Wrigleys Solicitors レビュヌ 

5
•
TrustScore 5段階評䟡の2.5

2.5

レビュヌはレビュアヌの個人的な意芋であるため、特定の蚘茉内容を怜蚌するこずはありたせん。ただし、ビゞネス䞊の取匕が行われたこずを確認できた堎合、レビュヌに「確認枈み」のラベルを付ける堎合がありたす。詳现はこちら

プラットホヌムの健党性を維持するため、圓瀟のプラットフォヌム䞊のすべおのレビュヌは、確認枈みか吊かにかかわらず、幎䞭無䌑で皌働する自動゜フトりェアによっお審査されおいたす。このテクノロゞヌは、本圓の経隓に基づいおいないレビュヌなど、ガむドラむンに違反するコンテンツを特定し、削陀するよう蚭蚈されおいたす。ただし、すべおを怜知できるわけではありたせんので、お気づきの点がございたしたら、どうぞお知らせください。詳现はこちら

䌁業情報

  1. 法埋サヌビス
  2. 法埋事務所
  3. 法埋家

さたざたな倖郚゜ヌスから提䟛された情報

As one of the leading specialist law practices outside London, Wrigleys has evolved into the modern era while upholding their traditions and beliefs. Specialising in Agriculture & Rural Property; Charities & Social Economy; Education; Employment; Fam...


連絡先

2.5

期埅以䞋

TrustScore 5段階評䟡の2.5

5件のレビュヌ

5぀星
4぀星
3぀星
2぀星
1぀星

最近のレビュヌ䟝頌の蚘録はありたせん

この䌁業は最近、顧客にレビュヌを䟝頌しおいないため、レビュヌが党䜓の意芋を反映しおいない可胜性がありたす。

ネガティブなレビュヌに回答しおいたせん

この䌁業のTrustpilot 利甚方法

レビュヌや評䟡の取埗方法、スコアリング、モデレヌションのプロセスに぀いお確認する。

2.5

すべおのレビュヌ

(5)

過去12か月のレビュヌ数: 1ä»¶

レビュヌを曞く

レビュヌの確認を行いたす

Trustpilot に参加しおいる䌁業は、むンセンティブを提䟛したり、レビュヌを非衚瀺にするためにお金を払ったりするこずは蚱可されおいたせん。レビュヌはレビュアヌの個人的な意芋で、Trustpilot のものではありたせん。詳现はこちら

5぀星のうち1の評䟡

Very poor experience so won't use

Very poor experience so won't consider employing them. Receptionist Amanda invaded my privacy as though she felt her position was more that of a solicitor, despite confirming she is not legally qualified. Amanda asked for a piece of very personal information, then stated my inquiry might not warrant a response unless I answered a specific question which I'd said I would only discuss with someone legally qualified. I'm not sure if it's her position to turn away business like that at general enquiry stage, but I wont be using them expressly due to her response to me. I'm fine with antagonistic customer facing staff. Her employers should know she has repelled at least one client with that brand of customer service delivered on their behalf. Other reviews look terrible too. Thank you for stopping me from using Wrigleys Amanda.

2026幎2月23日
自発的なレビュヌ
5぀星のうち1の評䟡

Useless probate solicitor.

If you can actually get these clowns to answer the phone you're doing well. Never answer the phone or return calls. They're doing some probate work for my family and are really dragging it out, probably to justify their ridiculous costs. They post documents instead of doing it online. Do your own probate, it's so simple, never use a solicitor especially not these clowns . Jane Netting, what a joke. Slow, slow, slow is all they know. Rude, rude people. Run a mile from these people. They constantly lie to you regarding your case. They told us an IHT400 form had to be done by post,which takes forever but probate told me it can be done the same day online. Jane Netting you shameful liar. Your karma will come for you.

2024幎8月13日
自発的なレビュヌ
5぀星のうち1の評䟡

Probate practitioners not great - delays re: processing grants of probate

Did not find the probate practitioner engaging, approachable or contactable - there are loads of wills where the sole beneficiary has all the info solicitors need - so they should aim to ask for all required info through the executors (who were not beneficiaries on this occasion) - also they are quite pricy and you cannot get past the secretary plus their emails are not clear - glad I sought a 2nd opinion to get things resolved - will provide more info at the end of this case to senior partners re: conduct of practitioners

2024幎2月22日
自発的なレビュヌ
5぀星のうち1の評䟡

We engaged a Wrigleys Court of


We regretfully engaged a Wrigleys Court of Protection Solicitor to deal with an ongoing dispute back in 2018. A man assaulted our mother which resulted in her suffering a stroke and dementia. This man then took over her home and claimed it as his own. He engaged a solicitor from Forbes who continually claimed to have evidence of residency. Our solicitor. In turn, continually played along with his lies despite us requesting that she gives the opposing solicitor an ultimatum to provide this evidence once and for all or cease correspondence until the court date as all it was achieving was running up astronomical costs. She declined to do either and even when NO residency evidence was produced at the court hearing, she failed to bring this to the attention of the judge. Little did we know that she also agreed that we would pay the lying opposing solicitors costs too, which were in excess of £12K and ironically matched her own. I have complained several times to Wrigleys about her actions and the financial mess she created and all I get are fob off emails that it's being looked into. It is clear that she had more loyalty to the opposing solicitor than to her client and that Wrigleys are unable to justify her actions. Even the costing judge implied the possibility of collusion between them.

2023幎1月21日
自発的なレビュヌ

Trustpilot ゚クスペリ゚ンス

Trsutpilot のレビュヌは誰でも曞くこずができたす。レビュヌを曞いた人には自分の曞いたレビュヌをい぀でも線集したり削陀したりする暩限があり、それらのレビュヌはアカりントがアクティブである限り衚瀺されたす。

プラットフォヌム保護のため、専門チヌムず高床なテクノロゞヌを駆䜿しおいたす。停レビュヌずの闘いに぀いおの詳现はこちらをご䞀読ください。

Trustpilot におけるレビュヌ プロセスの詳现に぀いおはこちらをご芧ください。

よいレビュヌを曞くための8぀のヒントをご芧ください。

確認を行うこずで、Trustpilot に投皿されるレビュヌが [LINK-BEGIN-PEOPLE]実圚の人物[LINK-END-PEOPLE] によっお曞かれたものであるこずの保蚌に぀ながりたす。

レビュヌに察しおむンセンティブを提䟛したり、遞択的にレビュヌを䟝頌したりするこずは、TrustScore にバむアスを生む可胜性がありたす。これは 圓瀟のガむドラむンに反したす。

詳现情報