Jump to content

Negligent actions by a solicitor over an unregulated bridging loan

Recommended Posts

We feel we have been badly let down by  a solicitor involving a bridging loan. He failed to recognise this was a commercial loan and not a standard residential mortgage. This also suggests he did not have the necessary expertise to undertake this type of work on our behalf. This was confirmed by him in forwarding the incorrect set of Terms and Conditions of Engagement (Retainer) sent to us.


This stated it was a re-mortgage of the property  when we now find out it actually was an Unregulated Commercial loan. He has totally misunderstood his instructions and considered the matter to be a standard residential re mortgage


During our one and only meeting with him at his office he failed to advise on the terms of the loan agreement relating to a commercial bridging loan undertaken on a property we were refurbishing for our own occupation.


After we had left his office he then falsely completed and signed the ‘Solicitors Certificate’ on behalf of the commercial bridging loan lender stating he carried out the following during our meeting : -


2 – ‘I have explained to the borrowers the extent of their liability and the contents and effect of the lenders form of legal charge/standard security/mortgage deed and the loan agreement which it secures.`


8 – Each borrower was seen alone and understood the contents and effect of the credit agreement and legal charge/standard security/mortgage deed.’  


9.-the Borrowers was/were familiar with the details of the transaction and signed the Charge/Standard Security/Mortgage Deed and Credit Agreement of their own free will and accord”


We categorically state that he did not undertake anyone of these contrary to the provisions of the Certificate. A clear act of dishonesty.


We understand this form was sent to him the day before our meeting on the  so he was aware of its existence before our meeting.


If he had admitted to us that at our meeting he should have been undertaken the provisions of the Certificate, he could easily have requested for us to return to the office the following day and then to be seen separately and to be advised of the terms of the loan. He failed to do this and the loan proceeded.


If he had done this then we would have been aware of the substantial additional costs involved with the bridging loan and would not have proceeded.


I would be very interested to note if anyone else has had  a similar problem with a solicitor.


Sadly we were forced to sell our home .



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I'm sorry to hear this happened to you.


At the time you found out about the problem, did you speak to the SRA, the lawyers regulator?



Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites



Thanks for the response.


We have now forwarded it to the SRA as in my mind it is an of dishonesty, just waiting for their response.


We have gone down the litigation route but just didn't get anywhere as their solicitor said the form was for the Lender but in any event he lied.


The Legal Ombudsman (LO) can act even for failures of service that the SRA might not act on.

The LO can refer breaches of the SRA’s codes to the SRA, too.


You’d need to raise a formal complaint with the solicitors, and they will need to advise you of the option to escalate to the LO as part of any response.


Thanks Bazza


I have done both. Sadly there are additional errors relating to this solicitor which are now with the LO .



  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...



Sadly it appears the LO and the SRA are reluctant to investigate and not really sure why as the matters are very black and white in my opinion.


I will keep trying but it looks like this incompetent will continue tp practice ruining other decent hard working lives.


The Legal System in this country need to be changed and mediation should be mandatory and not voluntary.

Link to post
Share on other sites



We had a dispute with a negligent solicitor which has cost us our home and their insurers (DWF) refused to attend mediation despite their weak defence of the incompetent involved.


Despite the strength of our case if we had lost it would have ruined us.


Why does our current legal system allow Mediation to be voluntary and not mandatory ? It is so unfair and just allows the larger companies to get away with their mistakes which in our case cost us everything .



Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged...


so you have one the case?


mediation is only there to narrow differences and p'haps come to an agreement without extra court costs for either side, 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites



No the defendant solicitors refused to go to Mediation but they did come up with a very low offer just before our case was time barred.


Very reluctantly we accepted this offer however I have reported the incompetent solicitor in question who are looking at the matter at the present time.


The solicitor is clearly negligent but DWF played the game on this one and we didnt have the funds to issue proceedings.


Mediation should be mandatory not voluntary, this incompetent got away with it and we lost our home as a consequence of his negligent actions 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...