3 reviews (1/5) and information for Fendom & Dawson , Mr. Jeremy N. Dawson, Gerrards Cross

25/11/09 - Reviewed by Anonymous

My offer for a house was accepted, and because I had not selected my conveyancer, the vendor’s solicitor, Mr. Dawson, had the impudence to suggest that they would provide a faster service if both parties came to the table with the same firm. He was quite assertive and gave several examples of problems when transacting through different solicitors. All of this lead to the same conclusion the use of Fendom and Dawson by both the vendor and purchaser would bring a guarantee of faster and error free settlement. He was very dismissive when I asked about the possibility of conflict of interest and said that this was a straight forward case that only required the conduct of minimal or “template” enquiries prior to contract.

I decided to go with my own solicitor regardless, but I wonder what would happen if all the other firms in High Wycombe finds out of this campaign of dirty tricks?

Was this review helpful?  
34   32

Respond   Report abuse

26/10/09 - Reviewed by Paul H

We used Fendom and Dawson, but we switched company.Quote: "Because of the work commitments by their solicitor to other tasks which makes it difficult for a client to receive an immediate response, clients can now get their answers quickly and easily from the Internet without ever talking to their solicitor."Here is twist: we did not hear much from anyone. Furthermore, we also much prefer to be able to talk with the solicitor and no have to beg and cajole before anything got done. This is mass production work with rude and improperly supervised staff.The buyer of our house pulled out because information did not get passed to their solicitor - we got accused of not being forthcoming (though we provided the buyers with the seller's information list on day 1 and hand delivered it to the firm).The "conveyancing executive" was in her best form. She was caustic, and admonished my wife, saying that it was our responsibility to track the progress by using their new computer system.We were very upset, but since then, have sold our house via another solicitor.

Was this review helpful?  
34   17

Respond   Report abuse

13/08/09 - Reviewed by Keith Toh

After I moved into my house, which was a freehold property, I found out that I was subject to annual common land maintenance payments. This was not discussed, nor did the solicitor transfer my name into the share of the common land. I raised this matter with the original solicitor, who did not respond. I wrote in succession, over several weeks, to the client care partner and senior partner. This only resulted in a telephone call from the solicitor who said he did not care, because he was the senior partner. Thankfully, the Citizens Advice Bureau gave me some advice, support and pointed me to the Law Society. When a formal case file was opened by The Society for the Supervision of Solicitors, this firm admitted to “inadequate professional service”. The Law Society upheld my complaint, noting that the firm refused to apologise. They concluded that the firm provided a poor service in not dealing with the transfer of land and in not responding to my complaint. The client care partner, whose name was heavily featured in a letter that was highly critical of the firm, was careful to point out that he offered the admission of “poor service on behalf” of the original solicitor. This firm was asked to compensate me and they were told to carry out remedial action to correct their mistake. Had the firm made some effort to address my complaint, the Law Society, which is commonly perceived to be on the side of the law firms, would not have supported me so fully. The Case Worker noted that he always preferred to resolve these matters by telephone rather than resorting to formal correspondence with the solicitor. It is an indictment of the firm, that the poor service has now been immortalised on formal correspondence involving the Law Society. Mr. Dawson, you did assert that you did not care who I wrote to, didn’t you?

Was this review helpful?  
35   23

Respond   Report abuse