Bishopsgate Law Ltd

This was by far the worst experience I have had with a law firm, and I would never use Bishopsgate Law again. We instructed Bishopsgate on a linked sale and purchase. This was not simply a case of conveyancing taking longer than we would have liked. Our concern is the way the transaction was handled, particularly once Bishopsgate knew that our buyer was becoming increasingly frustrated and that the entire chain was at risk. One example that particularly sums up our experience concerned the Building Safety Act. The managing agent, acting for the freeholder, confirmed in writing that the building was four storeys and therefore was not a relevant building under the Act. Bishopsgate would not accept the managing agent's response and insisted on confirmation from the landlord. The landlord was not going to correspond with us directly, which Bishopsgate was told. Instead of accepting the information supplied by the managing agent or finding a proportionate way of resolving the issue earlier, the matter continued. We ultimately had to involve our own surveyor to establish the building height. The measurement came back at approximately 9 metres. In other words, after all of that back-and-forth, objective evidence ultimately confirmed that this was a small four-storey building below the relevant height threshold. This was not the only occasion where we felt perfectly reasonable responses from the managing agent were treated with extraordinary scepticism. On the buildings-insurance issue, the managing agent liaised with the insurance broker, amended the relevant information and confirmed that the broker had not advised that the insurance was invalid. The managing agent themselves expressed surprise at their written clarification apparently not being accepted, describing it as very unusual for a buyer not to accept clarification from the freeholder's representative. Yet the issue continued to generate further correspondence and delay. Communication made the situation worse. Bishopsgate's own response to our initial complaint acknowledged that communication could have been better and that “I do also appreciate that, at times, [name redacted] could have taken your instructions into account, as to which enquiries could be considered to be satisfied, or which ones would still require a response.” Perhaps the most astonishing part of our experience was the way our complaint was handled when we escalated matters to a director of the firm. When I asked whether the matter could be transferred to someone who could progress it urgently or another firm, I was told: “You can use [our previous solicitors]’s again.” I was also reminded: “You’re not our only client that [name redacted] has”. When I questioned why further enquiries kept being added, I was told: “In the interest of speed, you can’t forego them questions”, because otherwise “…the seller has had his money and he’s off in the wind.” Yet later in the same conversation, after I explained that all we wanted was proper advice about which risks genuinely mattered, he agreed that the firm could review the “sticking points”, explain the risks and allow us to make an informed decision where appropriate - exactly the approach we had been asking for. At the end of the call, I was promised: “I’ll ring you tomorrow.” I did not receive the promised call the following day. The eventual outcome was devastating for us. Our buyer withdrew and we were told that the transaction had taken too long. As a result, we had to withdraw from our onward purchase. We subsequently made a formal complaint concerning Bishopsgate's handling of the transaction (Bishopsgate disputes liability). The consequences for our family have lasted long beyond the original transaction. This occurred in late 2024. Since then, we have repeatedly tried to mitigate the situation by re-marketing the property, but demand is materially weaker and we are now having to market the property at around £100,000 below the original agreed sale price.

I had a very difficult experience working with Helen Everitt. However I was given compensation so am giving three stars.

My experience with Bishopsgate Law during the sale of my property was extremely disappointing. My matter was handled by Kelly Archer and Carolyn Fernandes, and unfortunately the service I received fell well below the standard I expected from a professional conveyancing firm. Throughout the transaction, there were repeated errors in important legal documents and responses to enquiries. Despite providing clear and detailed information by email, incorrect information was repeatedly included in documents prepared by the firm. One enquiry response even stated that my property had been unoccupied for 15 years, which was completely false and directly contradicted the information I had supplied. Errors of this nature had the potential to jeopardise the sale and caused unnecessary delays while they were corrected. There were also financial errors during the transaction. After completion, I was informed that I owed an additional £841 because of a miscalculation on the completion statement. This is a fundamental part of the conveyancing process and should have been identified before completion. Communication throughout was extremely frustrating. Calls were regularly not returned, updates were difficult to obtain, and I spent weeks chasing Bishopsgate Law simply to keep my sale progressing. I was repeatedly asked for information I had already provided, had to explain the same issues to different members of staff, and even had to obtain enquiry responses from the property management company myself because these were not being progressed by the firm. Following a frustrating complaints process, Bishopsgate Law accepted responsibility for some of the mistakes that had been made. They refunded the £841 relating to the completion statement error. After I expressed my dissatisfaction that this did not adequately address the wider issues with the service I had received, they offered me £200 as a "goodwill" gesture, which I was told was the maximum they were prepared to offer. While I acknowledge that they eventually accepted some responsibility, I do not believe this reflected the overall level of service I received or the considerable time, effort, and stress caused by having to manage problems that should never have arisen. I believed the matter had finally been resolved, but my experience did not end there. After posting honest reviews about my experience, Bishopsgate Law sought to have them removed because I had identified the individuals who handled my matter. I found this particularly disappointing because positive reviews on the same platform also identify members of staff, yet those reviews remain published. From my perspective, this created the impression that naming staff only became an issue when the review was critical. Rather than allowing customers to see a balanced account of my experience, I felt the focus shifted towards challenging the review itself. I believe customers should be able to make informed decisions based on genuine experiences, including negative ones, as long as those reviews are truthful and based on the customer's own dealings with the firm. Overall, I found Bishopsgate Law's service disorganised, reactive, and lacking the attention to detail I expected from a professional conveyancing firm. Although they eventually acknowledged some mistakes and provided partial compensation, my overall experience, including the handling of my feedback afterwards, means I would not recommend Bishopsgate Law.

