Conveyancing mistake

When a conveyancing mistake is made are you entitled to claim compensation?

Buying a house or a flat is probably the single most expensive purchase you will ever make, so it needs to be done with a great deal of care. As a minimum you will want to make sure that all the walls are stable and not likely to subside, that the roof is sound and that you won’t be facing huge bills in the near future remedying building defects.  This is why most people arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property and prepare a report

But it isn’t just building and construction issues that you need to be concerned about. There are also important legal issues that need to be considered when buying a property.

The kitchen extension:  Is it legal?  Is there planning permission?  Building regulations approval?

The driveway: Does it belong to you?  Does your neighbour have a right to use it?  

The garden.  Do you own it?  Are the boundaries correct?

The septic tank:  Who is responsible for it?  Does it comply with current regulations?  Can anyone else use it and if so, what is their contribution to its upkeep?

There are so many legal questions that need to be considered when buying a property. Most people would never stop and think about them; which is why you use a solicitor to think of them for you.

In the vast majority of cases the purchase of a property will go ahead smoothly without any hiccups. However, things do sometimes go wrong and a conveyancing mistake is made.  The solicitor may for instance fail to notice that planning permission for the kitchen extension was never granted. Or someone starts driving over your property as a Right of Way wasn’t noticed.  Or the water pipes burst and you suddenly find yourself responsible for their replacement as ownership of the pipes was overlooked.  

In each of those instances, if the problem had been noticed before you completed on the purchase you would have had the choice to pull out of the transaction, negotiate a reduction in the price or obtain an insurance policy to protect you.  If the conveyancing mistake has denied you those options and you are now out of pocket as a result, you may be able to claim compensation.

We operate a free legal helpline for people who have suffered a financial loss exceeding £10,000 as a result of a conveyancing mistake. You can call us on 0808 139 1595 or send an email with brief details to [email protected]

We will be happy to undertake a brief free assessment of your potential claim and let you know if we can work on a no win no fee basis.

Solicitor messed up my divorce

My solicitor messed up my divorce. Can I claim compensation?

Divorce is never a pleasant experience, so when it goes wrong the effect can be devastating..  

As with most legal disputes, an element of compromise on both sides is needed in order to reach a settlement. This means that people rarely walk away from a divorce feeling 100% satisfied. However, while that sense of dissatisfaction is in most cases an unavoidable consequence of the divorce process, occasionally the outcome is made worse by the actions of a solicitor.

What can go wrong during the divorce process?

There is much that can go wrong during a divorce which can in turn lead to significant financial loss being suffered. Examples include:

  • Under-settling the financial claim;
  • Failing to identify a matrimonial asset;
  • Failing to prevent dissipation of matrimonial assets;
  • Incorrect valuation of assets, especially property and pensions;
  • Failing to comply with a Court order leading to all or part of a claim being struck out;
  • Incorrectly drafting any settlement agreements or court orders; and
  • Failing to implement a Court Order.

Can I sue the solicitor who messed up my divorce?

If your solicitor (or barrister) messed up and caused you financial loss, then yes, you may be able to bring a compensation claim on the basis of negligence. 

But bear in mind that simply because you did not receive all that you had hoped for, it does not necessarily mean that your legal team were negligent.  You will have to prove that they acted in a way that no reasonably competent solicitor or barrister (with similar qualifications and experience) would have done. Furthermore, you have to show that your losses stem from that negligence and not from any other causes.

How we can help

If you are thinking of making a compensation claim against the solicitor who messed up your divorce and you have suffered loss exceeding £10,000 then you can contact us for a free initial discussion. We will look at what you think the solicitor got wrong and the loss you have suffered as a result. If there are grounds for a claim then we will be happy to consider working on a no-win no fee basis.

Call us on 0808 139 1595 or email [email protected] for a free initial assessment of your case.

Compensation for an accountant’s mistake after client was told she had no case

We win compensation for our client after her previous solicitors give up on the case

We have successfully recovered compensation for an accountant’s mistake. But what made this case unusual was that our client had been turned away by her previous solicitors on the basis that her case had no merit.

Based in the North East of England, Ms A owned a property with her bankrupt partner, B.  B’s Trustee in Bankruptcy was looking to seize and sell the property to pay off some of B’s debts.  In order to keep her home, Ms A asked accountants for assistance.  

