Review by Jennifer R. on 18th February, 2010

Add your review
I have just the same problems with the conveyancing for my house that was carried out by Fendom Dawson and Towner in High Wycombe. I had initial concerns in where two solicitors from this firm dealt with the conveyancing, and despite my reservations, I was given the reassurance that the solicitors were working out of different offices (Marlow/Wycombe) and no possibility of conflict of interest. It turns out that the purchase has had complications and very fundamental parts of the title deed were not discovered during the pre-contract search. There is a missing common land certificate, unpaid maintenance bills by previous owner. Registration of my name with the residents' association (which I did not know was necessary) was not done, administration fee for the transfer of the common land certificate not paid. All of this was missed out by the solicitors who dealt both took for granted and did not question the details of the title deed and did not do the enquiries with the residents company. I have had to pick all of this up as well as the maintenance bills. Fendom Dawson does not want to know as they say the work was completed as per a freehold transaction and they deny any knowledge of the common land.

Date visited: 11 November 2009

Review by Rosa Keenan on 11th August, 2008

Add your review
I have used this solicitor both at aylesbury and high wycombe over the past 10 years in both commercial and private purchases and selling, which in short amounts to approximately 10 properties. I have found all members of staff including partners to be very profesional, communicate skills are excellent and advise and help at every level. Eventhough i have move to northampton and i am now in worcester i will always use them, as i have complete faith in them.

Date visited: 11th august 2008

Review by Keith Toh on 30th May, 2007

Add your review
After I moved into my house, which was a freehold property, I found out that I was subject to annual common land maintenance payments. This was not discussed, nor did the solicitor transfer my name into the share of the common land. I raised this matter with the original solicitor, who did not respond. I wrote in succession, over several weeks, to the client care partner and senior partner. This only resulted in a telephone call from the solicitor who said he did not care, because he was the senior partner. Thankfully, the Citizens Advice Bureau gave me some advice, support and pointed me to the Law Society. When a formal case file was opened by The Society for the Supervision of Solicitors, this firm admitted to “inadequate professional service”. The Law Society upheld my complaint, noting that the firm refused to apologise. They concluded that the firm provided a poor service in not dealing with the transfer of land and in not responding to my complaint. The client care partner, whose name was heavily featured in a letter that was highly critical of the firm, was careful to point out that he offered the admission of “poor service on behalf” of the original solicitor. This firm was asked to compensate me and they were told to carry out remedial action to correct their mistake. Had the firm made some effort to address my complaint, the Law Society, which is commonly perceived to be on the side of the law firms, would not have supported me so fully. The Case Worker noted that he always preferred to resolve these matters by telephone rather than resorting to formal correspondence with the solicitor. It is an indictment of the firm, that the poor service has now been immortalised on formal correspondence involving the Law Society. Mr. Dawson, you did assert that you did not care who I wrote to, didn’t you?