Bolt Burdon Kemp

FAQ

Reviews

• 

  Jack Blair

  Spoke with Ahmed today very friendly and knowledgable person, filled me with confidence again after our phone call thank you Bolt Burdon Kemp.

  17-05-2023
• 

  Taiwo Odumosu

  Nice place

  17-12-2022
• 

  Scott Gadsby

  Great, professional and positive

  17-11-2022
• 

  Manrico Magozzi

  17-11-2022
• 

  Jennifer Brissett

  I cannot thank Bolt Burdon Kemp enough for their help dealing with my medical negligence case against the NHS Hannah Travis dealt with my case she was very patient, she really listened to what I had to say and showed me empathy. I was kept updated through every process via emails, post, phone calls, from day one to the end of my case. Everyone who dealt with me were very professional I would recommend Bolt Burdon Kemp to anyone who believes they have a negligence case. They certainly went above and beyond my expectations

  17-06-2021
• 

  marilyn markall

  Bolt bourdon kamp acted for me. Thay came in at the last minute so the case was difficult. They took it on against all odds. I had solicitor Heather petrie who was excellent she had a great understanding of my problems from a brain injury she was professional and sympathetic. I would highly recommend her. Later Hoffman wong helped the case. He was good too. I will highly recommend. Bolt budon kemp especially the solicitors mentioned. Heather also contacted me in her own time to keep me informed. I can't thank her enough at a difficult time.

  17-06-2020
• 

  David Haydon

  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.

  17-06-2020
• 

  Roger Good

  Very good service from staff we deal with

  17-06-2020
• 

  Cheryl Robinson

  17-06-2020
• 

  Paul Lamford

  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.

  17-06-2019