1 reviews (2/5) and information for Singletons Austin Ryder, Enfield

Home > UK Solicitor > Enfield > Singletons Austin Ryder

Add review

2.0 stars average for Singletons Austin Ryder from 1 reviews  
1 Review(s)

0 review(s) removed
Why are reviews removed?


How to find us

2 Crossfield Chambers, Gladbeck Way, Enfield, Greater London, EN2 7HT


Facilities Office accepts Legal Aid

Languages spoken English 
Size of firm 5 solicitors


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

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

2.0 stars average for Singletons Austin Ryder from 1 reviews

Based on 1 review(s)

Add review

Summary

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

Legal services at this branch

  • Commercial litigation
  • Commercial property
  • Company and commercial
  • Conveyancing - residential
  • Corporate finance
  • Debt and bankruptcy - personal
  • Debt recovery
  • Information Technology
  • Landlord and tenant - residential
  • Licensing gaming and betting
  • Litigation - general
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Private client - Probate
  • Private client - trusts
  • Private client - Wills


Add review

Filter Reviews

 


Singletons Austin Ryder

Family

2 stars

26/02/20 - Reviewed by Peter

The service was normal at the start. We attended and met our chosen solicitor (according to his experience on the website posting). Our case was discussed with him in depth for at least 1.5 hours at the first meeting. The solicitor agreed he could represent our case, and we communicated and gathered the on-going info on a regular basis. As the case was picking up momentum, and at a critical stage, the solicitor told us that he would be leaving the firm one week before he was due to leave. Obviously this was a blow to us as it was a surprise, without warning. He told us that another person would take his place and pass on our case to them. We met the new person and he had a completely different view on the case, asking for a large sum of money up front to take on our case, and appeared not to want the case after he was told that this amount of money he requesting is not possible up front.! We agreed to pay him on an hourly basis according to his work time. He then wanted to discuss this with the director of the firm and came back agreeing to the terms of an hourly rate pay. He then asked each of us (two) people to speak with him seperatley in his office. After a total of 2.5 hours of all this in his office, he told us that he won't be taking the case due to a conflict of interests between the two people.! We were again shocked and dismayed at the power kicking and control nature of this firm and individual. His previous colleague agreed to take on the case knowing full well all the facts beforehand, then all of a sudden, the new person had his own agenda. In my opinion, he was too weak and lacking confidence to take on the case, (only preferring easy and straight forward cases-less headaches for him), and only clients that are willing to pay £15K up front (as was the amount) he asked on his first day at the firm.! Moving forward, I asked his director that we really should be compensated for the costs of the payments to the first solicitor who, decided for his own reasons, to leave the firm and midway into our case. We had paid him a fair amount to work on our case and produce results. Unfortunately the first solicitor did not produce anything worth what he charged, as he just handed the file to his colleague and left, without a strong follow up plan. The director refused to any compensation and even asked that I pay more on top for previous costs, and meeting time with the new person. I was wasting my time with emails to them, and going through more stress with the firm than the actual case.! They offered no further acceptance of responsibility of their actions on our case, or realised the impact they had on their clients' and the way the had left our case. Leaving us in a bundle of mess and down £3000 for them doing nothing, basically. Do not use this firm unless you are wanting basic conveyancing, traffic related disputes, basic letters typed out. They are weak in the more advanced areas of family disputes, and more seriously have internal issues with their staff (as our chosen solicitor wanted to leave the firm like a shot).

Was this review helpful?  
Thumbs up 0   Thumbs down 0

Respond   Report abuse

26/02/20 - Response by Singletons Austin Ryder

We are sorry to hear this person’s experience of using our firm was not satisfactory to them. We must however correct some of the inaccuracies in this review. Firstly, whereas Peter refers to “we” throughout the complaint, we in fact only ever had one single client at a time. Peter was initially our client, alone, and instructed our Mr. Clement to pursue a litigation matter on his behalf against a family member. Mr. Clement spent time taking full details of the case, the history and the factual surroundings of the dispute. Mr. Clement then prepared instructions for specialist counsel to advise on the merits of the dispute and that advice was not favourable to Peter’s case and suggested he had no cause of action of chance of success against the family member in question and that in fact it would need to be Peter’s mother that pursued the claim. Mr. Clement then left our firm for personal reasons having been with us for in excess of five years. His departure was not unplanned or unexpected. There was a notice period just over one month and files were handed over with full notes. Mr. Doganci was then employed to replace Mr. Clement. Peter than asked to meet with Mr. Doganci, along with his mother, to further the case. That meeting was arranged and it was made clear to Peter that any instructions would need to come from his mother alone as she would be our client and not Peter. Peter and his mother were advised that if Peter’s mother wanted to instruct us we would have to cease acting for Peter and only act for his mother. Mr. Doganci then met with Peter’s mother (alone) and took instructions from her. He then sought advice from the same specialist counsel who advised that on the basis of the information obtained from Peter’s mother at that meeting we would have a conflict of interests if we were to act for Peter’s mother and therefore could not do so. We were still willing and able to act for Peter but given he had no chance of success there was little merit in doing so

Respond   Report abuse

04/03/20 - Response by Peter

The reply from the firm to the review is somewhat surreal. The first time they have apologised is when they have seen a negative review about the way the case was poorly handled by this firm. The firm is also in breach of confidentiality about the case they were dealing with because they have publicly broadcast parts of the case and discussions online. So any opposing party can read what happened!?! Instead of making reference to the case by using some form of discretion and some decency to their ex-client, that spent a lot of money with this firm, ending up with no case or representation. They decided to challenge and offer their side, albeit out of their obligation to confidentiality.! This is not a response that highlights any of the proper conduct expected, they are attempting to justify a poorly handled case. The firm's approach could have been to keep working with one of the clients as they are still cooperating to push on with the case together with another law firm. The fact is that proper support and guidance was lacking from this firm and as their response shows became defensive, unwilling to accept that they lacked any support strategy and happy to just drop clients because of their unaccountability.

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
24461 solicitor reviews

4,047,581 page views