Some time later Ms A had reason to query the advice she had received. In reaching a settlement with the Trustee in Bankruptcy to buy B out, the accountants forgot to check with B’s mortgagee about their charge over his interest in the property.  If they had done so, they would have realised that there was no value in B’s interest due to negative equity.  If they had known that then they could have simply invited the Trustee to waive his interest in the house in favour of Ms A.  Instead, she was forced to pay many tens of thousands of pounds to buy out the Trustee to acquire something that was essentially worthless.

However, the accountants denied they had ever acted for her, even though it was clear that the firm had negotiated terms with B’s trustee in bankruptcy on her behalf, so they could not deny they owed her a duty of care.

The accountants refused to co-operate with Ms A’s enquiries, ignoring correspondence and then claiming that they had destroyed any papers they had on the matter.  Ms A made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office, but the accountants continued to claim the papers had been destroyed and that they had never acted for Ms A.  As a result of this, her legal advisors (who had been appointed to represent Ms A under the terms of her Legal Expenses Insurance policy) claimed there were insufficient merits in the claim and the risk of taking legal action was too high.  They said there was nothing they could do to help.

This is the point we entered the picture. Ms A decided to seek a second opinion, and wisely on this occasion sought specialist help from ourselves. We specialise in professional negligence law and are highly experienced in dealing with negligence claims against accountants.

Emma Slade who heads up our ProNeg team disagreed with the previous solicitor’s analysis. In fact she was so certain they were wrong that she offered to take up the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.  

Despite there being such a small amount of paperwork available, Emma was convinced there was enough evidence to support a claim.  After much perseverance, the accountants and their insurers were finally persuaded and they reluctantly agreed to attend a mediation. The mediation was a success and a satisfactory settlement was negotiated.

Ms A was delighted with the outcome, thanking the team for their help.  “The real compensation is knowing that I was right.  After everything, the money is fine, but it feels better to be believed and acknowledged.”

If you are looking for solicitors to claim compensation for an accountant’s mistake, then call us for a free case assessment and details of No Win, No Fee funding. Alternatively, email us at [email protected]

Claiming compensation from a financial adviser

Claims for wrong financial advice

If you want to look after your hard-earned money then professional financial planning is an absolute must.  You may need advice on where to invest your savings, how to plan for your retirement or opportunities of reaping a better return on your assets.  While some people go to their accountant for this advice, others use the specialist services of an independent financial planner (IFA).  In most instances, that advice works out well, but occasionally it doesn’t.  That’s when consideration needs to be given to whether your loss is attributable to the inevitable fluctuations of the market or wrong financial advice.

Examples of wrong financial advice include:

  • Misunderstanding the risk profiles, resulting in the money of a cautious investor being put into high risk investments;
  • Encouraging people to enter into risky investment schemes without the relevant warnings or explaining the implications;
  • Suggesting a tax avoidance scheme which HMRC subsequently close down;
  • Promoting inappropriate investment schemes without checking their provenance or performance history;
  • Failure to ensure that the investor can actually afford the investment; and
  • Recommending unsuitable pensions and Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPS).

Whatever form the wrong financial advice takes and whatever loss it leads to, if the IFA failed to advise you to a suitable, professional standard, then they could be negligent and liable to pay you compensation.  

We specialise in financial negligence. So, if you feel that you have been let down by your your IFA, then call us and we will be happy to discuss your claim with you.   We can also look at funding options, including the availability of a no-win, no-fee. Do not delay in calling though: negligence claims do have strict time limits and they can quickly pass.

To discuss such a claim for compensation for wrong financial advice on a free, no-obligation basis, please call Emma Slade on 0808 139 1595 or email [email protected] .  We are here to help.

Construction projects gone wrong & the role of Project Managers

Professional Negligence solicitor, Emma Slade, looks at construction projects gone wrong & the role of Project Managers

There is a multitude of reasons why a construction project may go wrong and end up in a legal dispute.  Poor workmanship, poor design and poor timetabling are all common.  But what about poor supervision?

Anybody involved in a build project will undoubtedly have heard of a JCT Contract.  In fact, there are a suite of contracts that have been prepared by the Joint Contracts Tribunal and have been created to “facilitate the process of delivering a building project. In simple terms they set out the responsibilities of all the parties within the process and their obligations to each other”.

