Solicitors Regulation Authority

"Completely inconsistent service no integrity! No morality zero respect It’s just a farce dressed up to look like An independent adjudicator designed to fool the public how can a so called officer of the courts use their powers to ensure compliance with a defendant automatic right to a defence lie hide the fact there’s no evidence all to help police with their set up because the SRA only use their powers to cover everything up I went to court with no defence whilst the hidden company paraded around like they own the place being duty solicitors they were all insuring I had no access to the lack of evidence it was all just to keep me on bail Sra didn’t see anything wrong with their behaviour he just wanted a paper trail or no foul there’s such bad smell Of corruption all around with abuse of power within this hypocrisy or the Sra I wouldn’t trust them again and you need to beware they only act for solicitors NOT against them don’t waste your time On a totally fixed organisation! Even the The courts are prepared to turn a blind eye to this sort of set up whilst reminding you to turn up for the next fix And There wonder why people turn their backs on authorities! And have absolutely no interest/ respect/ desire To help with anything! I mean there’s so Much unsolved crimes supposedly fewer Police yet they always have the time to Set people up?? Makes one wonder exactly what your paying council tax for Then totally crooked solicitors using the legal aid system to claim money they don’t do anything for! Isn’t that fraudulent??? Yet the sra does nothing But talk waffles!"

"Negative stars would be appropriate. Extremely poor experience with the SRA. I submitted a detailed complaint about the conduct of a solicitor acting for a public regulator in Administrative Court proceedings. The complaint was not a vague grievance about losing a legal argument. It identified specific concerns about allegedly misleading procedural positions, the handling of a live issued appeal, and disputed appeal-bundle conduct capable of widening the case beyond what had actually been pleaded and determined. The SRA closed the matter without investigation. In my view, the response was formulaic, evasive and institutionally self-protective. It simply reclassified the complaint as an ordinary litigation disagreement, without properly engaging with the specific conduct concerns or the evidential sequence I had set out. That is precisely the problem. If a complaint alleges that litigation conduct itself crossed a professional line, it is not an answer to say “this happened in litigation”. That is circular. It allows solicitor conduct in court proceedings to be shielded from meaningful scrutiny merely by labelling it advocacy. I found the process superficial, defensive and profoundly unsatisfactory. It gave me no confidence that the SRA is willing to scrutinise difficult complaints involving solicitors acting for powerful public bodies. In my view, this was regulatory box-ticking dressed up as oversight."

"After the mysterious editing / partial deletion of a continuous CCTV stream from a fixed camera that would have exonerated me from a false and damaging allegation of shoplifting, the SRA took sides with Solicitor X in the head office of a well known supermarket chain. I needed the full footage, not only to clear my name but to bring a claim for damages. But the footage supplied in response to my Subject Access Request had been deliberately tampered with and partially deleted; the segment showing me entering the store carrying the goods (purchased elsewhere) that I was later accused of stealing had been clumsily edited out. The security guard's bodycam footage also mysteriously "could not be found". Despite the Information Commissioner upholding my complaint and ruling that the supermarket chain broke the law, the SRA decided that Solicitor X (who was the designated Data Controller) could play the "I know nothing" *innocent face* card with no consequences, and no actual investigation into WHO tampered with the footage and WHY. It was the legal and professional duty of Solicitor X to obtain and supply me with the full unedited piece of footage covering the whole incident and she categorically failed to do so, negligently and/or dishonestly in my opinion. My SAR was validly made within the prescribed timescale and within the supermarket's CCTV retention period. Solicitor X's defence - that the vital, missing section of footage had "fallen off the system" - was absurd. The footage was manually edited and partially deleted by a human operator; deliberately and dishonestly in my opinion, in order to scupper my threatened legal action for damages (false imprisonment, etc.) Well done SRA for protecting one of your own, and leaving an innocent member of the public high and dry. It's rather an odd and troubling situation when the Information Commissioner says the law has been broken, but the SRA finds no wrongdoing by the Solicitor who was personally in charge and responsible for the whole matter."

"Absolutely corrupt organisation, completely unfit for purpose and should be disbanded urgently. Protecting corrupt and lying so called legal professionals. 2 complaints, was both advised by my KC they will never take action and he was right. Put complete spin on one and ignored the reality of the other. They are only interested in trying to dispel or spin complaints to suit their agenda, protect at all costs dodgy lying individuals and their corrupt firms."

