Here's the review, interesting that it's still up: <a href="https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/56324e750000ff0001e69c5f" rel="nofollow">https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/56324e750000ff0001e69c5f</a><p>> A total waste of money another scam solicitor<p>> Avoid this solicitor - Summerfield Browne use their own clients confidential information to sue them if they give a bad review. That's why you will not see a bad review of this solicitor, they are now trying to sue me for defamation for the following honest review, rather than refund my money: A total waste of money, another scam solicitor. Stacey mills left the company half way through my assessment and the replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law. Once they have your money they are totally apathetic towards you. You will learn more from forums, youtube and the Citizens advice website about your case, for free.<p>You can judge for yourself if this is defamation and untrue. "Scam solicitor" is the term that probably pushes this over the edge.
Reminder to Americans: Libel suits are a little harder to pursue here, but, much like in the UK case, the high price of pursuing justice (the defendant quoted £6000 just to fight it in this case) means it can still bankrupt you just to get anywhere near a resolution, even to a summary judgment when the facts are very much in your favor.<p>Support the First Amendment and support anti-SLAPP statues: <a href="https://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slapping/" rel="nofollow">https://www.popehat.com/2012/06/07/why-yes-i-am-into-slappin...</a>
Be interesting to see the Streisand Effect of publishing this on the BBC site.<p>I wouldn't be at all surprised if the legal firm is forced to rename/rebrand in a few months because its reputation is trashed.<p>You can win the battle, but lose the war...
Protip for anyone facing similar negative reviews on TrustPilot: Seek out positive reviews to counteract negative ones.<p>You will (hopefully) find that most people have a positive experience. If you don’t find that, perhaps a negative review is the least of your worries.<p>Once you have a stream of new positive reviews you can generally let negative ones slide much easier. People are acutely aware that not EVERYONE has a positive experience, they just want to see that the negative reviews are people being irrational or for something that won’t apply to them.
The solicitors firm has probably trashed their own reputation for good by doing this.<p>They could have just exploited Trustpilot to get the review suppressed.<p>This video can be annoying and has some strong language, but contains some good points about Trustpilot.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMSMjF_b_Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMSMjF_b_Y</a>
Can you trust TrustPilot?<p><a href="https://www.tradingschools.org/reviews/trust-pilot-the-mecca-of-fraudulent-trading-reviews/" rel="nofollow">https://www.tradingschools.org/reviews/trust-pilot-the-mecca...</a>
Now that there's an article about this on BBC News, I wonder how much this firm will suffer from the Streisand Effect[1].<p>It was foolish of the defendant to not attend the hearing. I can't understand why he didn't.<p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</a>
looks like this was a default judgement because the defendant<p>>... did not attend the online hearing or send a legal representative.<p>when that happens, the judgement is a default to the plantiff. so its his own fault, and the headline is fairly inaccurate. to be more accurate, would be<p>"Man doesn't show up to court, defaults judgement of 25k pounds over negative review"
Terrible outcome for this chap but also his own fault for not attending. Pretty sure this will cost the firm more than £25,000 though in the long run. I definitely wouldn't use them, even though I wouldn't post a scathing review. Or maybe I would -- use some of that snide energy direct at a particular legal target.
One of the reviews:<p>> They track you on their website without any form of confirmation which is required under GDPR law. Since it's been law for well over a year I dread to think how many times this firm has broken the law themselves. I encourage all people that have visited their site to record proof of you being on their site and take these shady lawyers to court. I would advise suing for £25,000...<p>They might only get £750 each ("Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd") but I would definitely do that. At the very least, a complaint to the ICO.<p>Another review:<p>> Moral: DO NOT SHOP at any online store, if they use trustpilot<p>Absolutely. I usually take my business elsewhere if a site prominently displays Trustpilot. Where that's not to my advantage, I write to their DPO citing GDPR Article 21 and request that they do not in any way share my data with this website.
They claim to be experts in Internet law but their website isn't GDPR compliant... <a href="https://www.summerfieldbrowne.com/internet/4582280575" rel="nofollow">https://www.summerfieldbrowne.com/internet/4582280575</a>