One of the recommendations in a JCT Contract is to appoint a Contract Administrator (or a Project Manager under NEC Contracts) who will be the client’s representative throughout the project and is there to oversee the works themselves.  Customarily, the role will go to the likes of a surveyor or an architect, but it can be any number of professions. 

However appointment of a Project Manager is no guarantee that things will run smoothly. Unfortunately there are lots of examples of construction projects gone wrong even where a Project Manager has been hires to oversee things.

Contruction projects gone wrong and negligence cases involving Project Managers can include the following:

  • Failure to ensure the contract is signed;  
  • Failure to notice or report on defects;
  • Failure to comply with the timetable;  
  • Biased decisions;
  • Allowing an overrun on costs; 
  • Negligently issuing Interim or Final Certificates; 
  • Failure to ensure insurance was in place; and 
  • Recommending unreliable contractors.  

And where negligence occurs, invariably a financial loss results: an overrun on the project; additional build costs; inability to recover against the main contractor; having a build fail due to incompetence are all common claims.

We are professional negligence solicitors specialising in construction projects gone wrong & project manager negligence claims on a national basis. We offer various funding options including No Win, No Fee.

For guidance on construction projects gone wrong or negligence claims involving a Project Manager call our free legal helpline on 0808 139 1595 or email details of your case to us at [email protected]

No Win, No Fee surveyor claim

Case study of a successful No Win, No Fee surveyor claim

We specialise in No Win, No Fee surveyor claims. Call us for a free case assessment on 0808 139 1595 or send brief details of your case to us at [email protected]

Our client appointed a surveyor to carry out a full structural survey of a property they wished to purchase. The client happened to be present when the survey was carried out and was told that asbestos might be present in the artexing. However this warning was not mentioned in the written report. The client tried to follow it up with the surveyor, but their emails went unanswered and their telephone number was blocked.

After moving in, the client had new central heating installed. When plumbers entered the floor void they found large piles of asbestos. An asbestos report was immediately obtained and this found evidence of asbestos in:

  • the fireplace;
  • the kitchen cupboards;
  • lagging to pipework under the ground floor; 
  • lagging to pipework under the first floor; and
  • lagging in the attic void.

We agreed to take on the No Win, No Fee surveyor claim. But when we presented the claim to the surveyor he argued that structural surveys do not need to cover asbestos and that certain areas of the property where unreachable. This was despite the fact that he had mentioned the problem to our client himself at the inspection. The surveyor also tried to argue that it was our client’s fault for not following up on their ‘roadside’ conversation.

However, we countered that the RICS’s definition of a structural survey states that asbestos should be mentioned. No competent surveyor would have failed to detect the presence of the asbestos in the property and had the survey report included reference to this then the client would have followed it up. There had obviously been either a mistake/oversight when the inspection was done, or the inspection was not done at all.

Our arguments succeeded and the claim was settled out of court with our client receiving compensation.

If you are looking for a solicitor who is experienced in surveyor claims to handle your No Win, No Fee case call us for a free case assessment or send details to us by email and we will get straight back to you.

Homebuyers survey missed asbestos

Case study of a successful compensation claim made because a Homebuyers survey missed asbestos

Our client instructed a surveyor to carry out a Homebuyers survey on a property he wished to purchase.  The surveyor carried out an inspection and submitted his Homebuyers survey report. It made reference to Artex on the ceilings and the presence of plasterboard, but the report gave no indication that they posed a problem. Nor was any recommendation made for further investigations to be carried out at the property. Accordingly our client proceeded with his purchase.

Having moved in he commenced some building works. This led him to discover that the walls were in fact made of asbestos cement and that many of the rooms in the house had asbestos both in the ceilings and in the walls.  By the time this was discovered the asbestos had been disturbed. As a result our client and his family had to vacate the premises immediately.

We agreed to pursue a compensation claim on a No Win, No Fee basis based on the allegation that the Homebuyers survey missed asbestos.

The surveyor argued that by referencing the possibility of asbestos in his report this was sufficient warning of the existence of asbestos in the property. Furthermore, he said that he could not have ascertained whether the walls contained asbestos of not.