Throughout the sale of our property, Jayden was our primary point of contact. He consistently responded to our questions promptly and never hesitated to call us directly whenever clarification was needed, ensuring we always had clear and timely information. He delivered a high standard of service from start to finish, even when certain steps were delayed due to the buyer’s solicitor needing to provide updates before matters could move forward. We truly appreciate the support provided by Jayden and Bishopsgate Law. Their professionalism and assistance made the process far smoother, and we are very grateful for everything they did for us.

I recently completed a sale with Bishopsgate Law and worked with Jodie, Sofina and Pak-ka. They handled a difficult set of buyers solicitors with real composure. They stayed proactive at every step, kept me updated, and made the whole process feel manageable. They were engaged, quick to respond, and genuinely easy to work with. I felt in safe hands throughout. I would recommend them to anyone looking for a team who actually gets things done.

Used Bishopsgate law for conveyancing in selling my flat above commercial, which can have complications. My first buyer pulled out and they were ready to pick things up with pace upon the next offer. I exchanged in less than 3 months with great communication and efficiency throughout making the process as painless as possible. Value was reasonable too. Would highly recommend. Shout out to Ammaad and Rachel who I dealt with throughout. I’ve heard a lot of people have bad experiences with solicitors of late - Bishopsgate are now my go to.

I strongly advise anyone considering Bishopsgate Law, particularly Jodie Prospere in their Residential Property Department, to think very carefully before instructing this firm. My experience has been nothing short of disastrous. After almost a year of unnecessary delays, extremely poor communication and what I consider a complete lack of proactive case management, my property sale ultimately collapsed. I have lost thousands of pounds, countless hours of my time and, regrettably, the entire experience has also damaged a longstanding friendship with my buyer. The buyer and I knew each other personally. It was a straightforward private sale in the sense that both parties were cooperative, understood the property’s history and were genuinely committed to completing the transaction. Unfortunately, the conveyancing process became an endless cycle of enquiries, delays and repeated requests for information. My main complaints are: 1. Almost impossible to speak to Jodie Despite repeated requests for telephone calls, my buyer was unable to speak to Jodie even once. He called the office numerous times, requested callbacks and repeatedly explained the urgency. Yet there was no meaningful telephone communication with him. Even simple issues that could potentially have been resolved through a five-minute conversation between solicitors were allowed to drag on for weeks. 2. Emails answered at an incredibly slow pace Despite numerous emails, reminders and escalations, substantive responses often arrived only around once a week. There were occasions when we were waiting several days simply for Jodie to review documents that the seller’s solicitors had already supplied. When we specifically asked her not to wait until the usual end-of-week update, we still struggled to obtain timely responses. 3. Previously addressed enquiries repeatedly reopened One of the most frustrating aspects was seeing enquiries that we believed had already been addressed being raised again months later. The building had known fire safety and remediation issues. These were disclosed, the buyer understood them and was willing to accept the associated risks, subject to his lender’s approval. Rather than establishing a clear process for resolving the lender’s requirements, the transaction became stuck in repeated requests for documents and information, some of which the building management company had explained were not yet available. We fully appreciate that solicitors have legal obligations to their clients and mortgage lenders. Our complaint is not that appropriate enquiries were raised, but how slowly and inefficiently they were managed. 4. Over £2,000 spent on a Deed of Variation, with no completed sale We incurred over £2,000 in costs associated with arranging a Deed of Variation and related requirements during the transaction. Despite this substantial expenditure, the transaction never reached exchange. The repeated uncertainty and delays meant we were left with significant wasted costs and no sale. 5. Repeated requests for proactive action achieved very little Both buyer and seller repeatedly asked for direct telephone discussions between the solicitors to resolve outstanding issues. We escalated concerns, explained the financial consequences and requested clear action plans. Yet progress remained painfully slow. Even towards the end, after extensive documentation had been supplied, we still had no agreed exchange date or reliable completion timetable. 6. The buyer eventually lost patience and withdrew After almost a year, my buyer understandably reached the end of his patience and withdrew from the transaction. What should have been a mutually beneficial private sale ended in complete failure. Beyond the financial loss, the prolonged experience put considerable strain on our personal relationship. My conclusion I would not instruct Jodie Prospere again, and based on my experience, I cannot recommend Bishopsgate Law for residential conveyancing.

