Cavendish Legal Group

I was recommended to use O'Neill Patient by the Mortgage advisor who was assisting with my remortgage. I had no experience of the company at all, I was a little concerned that they were based 200 miles from where I lived and also that they requested that I work with them using their App.

I should not have had any concerns whatsoever. Their service was outstanding from start to finish; using their app I received and sent documents within minutes, I received confirmations within very quick time and I always knew exactly where I was at any time.
The whole process was completed within a couple of weeks. I could not be more pleased and would reccomend them unreservedly

This review is for a different branch.

AVOID!
Appointed by Lender but it quickly became very evident that this firm operates exclusively through a very unfriendly App from which they do not deviate to actually relate to the client - totally automated and totally inadequate in terms of client service.
This should have been a completely straightforward remortgage but the experience was completely unlike any which we have enjoyed with 'high street' solicitors.
Communication was very poor throughout.
Communications from ONP were event driven 'standard' messages which often failed to address the present stage reached and we were frequently not told of some stages already reached and passed.
Communications from us went unanswered or were not answered in any way helpfully.
In addition, the number of errors were unbelievable. Amongst these were a reference to a request from a non-existent Mangement Company, a further reference to a non-existent 'rentcharge holder', a failure to pay third party fees in full, wrong documentation issued to third party solicitors, a wrongly calculated Completion Statement, only addressed some 5 months later, when ONP were unable to register the transaction with the Land Registry and confusion over documentation already supplied. All this caused considerable delay in registration after completion.
Even a clear indication of our dissatisfaction failed to elicit any response whatsoever.
Never again!

This review is for a different branch.

I used ONP service to purchase a property. The service was very slow and required lot of follow ups. My point of contact was very rude, unapproachable and unhelpful.
He did the minimum to complete the transaction without providing any inputs or proper due diligence which caused me lot of issues and money spent.
He even did not bother to inform me when the property registration was completed.
I will never use their service again

This review is for a different branch.

I had a great experience with Chiara. As a foreigner and a first-time home buyer in the UK, I had no prior experience and faced many challenges during the process. However, she was extremely patient, professional, and always took the time to clearly explain everything and guide me through every step. She was also very responsive, never delayed any matters, and handled everything with great care and attention to detail. Thanks to her dedicated support, I was able to successfully complete the purchase. Without her help, I might not have been able to secure this property. I truly appreciate her hard work and highly recommend her to anyone looking for a reliable and knowledgeable solicitor.

This review is for a different branch.

They work too closely with developers and repeat the same misleading claims about the maintenance of public spaces. Buyers are pushed towards the developer’s preferred solicitor with promises of quicker reservations and guaranteed plots. First-time buyers often do not realise what they are signing up for.

The fees seem reasonable at first, but buyers are misled and mis-sold. Solicitors are paid to protect the buyer’s interests but appear to prioritise the developer instead. When the TP1 wording is questioned, they claim it is standard and that the council will adopt the land, based only on what the developer says.

Years later, the land remains privately managed, the charges continue, and homeowners have no control. There is no cap, no regulation, and no clear explanation of the long-term financial burden at the point of sale.

These estates are not gated communities. They are open developments with public roads and spaces. Many include affordable homes or schemes to attract first-time buyers. That excitement around home ownership is used to draw people in, only to be exploited.

Marketing presents a lifestyle dream with manicured green space and community charm. The reality is long-term financial obligations hidden behind legal wording few buyers understand until it is too late.

Homes are sold as freehold but come with leasehold-style charges that are permanent. Owners are tied into rent-like payments for land they do not control. These charges often cover public areas used by all, yet the council refuses to adopt them and the developer retains control to create an ongoing income stream.

Residents already pay full council tax. That should cover local services, as it does elsewhere. They also contribute to infrastructure through the property purchase price and Section 106 agreements. Yet they are still billed again through private estate fees, much of which goes to administration.

This is made possible by a loophole in Section 2(3)(c) of the Rentcharges Act 1977. It was never intended for large modern housing estates. It has not yet been challenged in court, but one day it will be. Those who enabled it should be held accountable.

Shame on all governments and councils for allowing this to happen. It undermines trust in home ownership and leaves residents paying to maintain land they were told would be adopted.

This review is for a different branch.

They work too closely with developers and repeat the same misleading claims about the maintenance of public spaces. Buyers are pushed towards the developer’s preferred solicitor with promises of quicker reservations and guaranteed plots. First-time buyers often do not realise what they are signing up for.

The fees seem reasonable at first, but buyers are misled and mis-sold. Solicitors are paid to protect the buyer’s interests but appear to prioritise the developer instead. When the TP1 wording is questioned, they claim it is standard and that the council will adopt the land, based only on what the developer says.

Years later, the land remains privately managed, the charges continue, and homeowners have no control. There is no cap, no regulation, and no clear explanation of the long-term financial burden at the point of sale.

These estates are not gated communities. They are open developments with public roads and spaces. Many include affordable homes or schemes to attract first-time buyers. That excitement around home ownership is used to draw people in, only to be exploited.

Marketing presents a lifestyle dream with manicured green space and community charm. The reality is long-term financial obligations hidden behind legal wording few buyers understand until it is too late.

Homes are sold as freehold but come with leasehold-style charges that are permanent. Owners are tied into rent-like payments for land they do not control. These charges often cover public areas used by all, yet the council refuses to adopt them and the developer retains control to create an ongoing income stream.

Residents already pay full council tax. That should cover local services, as it does elsewhere. They also contribute to infrastructure through the property purchase price and Section 106 agreements. Yet they are still billed again through private estate fees, much of which goes to administration.

This is made possible by a loophole in Section 2(3)(c) of the Rentcharges Act 1977. It was never intended for large modern housing estates. It has not yet been challenged in court, but one day it will be. Those who enabled it should be held accountable.

Shame on all governments and councils for allowing this to happen. It undermines trust in home ownership and leaves residents paying to maintain land they were told would be adopted.