Cunningtons LLP

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us, and we are sorry to hear about your negative experience with Cunningtons. Customer satisfaction is a priority for us and we are dedicated to providing the highest level of service and expertise to all of our clients. We understood that your concerns were addressed over a year ago, so we are sorry to see that you are still upset. As mentioned, we strive to provide the best service we can to clients. On the rare occasions we do not meet expectations, which in your case was connected to a number of things not wholly within our control, we do look to make amends. So once again we do regret that on this occasion you were not satisfied with the service provided.

Thank you for sharing your feedback with us, and we are sorry to hear about your negative experience with Cunningtons. Customer satisfaction is a priority for us and we are dedicated to providing the highest level of service and expertise to all of our clients, so once again we do regret that on this occasion you were not satisfied with the service provided. Please could you e-mail your full name and transaction details to customercare@cunningtons.co.uk so that we can look into this further. Thank you

Thank you for your review, but it is not quite accurate. This is of course understandable; clients are not expected to understand the intricacies of leasehold conveyancing or the concurrent duties that a solicitor will owe to a client’s mortgage lender. We did explain things to you during the course of your transaction in 2023. You raised a complaint on 2nd January 2024. It is correct that unfortunately, due to staff absences, a full response to this was not provided until 8th February 2024. Your complaint was not upheld. Unhappy with our response to your complaint, you then approached the Legal Ombudsman, who also dismissed your complaint. Whilst you refer to the reasons given for the dismissal of your complaint as “far-fetched”, they were not. A full chronology of events was given to you, including an explanation as to why a defective title indemnity insurance policy was required to protect your mortgage lender in line with their lending requirements. This was required due to the lack of insuring obligations on the freeholder in relation to the building, and was raised in early course with your seller. Your seller was not prepared to agree or pay for this initially but when it was finally agreed, after several chasers, it was also necessary to ensure the policy that was eventually agreed was acceptable to your mortgage lender. You were told in advance this would be necessary to do. We do accept that there was a typo in one draft document (not multiple documents). This was the draft transfer, but this was very quickly and easily corrected, as it was in draft and subject to agreement with your seller. Likewise, you renegotiated the purchase price twice. The first time appears to have caused the initial confusion. This is why solicitors will ask their clients to double check documents before they sign them. On the second occasion you renegotiated the purchase price/agreed an allowance, very late on in the transaction. This caused a small last minute delay as well, because it was necessary to obtain the approval of your mortgage lender and agree a contractual clause with the seller. This was also seen to quickly. The sale didn’t fall through because of anything this firm did or did not do. The email from the seller’s solicitor confirmed that your seller had a change of heart, and had decided to rent the property instead of selling it to you. Whilst this firm’s service may not have met your personal expectations, the huge number of positive reviews that we receive is demonstrable proof that we meet and often exceed the expectations of the vast majority of our clients.

Thank you for your kind review, we're so glad to have been able to help you with your conveyancing!