Thank you to Tracy and Ema! They made the house buying process smooth and easy. Great communication throughout. Highly recommend them and Bishopsgate Law!

It's been a dispiriting experience trying to buy a flat using Bishopsgate Law, despite no chain on either side. Poor comms characterised by vague "received further info and will revert soon", typically Fridays at 5.30pm. We feel there's a lack of initiative to address issues, with a 'process clerk' functionary mentality and limited apparent incentive to progress, even as our fixed-rate mortgage offer nears expiry. I'm not even sure my Bishopsgate conveyancer reads our emails properly nearly five months in, even when we suggest possible solutions. Seller's low-cost online conveyancers have been poor but we definitely regret paying full whack for what feels a minimal-effort and impersonal service from Bishopsgate, with little sense that they are 'on our side'. Maybe we just got unlucky with the conveyancer they assigned to us but I would certainly not recommend this company for conveyancing.

This was by far the worst experience I have had with a law firm, and I would never use Bishopsgate Law again. We instructed Bishopsgate on a linked sale and purchase. This was not simply a case of conveyancing taking longer than we would have liked. Our concern is the way the transaction was handled, particularly once Bishopsgate knew that our buyer was becoming increasingly frustrated and that the entire chain was at risk. One example that particularly sums up our experience concerned the Building Safety Act. The managing agent, acting for the freeholder, confirmed in writing that the building was four storeys and therefore was not a relevant building under the Act. Bishopsgate would not accept the managing agent's response and insisted on confirmation from the landlord. The landlord was not going to correspond with us directly, which Bishopsgate was told. Instead of accepting the information supplied by the managing agent or finding a proportionate way of resolving the issue earlier, the matter continued. We ultimately had to involve our own surveyor to establish the building height. The measurement came back at approximately 9 metres. In other words, after all of that back-and-forth, objective evidence ultimately confirmed that this was a small four-storey building below the relevant height threshold. This was not the only occasion where we felt perfectly reasonable responses from the managing agent were treated with extraordinary scepticism. On the buildings-insurance issue, the managing agent liaised with the insurance broker, amended the relevant information and confirmed that the broker had not advised that the insurance was invalid. The managing agent themselves expressed surprise at their written clarification apparently not being accepted, describing it as very unusual for a buyer not to accept clarification from the freeholder's representative. Yet the issue continued to generate further correspondence and delay. Communication made the situation worse. Bishopsgate's own response to our initial complaint acknowledged that communication could have been better and that “I do also appreciate that, at times, [name redacted] could have taken your instructions into account, as to which enquiries could be considered to be satisfied, or which ones would still require a response.” Perhaps the most astonishing part of our experience was the way our complaint was handled when we escalated matters to a director of the firm. When I asked whether the matter could be transferred to someone who could progress it urgently or another firm, I was told: “You can use [our previous solicitors]’s again.” I was also reminded: “You’re not our only client that [name redacted] has”. When I questioned why further enquiries kept being added, I was told: “In the interest of speed, you can’t forego them questions”, because otherwise “…the seller has had his money and he’s off in the wind.” Yet later in the same conversation, after I explained that all we wanted was proper advice about which risks genuinely mattered, he agreed that the firm could review the “sticking points”, explain the risks and allow us to make an informed decision where appropriate - exactly the approach we had been asking for. At the end of the call, I was promised: “I’ll ring you tomorrow.” I did not receive the promised call the following day. The eventual outcome was devastating for us. Our buyer withdrew and we were told that the transaction had taken too long. As a result, we had to withdraw from our onward purchase. We subsequently made a formal complaint concerning Bishopsgate's handling of the transaction (Bishopsgate disputes liability). The consequences for our family have lasted long beyond the original transaction. This occurred in late 2024. Since then, we have repeatedly tried to mitigate the situation by re-marketing the property, but demand is materially weaker and we are now having to market the property at around £100,000 below the original agreed sale price.