"I raised a complaint about a solicitor firm to the SRA for a breach of data protection and unlawful actions. After spending over an hour filling out their lengthy forms and providing evidence, all I got was a response saying they cannot investigate, it’s a “matter for the court,” and that I should contact the ICO. A breach of the Data Protection Act is a serious offence, yet neither the police, the SRA, nor the ICO will investigate. If they simply wrote on their website, “We cannot do it,” at least people wouldn’t waste their time filling out forms. Truly a shameful response from the SRA."

"I am extremely dissatisfied with the way the Solicitors Regulation Authority handles public enquiries. I contacted them to verify a very straightforward matter: whether an individual acting in legal proceedings and presenting himself as a “trainee solicitor” is genuinely registered and authorised. Despite providing clear details, including an SRA number, I was not given a direct answer to any of the key questions namely whether the number exists, who it belongs to, or whether the individual’s stated role is accurate. Instead, I received generic responses stating that they can only confirm information relating to solicitors on the roll. While this may be technically correct, it completely undermines transparency. If someone is actively involved in legal proceedings and representing a company, there should be a clear and accessible way for the public to verify their status. The process feels unnecessarily opaque. On one hand, the SRA encourages the public to report concerns and verify legal professionals; on the other, it refuses to disclose even basic confirmation when concerns are raised. This creates a situation where individuals can present themselves with legal titles that are effectively unverifiable by the public. In my view, this lack of transparency risks eroding trust in the regulatory system. It gives the impression that the organisation is more focused on limiting disclosure than on ensuring accountability. Overall, a very frustrating and unhelpful experience."

"I am really surprised at how the SRA views solicitors’ incompetence and fails to consider the outcome. I feel like the SRA simply accepts solicitors’ explanations and lets them go. I came to the SRA as my last resort, but I am disappointed. In my case, the court sent the hearing date notice to the solicitor’s firm via the PCOL system, which is similar to email. The notification should reach the client within a minute. However, my solicitor claims that the notification, which was sent on 14 March, only reached them on 26 March. They then generated a letter and sent the hearing notice to me by regular post, which I received on 29 March. But my hearing took place on 28 March. In my absence, the court granted a possession order, which led to an eviction notice. I attended my first two hearings, and the judge was kind enough to give me more time. At the third hearing, I did not have that opportunity, and this solicitor firm deprived me of a fair chance to attend the hearing. The SRA investigated this and accepted the solicitor’s explanation that they did not see the notification until 26 March. How is this not incompetence? Why can’t the SRA question TLT on how they failed to see an electronic notification for 12 days? I understand TLT was working for my Mortgage provider and I am not their direct client, But I am the one was affected ."

"All government run office are staffed by lazy people who are too engrossed in social media to bother with their jobs."

"Not fit for purpose"

"BTR solicitors have a large county court judgment recorded against their own company name which remains “unsatisfied” trustonline"

"What a joke of a practise. Apparently the solictors firm i reported replied to my complaint on the 17 December (which they definitely didnt) however the solictors firm sent proof to say they had, I asked for the proof, but nothing! They just side with the corrupt companies! A total waste of time! Don't bother!"

"Isn't it funny how low the score for this corrupt regulator is, especially as it is supposed to regulate the legal profession, yet as is usual with anything to do with the legal profession, it is corrupt and two tier. Easy to get a result if your rich, or not British, but should you be shafted and be working class or taken advantage of as a disabled person, then the excuses come out to do whatever they can to protect the legal firms, especially when the firm in question is bigger than country wide. As usual with most ombudsman protection of the corrupt status quo and the corrupt legal firms must always come before actual truth and justice, and god forbid that they may actually act against their masters consequently fueling more corruption and bias against those that don't have funds to cover a basic solicitor, let alone a multi national. They claim justice is blind, only if you're rich, for the rest of us it's eyes are wide open, making sure it doesn't allow the big firms to have to take any sort of punishment or god forbid actual accountability for their two tier corruption."

"Shocking. In cahoots with the lawyers that they protect, Accountants, Insolvency Practitioners, Asset Recovery Companies, Debt Recovery Companies and lots more. Don’t waste your time making a complaint as they are all in it together."

