Constantine and Summers - Ombudsman ruling
To your response, The Ombudsman ruled your were in breach of "In the Solicitors Regulation Prescribed Terms Part 1.3 it states: ‘You ensure that client money is available on demand unless you agree an alternative arrangement in writing with the client, or the third party for whom the money is held’ " and that "there was no reasonable reason why the firm should have withheld". You accepted the ruling, later changing changing your stance and when you requested that the Ombudsman reopened the case, they refused.
The Legal Ombudsman ruled that "the firm's service was unreasonable as they delayed the release of Mr Smart's funds" as "there was no reasonable reason why the firm
should have withheld".
The ombudsman stated "This was a relatively significant service failing, as the firm delayed releasing a very large sum of money" and that "I expect this would have had an impact on Mr Smart's day to day life" and that "There is no dispute that the firm delayed releasing the funds".
The Ombudsman also stated "compensation does fall within our significant award category, due to the impact this has had on Mr Smart" however this took 20 months and the amount received in no way compensates for the stress of selling a house and finding yourself beholden to the one party that you should be able to trust, your solicitor?
There has been no apology from Constantine and Summers.
The ruling is available upon requested as a matter of public record from the Legal Ombudsman.