Mike
Miss-lead at the outset
25th October 2024 On what was already a stressful situation this meeting was a complete waste of £348.Vital was late for our appointment and finished our meeting early. Because I was already well advanced in the current process I was in need of a without prejudice letter ASAP which I was told at the end of our meeting could take several weeks based on how busy they were although £1500 would be needed to move forwards. If I knew this upfront I wouldn't have bothered with this meeting. As I explained after our meeting I was none the wiser. For those in a similar position you will be charged £1848 with very little return unless you are early in your process and have zero knowledge / experience. Thankfully I received the help needed when I moved on.
Solicitors tagged in
this review
A representative from ELS Solicitors Ltd responded to this review
Dear Mr Hennessy Your version of events is a misrepresentation of what occurred. You booked an appointment on 25th October 2025 which was at a fixed cost of £348 inclusive of VAT. We accept that Vital Ruwala was a 12 minutes due to an urgent matter arising and he apologised for this. You were advised on the merits of your claim for unfair dismissal within this consultation and took no issue with the advise given. At the consultation, you were given options which included acting formally as your legal representative which would involve on-going negotiations with your employer. You were informed that for us to proceed, we would needed to be in receipt of signed terms of engagement, payment in advance of our costs and identification documentation. On 28th October you called and stated that you wanted a letter sent to your employer. Vital Ruwala explained that we would require payment and the documentation prior to commencing work. In response, you became extremely agitated and expressed that you had come out of the meeting “none the wiser”, that Vital Ruwala had “twisting things” when he had simply relayed the course of action agreed. You further stated that you felt that Vital Ruwala was only interesting in “taking your money”. Following this, you sent an email sending signed terms (but no payment or identification documentation). Vital Ruwala then emailed stating that there may now be a conflict of interests preventing us from acting for you. You replied at 12.10 apologising for the way you spoke. At 14.34 on the same day, you sent another email stating, "I need to get back to my ex-employers and their HR today. Please can you confirm if you can help me at all with my initial request?" Then, at 20.17 on the same day (before we had an opportunity to respond), you sent an email making various unfounded complaints but also asking for a letter to be drafted on your behalf without any payment or identification documentation. We responded to your complaint on 29th October and stated that a conflict of interests had arisen due to the unfounded complaints and, as such, we were unable to act for you (notwithstanding you had not sign our terms or provided identification documentation). This was the reason that were unable to act for you and not, as you incorrectly allege that it "could take several weeks based on how busy they were." We have emails and attendance notes to support the above.