"Corrupt like the rest of the establishment"

"The SRA was responsive, but could not help. If you suspect serious misconduct, report the solicitor to their indemnity insurer (make sure you have proof). Check your contract to establish who the indemnity insurer is. If you want: Discipline → contact the SRA To address poor service → contact the Legal Ombudsman Investigation → contact the indemnity Insurer Insurers typically want to know about “circumstances that might reasonably give rise to a claim,” especially for solicitors’ professional indemnity policies: → Financial risk → Negligence → Failure to meet professional standards → Potential claims They will not help you claim against them; however, it can trigger an SRA investigation, which may ultimately help you. A warning - indemnity insurers are not on your side - it is about mitigating their own risk."

"I complained about fraud committed by Thomas Mansfield Solicitors (legal fees for non-existent employment claims) and Ward &Rider Solicitors (personal injury claim paid out I didn't receive). My complaints were dismissed without investigation."

"I am leaving this review to warn others, particularly disabled people, about how reasonable adjustments and accountability has been treated in practice by the SRA. In our case, an autistic and disabled individual requested a reasonable adjustment to allow him to independently record what was said during a complaints hearing, due to cognitive and processing difficulties and autis to review at own pace later. He did not want to rely on another person to do this for him, The adjustment was refused following legal advice, with alternatives suggested such as bringing a companion or relying on official minutes. Those minutes took months to be provided and contained gaps, meaning the proposed alternative was ineffective in practice, Under the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments are intended to enable disabled people to participate independently. Suggesting that a companion or third party could take notes is not a substitute for an adjustment that allows the individual themselves to access and process what is said. We sought independent legal advice and were advised that there were multiple faults, and we were initially preparing to pursue court action. However, this became impossible alongside a SEND tribunal and multiple ongoing failures that required our constant attention. The SRA nevertheless relied on the absence of a court finding and declined to investigate, stating that the decision was taken by the client. The SRA also appeared to place weight on the absence of deliberate intent, even though reasonable adjustments are about effect and access, not motivation. In my opinion, this leaves disabled people without meaningful regulatory protection unless they are able to sustain litigation, and it has significantly undermined my confidence in the SRA as a regulator acting in the public interest. Beyond the disability issue, I raised several additional concerns, all of which were declined on the basis that they were the client’s decisions, matters for other bodies, or issues for the courts. This reinforced my impression that responsibility can always be deflected away from regulated solicitors."

"I agree with all the reviews on here. A complete waste of time. I complained to them about a solicitor giving them all the evidence that they needed and they have not acted on my behalf. They protect the solicitors. Furthermore, they are so slow with their processes and they don't reply to email. Shame. A pointless service."

"During an employment dispute, the agency I was working with had a random guy write to me, as the "in-house counsel". I asked the guy for his SRA number to check his credentials. He said he doesn't have one and alarm bells rang. I called the SRA and they confirmed that the guy used to be a solicitor until 2010 when he was struck off and left under a cloud. I reported him to the SRA, as per their own instructions and...after a while, some Investigation Officer at the SRA (I won't give his name) got back to me and said that following "careful consideration, they will take no further action", basically condoning fraud and criminality. I thought the SRA scope and purpose is to protect us from people impersonating solicitors, like a line of defence against these rogue, cowboy, fraudster "solicitors". Disappointed is NOT the word!"

"There is no "authority" or proper regulation here, and the way they contradict their declarations is bizarre. I have found that whatever it takes in terms of convolution of argument and explanation - and no matter what legal advisers have recommended - the SRA will bring a conclusion to a complaint from an individual that absolves the firm that was reported. When I compared treatment from a solicitor against SRA guidelines, it was absolutely clear that the solicitor had contravened a specific rule. I reported them to the SRA, and I explained my reasons. The solicitor apologised immediately and paid compensation. The SRA on the other hand, neglected their own rules, wouldn't support me, and wouldn't review their stance. It's extraordinary, but it seems they're funded by solicitors / law firms, so I suppose they never want to rock the boat or find against them. In a newer complaint, again the matter was rejected and this time the bizarre nature of the rejections seemed to be because I had reported the same firm before. That is, as far as I can tell, it was personal. The SRA didn't want my correspondence even though something else arose and looked very wrong."