a client account when it is properly required for the payment of costs.
Failure to meet obligations as COFA
11. Rule 8.5(e)(i) SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 required Jonathan Beck, as COFA of the firm, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the firm, its managers and its employees comply with any obligations imposed upon then under the SRA Accounts Rules. The breaches highlighted above occurred with the knowledge of Jonathan Beck.
12. On 22 October 2015 an authorised officer of the SRA considered the Report and the explanations received from the Firm and resolved that proceedings should be taken at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against Mr Howard Samuel Norman.
13. The SRA considers that Jonathan Beck's culpability is less than that of Howard Norman and that this agreement is an appropriate outcome to the investigation into his conduct.
14. Mr Beck makes, and the SRA accepts, the following admissions:
a) he permitted the provision of banking facilities through a client account in breach of Principles 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011;
b) he permitted withdrawals and transfers from the Firm's client account in breach of Principles 4 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Rule 20.3(b) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011;
c) he failed to meet his obligation as COFA under Rule 8.5(e)(i) SRA Authorisation Rules 2011 to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the firm and its managers and employees comply with any obligations imposed upon them under the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.
15. Jonathan Beck puts forward the following by way of mitigation for the breaches admitted above:
a) he was unclear about the obligation not to allow client account to be used as a banking facility for clients;
b) the successor firm's procedures have been amended to mitigate the risk of a repetition of such withdrawals in error;
c) he intended in good faith to carry out his role in the Firm effectively in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles;
d) while accepting that his actions have fallen short of the standard of conduct expected, it was as a result of misunderstandings and unintended breaches.
16. Jonathan Beck has accepted the above breaches, the admissions set out in paragraph 15 above, and this outcome is proportionate in all the circumstances.
17. Jonathan Beck is fined ?2,000.00 and rebuked for the breaches identified in paragraph 15 above.
18. Jonathan Beck agrees that this outcome will be published by the SRA and that it may also be disclosed to any person upon request or otherwise.
19. Jonathan Beck agrees to pay the costs of the investigation, including the SRA's legal costs, in the sum of ?1,339.00 within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.
20. Jonathan Beck agrees he will not act in any way that is inconsistent with this agreement by, for example, denying the misconduct admitted in paragraph 14 above.
21. If Jonathan Beck acts inconsistently in any way with this agreement, Jonathan Beck accepts that all issues may be referred back to the SRA for reconsideration, including that there be referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or SRA internal sanction on the original facts and allegations and also on the basis that such failure to comply constitutes a breach of Principles 2, 6 and 7 SRA Principles 2011.
The date of this agreement is 7 June 2016.
06/01/16 - Reviewed by Carl
Used peter skinner of this firm for a small claims issue. There are not enough characters to describe how bad of a solicitor and person he is. First off he messed our defense / counterclaim up 1 working day before it should have been filed we tried to get the documents back and he refused to give us them as we did not pay a Â£250 fee for documents which were wrongly done and copy and pasted information what i had given him, he advised he was not at the building so i could not collect the documents however when i unexpectedly turned up at black norman he was present. Then he missed numerous filings regarding questionnaire and mediation appointment and ignored the courts resulting in us representing ourselves - we missed our mediation appointment because of this. He is arrogant, defensive, a liar and a down right embarrassment to his 'profession', this seems to be the case with his colleagues also at black norman in Jonathan beck the practice manager who was equally defensive and did not reply to our complaint. I honestly wish i had never met these people, i would not recommend these for anything and this has now been forwarded to the ombudsman as they (very unsurprisingly neglected to respond to my complaint within 8 weeks)
23/07/16 - Response by Mary
Going to start replying to people's attention-seeking on social media with this comment. Congratulations to the internet for all of these wonderful #Rants. I appreciate each and every one of you. However, if you believe you're 'rights' have been violated why NOT sue this solicitor as an ombudsman normally doesn't work for the benefit of victims like you! However it does work for "firms and solicitors '' to better their standards! I would recommend suing instead of rants and an ombudsman route!
Subscribe to updates
Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.
- All solicitors in Liverpool
- Conveyancing / property solicitors Liverpool
- Personal injury solicitors Liverpool
- Commercial solicitors Liverpool
- Divorce solicitors Liverpool
- Family solicitors Liverpool
- Legal aid solicitors Liverpool
- Immigration solicitors Liverpool
- Driving solicitors Liverpool
- Will and probate solicitors Liverpool
- Criminal solicitors Liverpool
- Medical negligence solicitors Liverpool
- Employment law solicitors Liverpool
3,161,009 page views