This defence was rejected by us. Even the most superficial inspection of the walls by a competant surveyor would have given an indication of their likely composition. Furthermore RICS guidelines are specific in that a surveyor must positively identify the risk of asbestos and recommend that it be investigated by an asbestos specialist if the surveyor is not qualified to investigate it themselves. 

The case ultimately settled out of court with out client receiving a satisfactory level of compensation for the losses suffered by him.

If your survey missed asbestos and you are looking for experienced professional negligence solicitors to make a surveyor’s negligence claim on a No Win, No Fee basis then call our free legal helpline for a case assessment on 0808 139 1595 or send brief details of your case to us at [email protected] and we will get straight back to you with our recommendations.

 

 

 

Compensation claim for a bad survey

Case study of an ongoing claim for compensation for a bad survey

We were recently approached by a gentleman who had purchased a property which turned out to be defective. He wanted to know if he was entitled to compensation for a bad survey.

He told us that a valuation had been required by his mortgage company prior to him purchasing the property purchase. A surveyor was accordingly instructed by the building society, but the surveyor’s fee was paid by the client.  No significant defects were noted in the surveyor’s report so the client felt happy proceeding with the purchase.

Shortly after moving in however, he noticed significant cracking. On investigation it was established that the bungalow he had boiught was constructed on a raft design, but due to subsidence the raft had snapped in two, splitting the bungalow down the middle and tearing it apart. 

Obviously our client was devastated and wanted to know why this defect had not been picked up by the surveyor.

When he looked into it further he discovered that there were a number of indicators that should have been spotted by the surveyor. when he carried out his inspection. If the surveyor had noticed these then the serious defect would have come to light. The telltale signs included cracking, sloping floors and doorways and evidence of previous subsidence investigations.

We agreed to pursue his compensation claim for a bad survey and work on a No Win, No Fee basis.

The claim has now been presented to the surveyor who has denied that he is at fault.  He claims that his obligation was purely limited to carrying out a valuation of the property. However both the RICS guidance and the original instructions by the building society specifically stated that he should review anything which would affect the valuation, including subsidence. Needless to say we have rejected the surveyor’s arguments and the case continues.

If you have had a bad survey and are looking for experienced surveyor negligence solicitors who operate on a No Win, No Fee basis then call our Helpline for a no obligation, free case assessment. Call 0808 139 1595 or email us at [email protected]

 

 

How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?

One of the most frequently asked questions we receive is, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’

In most instances it is pretty straightforward to identify the amount of compensation that is likely to be recovered in a successful professional negligence claim. The calculation is primarily based on the financial loss that has flowed directly from the actions of the wrongdoer. 

So, if for example a solicitor misses an important time limit and your case is struck out as a consequence, then you will claim compensation for the financial losses you have incurred as a direct result of the solicitor’s carelessness. This will usually be the value of the case that has been lost, together with any wasted legal costs.

But sometimes, the compensation people want to claim can give rise to more difficult legal issues. Under English law for instance, compensation cannot be claimed for loss that is deemed to be too ‘remote’ from the error or not ‘reasonably foreseeable’. 

If you are left wondering, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’, then you are very welcome to call our free legal helpline. Our specialist professional negligence solicitors will be happy to give you guidance on the compensation that can be claimed in a particular scenario. While it is not always possible to identify a precise figure right at the outset, it is usually possible to establish the basic legal principles that will apply and use them to offer an informed estimation of what the compensation is likely to be.

The principles of ‘remoteness’ and ‘reasonable foreseeability’ can give rise to very complex legal disputes.  It can be difficult for someone who is not legally trained to appreciate the nuances. Indeed, even some solicitors struggle with the concepts. In the remaining part of this article we will look in greater detail at the difficulties that can arise, with particular emphasis on a recent court decision that is set to impact directly when anyone asks, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’

At the heart of many disputes over the level of compensation that can be recovered is the “SAAMCO” principle, named after a 1996 case which said that:

“a person under a duty to take reasonable care to provide information on which someone else will decide upon a course of action is, if negligent, not generally regarded as responsible for all the consequences of that course of action. He is responsible only for the consequences of the information being wrong.”

