Wollens

Excellent service, very caring and helpful, nothing was too much trouble, very patient. As we had not done anything like this, so did not know what to expect.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Edward Lee

very professional and pragmatic approach to an issue we had.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Marco Floreale

There is a problem with this firm unfortunately.This is sad, because initially they do seem most positive and helpful.Often this cannot be said of the profession. Once money has changed hands however, this approach seems to change. This does seem to be confirmed by other clients both here and elsewhere. Of course they would maintain that this is because it is only then that they know the true facts.It might be better that they establish their view of these before substantial sums are paid, however. My complaint involved the care and treatment of a loved one at an NHS hospital here in the South West. My relative was placed on a version of the notorious "Liverpool Pathway", which many consider a "death" pathway. Patients are dehydrated, with all fluids being denied, and there is heavy sedative use, regardless of pain levels, which can also prevent drinking, and depress the metabolism. And so the there were too issues: a) The issue of possible negligence , b) Her human rights and freedoms being ignored (I was also possessed an LPA for the relative, which was denied/ignored). Unfortunately, the two lawyers concerned, specialising in these respective areas, couldn't seem to relate and integrate these two ideas. There were two further distinctions: 1) Possible negligence in not actively treating the person:for example she walked a half mile a week before admission, sitting in the local town square, and drinking coffee.This fact was ignored by doctors, and seemingly be these lawyers as well. Instead they became "blinded by science"i.e.an MRI scan result. 2) The actual "end of life" plan or practices themselves, which can reasonably be claimed, cause or hasten death.In this instance my loved one was denied all fluids for 7 days in a 95 degree room, and a sedative "cocktail" was given.This was the main issue. Again, the relationship between these wasn't understood: the medical negligence lawyer ignored the former, simply looking at 1). It was stated that clinicians "did everything they should have done",as "guidance" said that only a saline drip should be used to give fluids in the case of a condition like this. This was completely nonsensical, as the medical records clearly showed that when so called palliative care began this was removed without my consent. Doctors themselves prescribed "sips" of water at first, though it was likely none were given. The notes-although confused-also confirm that there was no water give by mouth for at least 5 days.I helped my loved one drink myself, and she could do so normally.However staff kept trying to prevent this, and then the sedation made this anyway impossible. I pointed out these facts, but those concerned seemed unable or unwilling to grasp them. Instead they seemed preoccupied with a case from the 1950s called Bolham. This was nothing to do with "end of life" at all, and related to a mental patient injured during ECT.ECT, however controversial, is at least a type of cure or treatment, not leading to almost inevitable death, as does 5-7 days of dehydration. During the 1950's doctors did not even prescribe opiates in such cases, and almost always attempted a cure.Even abortion was illegal.The kind of practices which I describe would quite possibly have seen them charged with manslaughter or homicide. The argument, such as it was,could I suppose have been that some kind of "body of doctors"still practiced the LCP or similar, since this in the test (for negligence). Similar arguments could probably be advanced to justify such things as the actions of the doctors tried at Nuremberg even:i.e.they were respected men of science/in their field, and the law was ambiguous at the time, as to whether their actions were civil wrongs or actually criminal. This was part of their defence in fact. I believe it is actually quite clear that clinicians cannot function in a bubble:they can't justify unreasonable, cruel, immoral acts, blatant neglect or disregard of basic rights and freedoms with these kind of arguments. The LCP is actually banned within the UK These considerations are actually embodied in later case law etc e.g.Bolito. In addition, other precedent (e.g.the Bland case),makes clear that doctors are not exempted form their duty to preserve life where basic provision of water by mouth is concerned, only clinically assisted hydration, and aware persons should not be dehydrated( Yet the lawyer in question seemed incredulous when I mentioned criminal concerns). One is left to discover all this oneself however, or by taking advice elsewhere. There were the following problems: i) It was claimed that the doctors did not possess a copy of the LPA. This was factually incorrect:they photocopied the whole document. Their own notes confirmed this. But since the lawyer concerned merely "glanced"at the records (her words),this conclusion was unsurprising. ii) It was said (by the same lawyer) that surgeons couldn't operate due to a life endangering aneurism.Later I consulted a doctor myself as to this. He believed this unlikely. iii) The two lawyers emphasised at first that my own, extensive notes were important. Later they refused to have sight of these, even though I offered additional payment. iv) It was agreed that there would be a letter to the trust relating to a potential claim.This never materialised, even though a claim like this was implicit in the obligation to provide the records.A refund was made, but this was small. On the positive side, a draft letter was written by the COP MCA lawyer, r.e.human rights, to the Ombudsman, which was well written.It omitted to say that all fluids were withdrawn however, not just treatment. Regardless this was of limited use, as it wasn't signed. If the complaints dept. wish to engage with me, I would consider this, but due to all of the above, I fear that I cannot recommend the firm for such cases,despite my initial good impression. They seem to only be willing to take on "right leg amputated instead of left leg" type work, and I believe they lack the courage to embark upon controversial cases, taking on powerful institutions such as the NHS. I would think twice before engaging them in any capacity in fact, as they give an impression, r.e.taking on future work, which can be mislead, leaving clients potentially out of pocket.

Consistently really good, professional and helpful service.

Solicitors tagged in
this review

Karen Miller

Jessica Marshall

Solicitor Emma Tyrer assisted me to successfully challenge a decision by a local authority. After a thorough research of legal precedents she composed a convincing challenge which was quickly accepted by the local authority without the need for litigation. The responses of Ms Tyrer to my queries were fast and to the point enabling the matter to be closed within a much shorter time than I had anticipated. I am very satisfied with the service of Wollens.

Good and prompt service always kept advised of the progress of the flat sale I think David Brooking needs a pay rise. Chris Morton

Legal experts tagged in
this review

David Brooking

Dreadful experience quoted under a £1000 for a simple case which I paid upfront (not recommended) received constant phone calls and emails suggesting ideas (charging all the time without warning) ended up back at the beginning as none of the ideas were worthwhile and then gave me a bill for a further £1900 on top! I pulled the case from them and dealt with it myself which took 2 weeks all resolved. I refused to pay the extra money and put a complaint in as I felt some of the £1000 given should be refunded due to no useful help being received and I had to deal with the case on my own in the end anyway, no response from them for 4 years and last week a bill comes through asking for the £1900! I won't be paying and I'm happy to go to court to reclaim the money I have paid. Rip off merchants. BEWARE!!!