giulia
A firm lacking honesty, integrity and professionalism
This firm repeatedly changed their version(s) of events when challenged, lied about not having received documentation when there were paper-trails which proved otherwise, pushed for payment/sight of personal records for a bill they had in their own possession and which they had not presented to us (and we’d never claimed to have paid) and refused point blank to address any questions they didn’t want to acknowledge - despite evidence having been provided - in their complaints framework. This in turn made a mockery of their whole complaints process. That this type of behaviour was duplicated by Directors themselves at this stage of our dealing(s) with them, merely serves to show how deeply ingrained this type of behaviour is within the firm. Rather than show any willingness to address their factual inaccuracies (other than disingenuously trying to retrospectively reframe their wholly declarative claims such as ‘we can confirm’ and ‘there is no evidence’ as mere ‘suggestions’), DJM’s blatant untruths, their shifting goalposts and their persistence in behaving as if they were accountable to no-one means that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Legal Ombudsman. They then refused to communicate directly with us, even when it was at the Ombudsman’s bequest. The Ombudsman’s office concluded ‘the firm acted unreasonably in relation to both aspects of the complaint’ and their conduct ‘fall[s] below the standard of service we expect’. They recommended the firm pay us compensation – in line with their ‘significant’ category of distress and inconvenience guidance - for ‘the distress and inconvenience experienced’ to ‘reflect[s] the emotional impact of prolonged and unnecessary communication, … and the avoidable burden placed on [ourselves] to resolve matters that should have been managed by the firm as executor.’ They also pointed out that the negative impact the firm’s behaviour had exerted was both ‘genuine and avoidable’, especially as the inconvenience extended over several months when ‘the firm had multiple opportunities to resolve these matters more effectively.’ In short, this firm exhibited a complete lack of class, credibility and competency. Use entirely at your own risk. This firm repeatedly changed their version(s) of events when challenged, lied about not having received documentation when there were paper-trails which proved otherwise, pushed for payment/sight of personal records for a bill they had in their own possession and which they had not presented to us (and we’d never claimed to have paid) and refused point blank to address any questions they didn’t want to acknowledge - despite evidence having been provided - in their complaints framework. This in turn made a mockery of their whole complaints process. That this type of behaviour was duplicated by Directors themselves at this stage of our dealing(s) with them, merely serves to show how deeply ingrained this type of behaviour is within the firm. Rather than show any willingness to address their factual inaccuracies (other than disingenuously trying to retrospectively reframe their wholly declarative claims such as ‘we can confirm’ and ‘there is no evidence’ as mere ‘suggestions’), DJM’s blatant untruths, their shifting goalposts and their persistence in behaving as if they were accountable to no-one means that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Legal Ombudsman. They then refused to communicate directly with us, even when it was at the Ombudsman’s bequest. The Ombudsman’s office concluded ‘the firm acted unreasonably in relation to both aspects of the complaint’ and their conduct ‘fall[s] below the standard of service we expect’. They recommended the firm pay us compensation – in line with their ‘significant’ category of distress and inconvenience guidance - for ‘the distress and inconvenience experienced’ to ‘reflect[s] the emotional impact of prolonged and unnecessary communication, … and the avoidable burden placed on [ourselves] to resolve matters that should have been managed by the firm as executor.’ They also pointed out that the negative impact the firm’s behaviour had exerted was both ‘genuine and avoidable’, especially as the inconvenience extended over several months when ‘the firm had multiple opportunities to resolve these matters more effectively.’ In short, this firm exhibited a complete lack of class, credibility and competency. Use entirely at your own risk.
Solicitors tagged in
this review