The facts in the SAAMCO case were relatively simple. A valuer negligently overvalued a property that the bank was going to use as security. SAAMCO claimed the negative equity on the property that had occurred as a result of a market crash.  The logic of their argument was that if the valuer had not over-valued the property in the first place, SAAMCO would not have invested in the property so that when the market crashed it wouldn’t have made even greater losses.  The courts disagreed, stating that there was a difference between “advice” and “information”.  In this instance, the valuer had merely given information on the value of the property; what SAAMCO then did with it was up to them and the valuer could not be held responsible for the consequences of the information being wrong.

Confused? It isn’t easy to immediately grasp the nuances of the judgment, particularly as there wasn’t much guidance given about the differences between “advice” and “information”.  It has always been a cause of much legal argument as to whether something is or is not “information” or “advice”.  As the Supreme Court in another case stated:

information given by a professional man to his client is usually a specific form of advice, and most advice will involve conveying information.  Neither label really corresponds to the contents of the bottle”

It is welcome relief therefore that the Court of Appeal has now made its decision in Manchester Building Society -v- Grant Thornton UK LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 40.  It is quite similar to the facts of SAAMCO.  Based on negligent advice by Grant Thornton, MBS entered into a series of fixed rate mortgages hedged against long term swaps. But as a result of the most recent financial crash, MBM had to close out the swaps, incurring significant transaction fees and losses.  In the Judgment the Court sets out the SAAMCO principle:

  1. It is first necessary to consider whether it is an “advice” case or an “information” case. This is a necessary first step because the scope of the duty, and therefore the measure of liability, is different in the two cases.
  2. It will be an “advice” case if it can be shown that it has been “left to the adviser to consider what matters should be taken into account in deciding whether to enter into the transaction”, that “his duty is to consider all relevant matters and not only specific matters in the decision” and that he is “responsible for guiding the whole decision making process”.
  3. If it is an “advice” case, then the negligent adviser will have assumed responsibility for the decision to enter the transaction and will be responsible for all the foreseeable financial consequences of entering into the transaction.
  4. If it is not an “advice” case, then it is an “information” case and responsibility will not have been assumed for the decision to enter the transaction.
  5. If it is an “information” case, the negligent adviser/information provider will only be responsible for the foreseeable financial consequences of the advice and/or information being wrong.
  6. This involves a consideration of what losses would have been suffered if the advice and/or information had been correct. It is only losses which would not have been suffered in such circumstances that are recoverable.

This clarification is going to be of immense assistance in determining whether or not a professional was providing advice and therefore how much compensation can be claimed against the likes of solicitors advising in commercial transactions, auditors and accountants.

So if you want to know, ‘How much compensation can I claim for professional negligence?’, then give us a call on 0808 139 1595 or email brief details of your case to us at [email protected] and we will provide a free initial assessment of the value of your case and the availability of no win, no fee funding.

 

Is tax payable on compensation?

Is tax payable on compensation? Emma Slade, a specialist professional negligence solicitor, considers this crucial question in relation to CGT

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

Benjamin Franklin.

Sadly, Franklin had the right of it and as much as we try to avoid it, both are inevitable.  There are so many different forms of tax but this article is limited to a brief consideration of the effect of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on damages and compensation received as a result of a civil claim.

Let us start from the beginning: what is CGT?  In many respects, it is an extra form of Income Tax.  Just as you pay income tax on your earnings, so you pay CGT on any gains or profit that you may make on the disposal of an asset.  Probably the simplest example is if you buy a property for £100,000 to rent out and a few years later sell it for £150,000, you will have to pay tax on that £50,000 gain.

You also have to apply that concept to compensation.  Is compensation income?  Or is it an asset where there has been a gain?  Do you pay income tax or Capital Gains Tax?

It all comes down to whether or not the compensation arose from an asset or not.  There was a bit of a hiccup in 1985 in the Zim Properties Ltd -v- Proctor case where the court was asked to determine whether the right to sue was an asset for CGT purposes. Alarmingly, it concluded that it was.  The court took the view that damages are awarded in exchange for compensation, so the right to sue was a valuable asset upon which CGT should be charged.

This brought with it inordinate problems.  If in a professional negligence scenario, for example, your surveyor overvalues your house, a civil claim for compensation is supposed to put you back into the position as if the professional negligence had not occurred. However, under the Zim principles the Claimant would have to pay tax on that sum.  It didn’t seem fair, so fortunately, HMRC introduced ESC D33 which in effect overruled Zim.  It stated that only where there is an actual underlying asset, would CGT apply. If there is no underlying asset, no CGT would be payable.

