5 reviews (4/5) and information for Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors, St. Albans

Home > UK Solicitor > St. Albans > Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors

Add review

4.0 stars average for Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors from 5 reviews  
5 Review(s)

2 review(s) removed
Why are reviews removed?


Mobile phone icon01727 734260Email iconEmail
Laptop iconWebsite

Accreditations

Lexcel Legal Practice Quality MarkSRA

How to find us

The Limes, 32-34 Upper Marlborough Road, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, AL1 3UU

Other branches


Languages spoken English, French, Latin 
Size of firm 9 solicitors


Are you this solicitor?    
Contact us to take control of your listing or to request any edits to your information

2166 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.


Reviews

4.0 stars average for Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors from 5 reviews

Based on 5 review(s)

Add review

Summary

5 stars   2
4 stars   0
3 stars   0
2 stars   0
1 stars   1

Legal services at this branch

  • Advocacy
  • Children
  • Family - general


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors

Family

1 stars

11/08/19 - Reviewed by David Leskiw

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!
Don't listen to any positive reviews as these are left by people with either more money than sense or people with money to burn. These are thieves and effectively hit you with bills there is no justification for, they then try and threaten you for money you don't owe them and try to frighten you with county court judgements.

The long and short is this, I arranged a meeting, was there for an hour or so and was charged literally £500 and told that they wanted a £4000 retainer. Then in the midst of getting the retainer I had a question involving my case to which I got the reply "I'm sorry I cannot answer your question until I get my retainer." It was at this point I lost total faith with Emily Watson and Rayden solicitors as it became apparent they had no concerns or cares about the client and literally just wanted money. It was there I decided not to use them and even offered to pay the court fee they prematurely claimed to have booked. A month later I get an invoice for £1500, baring in mind that I paid £500 for the consultation and no work was done for me other than the notes on the day being typed up. I asked for justification on how they came to the notion I owed them money and receipts for the court date. They then refused to speak to me and went about harassing my wife, despite the fact that I was the one who made the appointment, corresponded with them and paid all bills.

I am now going to court over these thieves and am putting in a counter-claim against them for harassment and stress. My recommendation would be to use Collins solicitors in Watford as they are just as reputable, a lot more patient, up-front with their costs and treat you like a person and not a "cash cow." Times are hard enough when you are going through difficulties with custody battles, let alone the added stress of an aggressive, impatient and heavily overpriced and under-justified solicitor who try and bamboozle you and then claim you owe them thousands with no justification as to why.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

14/08/19 - Response by JCB

100% agree constantly on the aggressive and no word of an agreement.

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

01/11/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/648336.article?Decision=2018-11-01

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (section 43 order)
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
IN THE MATTER OF Harriet Eade, a person who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor is now subject to section 43 Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended).

The Facts:
On 19 January 2018 Ms Eade pleaded guilty to theft contrary to section 1(1) and 7 of the Theft Act 1968. The conviction was the result of Ms Eade stealing jewellery belonging to her employer, while working as legal secretary at a recognised body.

FINDING
I find that Ms Eade is or was involved in a legal practice (as defined by section 43 (1A) of the Solicitors Act 1974) but is not a solicitor and has been convicted of a criminal offence which is such that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for her to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below.

ORDER
To make a section 43 order that with effect from the date of the letter or email notifying Ms Eade of this decision:

no solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the solicitor?s practice;
no recognised body shall employ or remunerate her;
no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate her in connection with the business of that body;
no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to be a manager of the body; and
no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit her to have an interest in the body
except in accordance with a Society permission.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Compiled from data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority website

01/11/18

Source: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/648336.article?Decision=2018-11-01

Outcome: Rebuke
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details
Harriet Eade, who is not a solicitor, was employed as a legal secretary by Raydens Limited (trading as Raydens Solicitors) whose registered office is at The Limes 32-34 Upper Marlborough Road, St Albans, AL1 3UU between 6 March 2017 and 18 December 2017.

During her employment Ms Eade stole jewellery belonging to her employer,

On 19 January 2018 Ms Eade pleaded guilty to theft contrary to section 1(1) and 7 of the Theft Act 1968.

Ms Eade was found to have breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011.

Ms Eade was made subject to an order pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended). She was also given a written rebuke and ordered to pay a financial penalty of ?2,000 and costs of ?600.

Ms Eade is not currently employed by an authorised body.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors

Divorce

5 stars

05/09/18 - Reviewed by Anonymous

I have always been impressed with the quality of the service and the professionalism of the staff. All my queries have always been dealt with swiftly and all matters closed in a timely manner.

I would be more than happy to recommend their services to anyone that requires them.

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 1   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Raydens Ltd Ta Raydens Solicitors

Family

5 stars

21/02/12 - Reviewed by Anonymous

Rayden Solicitors always comes to mind if ever I am looking for an excellent small firm offering quality advice at out-of-London prices. Judging by their rapid expansion, others clearly agree

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

Subscribe to updates

Complete the form below to be notified of new reviews or responses added for this solicitor.


terms of use

Enter this code » Verify

Related links

About us
Legal info
For Solicitors
FAQ
21523 solicitor reviews

3,532,691 page views