PCB LAWYERS Opiniones 

I instructed PCB Lawyers LLP for a conveyancing transaction in April 2025, and it was a deeply stressful and frustrating experience. The contract documents prepared for execution lacked basic due diligence. During the instruction, the firm sent an obsolete Report on Title dated December 2022 that failed to reflect critical Land Registry updates, including changes in registered freehold ownership. Furthermore, the unit plan was unmeasured, and the completion date in the Agreement for Lease directly conflicted with the Report on Title.

PCB Lawyers' conduct was completely opaque. They threatened to raise our fixed fees simply because we asked numerous questions, delayed the vital draft lease from the client pack, and used an exchange authority letter that permitted the exchange to proceed without a mortgage in place. This was an enormous risk due to the delay of the EWS1 form for this off-plan property. We urgently asked to amend the authority documents and extend the reservation deadline before our cooling-off period expired. However, our enquiries were ignored while the assigned fee handler was on annual leave, with no substitute solicitor introduced. Forced to protect ourselves from being contractually bound without a mortgage, we had to withdraw from the transaction.

When the transaction eventually aborted, the firm withheld the £3,000 I had paid on account of their legal fees. They offered to waive the costs of anti-money laundering checks and DocuSign (which was never used) so we would get back only £180. The handler of this dispute was never introduced to us as our substituted solicitor. When we asked her to clarify her role, she refused, vaguely stating, "In any solicitor’s absence, a colleague will be assigned to assist with ongoing matters to ensure continuity." This confused us even more when her superior later confirmed that she was, in fact, our substitute solicitor. Besides this, PCB Lawyers refused my formal requests to provide a copy of my client file or an itemised breakdown of their fees, issuing only a lump-sum invoice.

I was forced to take my complaint to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO). During the investigation, PCB Lawyers ignored the LeO investigator's emails and calls for weeks, only cooperating when threatened with a formal case decision. Ultimately, the Ombudsman upheld my complaints regarding their poor service and billing. Finally, after nearly 1 year, the firm was ordered to refund a significant portion of my money and pay a distress compensation. Save yourself the stress, delays, and lack of transparency, and use a different firm.

Extremely disappointed with their sub-par service. The team is extremely non responsive and despite chasing several times including escalating to the partner, they never responded. When we did get a response, it was always inconsistent and lacking coherence and clarity. Would advise to stay clear off this firm if you can.

My solicitor refused to take my full witness statement and factual timeline. Instead of properly understanding my case, they took the “short route” and relied on the defendant’s version of events. My case was framed around the opposing party’s arguments rather than my evidence.

When I raised that this was not my narrative and that my witness statement and timeline had never been taken, the firm blamed me rather than correcting their approach. This triggered a chain of damage in subsequent proceedings because the wrongly framed case was left uncorrected and later relied upon against me.

Instead of fixing their errors, the firm simply dropped my case and stated that they had “lost confidence”, without explaining what legal framework applied or which laws they said governed my situation. Fees were not refunded, and the incorrect framing of my case was not corrected, leaving their mistakes to operate against me in ongoing disputes.

I was also refused access to what was submitted on my behalf to the Legal Ombudsman and to an external reviewer, and I was not told what evidence was relied upon to reach conclusions about my complaint. This prevented me from defending myself and correcting an inaccurate narrative presented in my name.

In my experience, this firm caused harm rather than providing help, despite charging substantial fees.