This position was changed in 2014.  With effect from 27th January 2014, compensation that did not have an underlying asset would be exempt from CGT, but only for the first £500,000.  For amounts of compensation above this amount to be exempt, a request has to be made in writing to HMRC.

However, before the panic buttons get hit, there are many exceptions to this rule, of which the following are but a few:

  1. Damages for physical injury, distress, embarrassment, loss of reputation or dignity, unfair or unlawful discrimination and for libel or slander are all exempt;
  2. Loss of earnings are exempt, but the damages are reduced by the amount of tax that would have been payable had the Claimant been employed;
  3. Any damages awarded to an individual by reason of his trade or employment are also exempt. In other words, if you bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal or settle an employment claim via a Compromise Agreement, then the compensation aspect will be tax free; and
  4. Compensation for professional negligence claims in relation to an action in respect of a wrong or an injury is exempt.

There are two important payments though that are not exempt: taxable receipts and gains on underlying assets.

The issue of taxable receipts was considered in the case of Deeny -v- Gooda Walker.  This case arose out the Lloyd’s Names cases where the courts were asked to consider whether the damages arose out of the negligent advice given by the underwriters (professional negligence – ergo tax exempt) or whether it would be considered loss of profits.  One of the arguments used was based on the judgment in London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd -v- Attwooll:

Where, pursuant to a legal right, a trader receives from another person compensation for the trader’s failure to receive a sum of money which, if it had been received, would have been credited to the amount of profits (if any) arising in any year from the trade carried on by him at the time when the compensation is so received, the compensation is to be treated for income tax purposes in the same way as that sum of money would have been treated if it had been received, instead of the compensation.” [my emphasis]

In short, if you are claiming loss of profits, that part of your damages claim is going to be subject to Income Tax and so rather than receiving the damages net of tax like you do with loss of earnings (see 2 above), the compensation will have to be “grossed up”, ie paid in full so you can discharge your own tax liability.  It is known as the ‘reverse-Gourley principle’.

In addition, if there is an underlying asset to your claim whose disposal or deemed disposal gives rise to the damages payment, the compensation is chargeable for CGT purposes.  The only example I can find to illustrate this is that suggested by John Walters in his paper Taxation of Damages, Costs and Interest:

“For example, a property in the case of an action against an estate agent for negligent advice on sale – the compensation can be treated as proceeds on a disposal, or more likely a part disposal, of the underlying asset – i.e. the property, with the allocation of base cost and availability of reliefs and exemptions appropriate to such a disposal or part disposal.”

Personally, I do not agree that is a good example as I would suggest that “negligent advice” falls under the professional negligence exemption.  A better example might be where you are suing for, say, a loss of bargain on the purchase of an investment property.  If you buy an investment property for £150,000 and sell it the following day for £200,000, you would be paying CGT on that £50,000 gain.  It seems logical therefore that if you are suing a professional for their failure to expedite that purchase and the purchase fell through, you could expect to include in the claim, the loss of that £50,000 gain.  If that is the case, I would fully expect the HMRC to be asking for its portion of that profit in which case, any settlement made with the Defendant should be grossed up to include that liability.

As I said at the beginning of this article, this is only a very brief consideration of the question, ‘is tax payable on compensation?’ – the edited highlights really – for like all tax matters, it is never straightforward and almost always fact dependent.  Even in the Deeny case, there was dissent among the Law Lords about what constituted an income receipt as opposed to a capital receipt.  In any event, I would strongly recommend that if there is any doubt, speak to a tax adviser.

We are specialist professional negligence solicitors, representing claimants nationwide in cases of professional negligence against solicitors, accountants, surveyors and other professionals. We offer a free case assessment service. Simply submit brief details by email to [email protected] or call us on 0808 139 1606.

 

An important update from proneg.co.uk

We wish to reassure everyone that we are maintaining a full service during the coronavirus crisis.

All our lawyers are working hard for our clients and can be contacted by telephone, email and video.

We are continuing to operate our popular free legal helpline service on 0808 139 1595.

Enquires can also be sent to us at [email protected]