Kevin Ritchie
Post Completion
Please note: I appreciate that this is a longer review than most. However, given the length of the transaction, the repeated issues I experienced and the significant financial and personal impact the delays had on me, I felt it was important to set out my experience fully and fairly. Anyone considering instructing a solicitor for one of the most important financial transactions of their life deserves sufficient context to make an informed decision. Nichols Marcy Dawson were recommended by my estate agent, and I expected a professional and proactive service. Unfortunately, my experience fell well short of that expectation. While I appreciate that many delays were caused by the buyer’s side and were outside NMD’s control, I rarely felt there was any urgency in progressing matters. Updates often arrived very late in the working day, leaving little opportunity to respond before the office closed and resulting in unnecessary delays carrying over to the following day or after the weekend. I appreciate that solicitors are busy and cannot always respond immediately, but acknowledging correspondence or providing a realistic timescale for a full reply is, in my view, a basic aspect of good client service. My overall experience was that communication was inconsistent and often lacking. One incident particularly concerned me. When I queried a delay in responding to an enquiry, one of the partners explained that it was because the other partner in their job-share arrangement was not in the office and described it as only a “small” delay. As a client, I found that dismissive. Internal staffing arrangements should never become the client’s problem, and I would have expected the firm to take collective responsibility rather than explain delays by reference to colleagues. Perhaps my greatest disappointment was the apparent lack of appreciation that, while professionals understandably have annual leave and competing priorities, I was the one living with the consequences of every delay. On more than one occasion I was told someone had been on holiday or was only just picking matters back up on their return. Whilst I fully accept that people are entitled to take leave, a client’s transaction should not simply pause because an individual is absent. By this stage the agreed completion date had already been missed by five weeks, yet I never felt there was any real recognition of the financial cost, uncertainty and stress those delays were causing me. Having bought and sold ten properties over the years, I have a good understanding of the conveyancing process and what clients should reasonably expect. I often felt that legitimate questions were treated as an inconvenience rather than as part of the service I was paying for. As the firm had been recommended by my estate agent, I raised some of my concerns during the transaction. The estate agent advised that responsibility for progressing matters rested with the solicitors, a position subsequently acknowledged by the firm. Despite that, I did not experience any meaningful improvement in communication or momentum, noted but not acted upon. I deliberately waited until the transaction had completed before writing this review. I believe reviews should be fair, balanced and based on the entirety of a client’s experience rather than isolated moments. Even immediately before completion, I found myself seeking clarification about the completion statement because it contained charges that either differed from, or had not previously been referred to in, the quotation I had accepted. Following my enquiry, I was informed that an abortive transaction fee relating to a previous sale would be charged, despite it never having been brought to my attention during the intervening two years. 3month. I am not suggesting the firm was not entitled to make that charge if it formed part of the agreed terms. My concern was that it had never been communicated to me and only came to light when the completion statement was issued. Once again, I found myself having to ask for explanations rather than those explanations being provided proactively. That charge was eventually taken off. A firm’s reputation is built not only on its legal competence but also on how clients feel they were treated. Much of what I experienced could, in my view, have been avoided through more proactive communication, greater ownership of the transaction and greater transparency. I note from previous reviews that the firm often responds publicly. I am not looking to engage in a public back-and-forth. I have retained the correspondence relating to my transaction, and this review is an honest and considered account of my experience. I cannot comment on the legal quality of the work itself, as the transaction was ultimately completed. However, the client experience fell well below what I expected from a firm that had come so highly recommended. Based on my experience, I would not use Nichols Marcy Dawson again, nor would I recommend them to others.
