facebooktwitterpinterest
mobil menu

Bolt Burdon Kemp

  1. Islington
  2. Islington Personal Injury Law

Reviews, get directions and contact details for Bolt Burdon Kemp

Bolt Burdon Kemp
"Bolt Burdon Kemp LLP is a leading London law firm representing individuals who have been seriously injured. Through litigation, we help our clients secure the compensation they need to live their best lives, however altered their circumstances. We put our clients at the centre of everything we do and help them fight for justice every step of the way. We are passionate about getting the best results, providing exemplary client care, whilst striving to change the law for the better with every case."
Address: Providence House Providence Place, Islington N1 0NT, XGL, GB
Phone: 020 7288 4800
State: XGL
City: Islington
Zip Code: N1 0NT

opening times

Monday: 08:30-18:00
Tuesday: 08:30-18:00
Wednesday: 08:30-18:00
Thursday: 08:30-18:00
Friday: 08:30-18:00

Update Info

related searches: Bolt Burdon Kemp salary, Bolt Burdon Kemp training contract, Bolt Burdon Kemp legal Cheek, Bolt Burdon Kemp email address, Bolt Burdon Solicitors reviews, Bolt Burdon Kemp legal 500, Bolt Burdon Kemp careers, Bolt burdon solicitors address
Reviews
The firm seemed to be good until the point that it came to receiving the money from my case. The firm as agreed took 15% of the final amount which is something which I will not disagree on. They also recover the costs from the defendant and therefore make a lot more money on the case than I received in compensation for a childhood abuse case. The firm then tell me that they will only award me a certain amount of money and hold the rest to pay their own bills and fees until the defendant settles the costs. I partly agree to this, except that the firm doesn't allow even give me half of the compensation due. It is set in writing that I will receive a fixed amount of money, no matter when that money is given, it is mine. The firm chooses to cover their own backs and pay their own staff and firm well over the matters of their clients. Then when it comes to talking about money, Susan Slattery in costs ignored 5 emails. David the solicitor then ignores emails and takes ages to reply to texts. David then states after a while that he is no longer dealing with it and Susan is, despite the fact that she ignores everything that is sent. I want this matter to be over with. I want to forget the trauma but every time this comes up, I am reminded of the past. The firm are only bothered about money. As soon as it came to them being paid, they have ignored me. They choose themselves over the client, make more money out of abuse than their client and class their own needs as more important.
0n 27th March 2014, BBK instructed a lawyer to examine a claim for professional negligence against a barrister and to examine an underlying claim for illegal charges under a 2008 contract. The instructions stated that documents attached included “Terms and Conditions” undated. Bolt, Burdon, Kemp had received the 2008 Terms and Conditions, and these were in the evidence bundle provided by the Ombudsman. Any person would conclude that it was necessary for the barrister to see the 2008 Terms and Conditions and to cry “foul” if they had not been attached. It is unclear whether they were sent or whether they were overlooked by the barrister but it is not relevant. Liability would fall upon Bolt Burdon Kemp with whom the customer had a contract. Offering an opinion on a breach of contract without seeing it would be regarded as gross negligence, according to every source consulted. In July 2014 the customer collected from Bolt Burdon Kemp the file of his case. That file did not include the instructions from Bolt, Burdon, Kemp to the barrister. On 13th October 2015, the Ombudsman wrote: “[The barrister] says that the validity of the 2008 terms, which she admits she did not see, had no bearing on her opinion as she says that the crucial terms she relied upon, which were relevant to the claim were those of the 2001 document ….” There is no indication of how the barrister could possibly offer a legal opinion on a breach of the 2008 Terms and Conditions without seeing them, but the Ombudsman is a lay organisation. If the barrister had written that she used Tarot cards, they would not have challenged it. On or about 20th December 2016, the Ombudsman provided to the customer the evidence bundle of all the documents which had been forwarded to them by Bolt, Burdon, Kemp. That bundle did not include the instructions sent to the barrister. A representative of Bolt Burdon Kemp, on 29th March 2019, wrote to the customer: “However for ease of reference, I enclose a further copy of these instructions which clearly show that the Terms and Conditions … were provided to … together with full copies of all documentation provided by you in your original action.” This was the first time I had seen these, despite repeated requests. There is no evidence whatsoever that the 2008 Terms and Conditions were in the bundle which was sent to the barrister. On the contrary there is evidence of “suppression” of these instructions until 2019, and failure to send relevant documents to the Ombudsman. Both of these fall into the realm of the criminal and are being referred to the Solicitor Regulatory Authority and/or the police. The Ombudsman originally investigated the complaint against the firm BBK, and decided that there were grounds for reporting their behaviour to the SRA: The Ombudsman wrote: I am dealing with, or have dealt with, a complaint involving the above named authorised legal professional under the Ombudsman scheme set out in Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007. I am of the opinion that their conduct should be reported to the Authorising Body to consider whether it wishes to take action against them. Possible misconduct under S.143 of the LSA 2007 Instructed to give view on the prospects of success of litigation against former barrister. When new barrister was asked for her view the advice was negative and the firm advised that they could not act under CFA. Mr Lamford threatened to “sue” both the firm and the barrister in an email and the solicitor forwarded this email to the barrister concerned without authority. So, it is not correct that the Ombudsman concluded that BBK had provided a reasonable service, in that they withheld a key document from the Ombudsman.
If your military and want to claim against the MOD do not use this firm especially for medical cases there expert witnesses have no military knowledge, so have a completely different view of how the military medical and physio side of life works which led to my case being rejected a month before my time to claim expired but BBK were happy to inform me that if I could claim with another firm within that month they were still entitled to some of my pay out for the "work" they carried out.
Great, professional and positive
Professional. Persononable. Expertise delivered with clarity. I left the meeting feeling completely reassured.
Very good service from staff we deal with
Great people in here and very kind and helpful you kno
Comment on this business

Bolt Burdon Kemp map

to add Bolt Burdon Kemp map to your website;



Copyright 2024 | All rights reserved.

You can use our top contact for adding and editing your business's contact details.
0.0029 Loaded in seconds

We use cookies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our website, to show you personalized content and targeted ads, to analyze our website traffic, and to understand where our visitors are coming from. Privacy Policy