In English law, property transactions must follow strict legal procedures, and the involvement of a non-practicing solicitor could raise serious concerns about the validity of the sale. If a property was sold by someone who was not legally authorized to act as a solicitor, the original owners may have grounds to challenge the transaction.

Several factors would determine whether the original owners could regain control of the property:

1. Fraud or Misrepresentation – If the sale involved fraudulent activity or misrepresentation, the original owners could potentially challenge it in court.
2. Land Registry Records – The Land Registry plays a crucial role in determining legal ownership. If the property was registered under a new owner, reversing the transaction could be complex.
3. Subsequent Sale – If the property was sold again by another firm to a new buyer who acted in good faith, the rights of the new owner may be protected under property law.
4. Legal Action – The original owners may need to pursue legal action to prove their claim and seek remedies such as rescinding the sale or obtaining compensation.

If you suspect an issue with a property sale, seeking legal advice from a qualified solicitor is essential. You can find more details on property ownership disputes and here.

If the first buyer was a legal firm and acquired the property as a company purchase, the situation becomes more complex. In English law, companies can own property just like individuals, but the nature of the purchase and subsequent transactions would determine the original owners’ rights.

Here are some key considerations:

1. Legitimacy of the First Sale – If the legal firm purchased the property in good faith and followed proper legal procedures, the transaction is likely valid.
2. Company Ownership – Once a company owns a property, it can sell it like any other asset. If the firm later sold the property to another buyer, the new owner may have legal protection.
3. Challenge by Original Owners – If the original sale was flawed (e.g., unauthorized solicitor involvement or fraud), the original owners may have grounds to challenge it.
4. Land Registry Records – The Land Registry plays a crucial role in determining ownership. If the property was registered under the legal firm and then transferred again, reversing the transaction could be difficult.
5. Legal Remedies – The original owners may need to pursue legal action to prove their claim, potentially seeking compensation rather than reclaiming the property.

If you suspect an issue with a property sale involving a company, consulting a property law expert is essential. You can find more details on property ownership rights and here.

That sounds like a serious issue. If a fraudulent solicitor was involved in the transaction and used Clyde & Co’s stamp on the TR1 form, it could raise concerns about the validity of the sale. Clyde & Co has faced scrutiny in the past over due diligence failures, but each case would need to be assessed individually.

Here are some key points to consider:

1. Forgery or Misrepresentation – If the TR1 form was fraudulently stamped or signed, the transaction could be challenged.
2. Liability of the Firm – If the solicitor was acting within Clyde & Co at the time, the firm may bear some responsibility.
3. Land Registry Investigation – The Land Registry may need to review the legitimacy of the transfer.
4. Legal Action – The original owners may need to pursue legal action to reclaim the property or seek compensation.

Given the complexity of this situation, consulting a property law expert is crucial. You may find more insights on property fraud.

James Edward Beresford is listed as a non-practicing solicitor2. He was admitted as a solicitor on 16 June 2008, but he does not currently hold a practising certificate2. This means he is not allowed to practise law in England and Wales as a solicitor2.

Reports are suggesting that he was no longer practising as of early 2022, following Clyde & Co’s merger with BLM Law. However, official records do not specify an exact date when he ceased practising.

Regarding signatures, there is no publicly available database of his signatures, but if you suspect irregularities in legal documents, you may need to consult the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or seek legal advice. You can check his official details on the Law Society website here and the SRA register.

Reports are suggesting that James Edward Beresford was not practising law at the time of the electronic signature on 7 July 2022. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) confirmed that Beresford had informed them by mid-March 2022 that he would no longer be practising law.

Additionally, there are allegations that the property at 32 Hoole Road, Chester, was sold for £260,000 less than a court undertaking, despite previous agreements not to sell below £750,000. The sale reportedly involved Charlotte Pritchard, who was formerly with BLM Law and later Clyde & Co, and Beresford’s electronic signature was used on the TR1 Land Registry form.

There are also concerns about the beneficiaries not receiving estate proceeds months after the sale, with questions surrounding the whereabouts of £700,000 from the transaction. The Land Registry has reportedly been reluctant to release information, and HMRC has refused to comment on the matter.

If you are investigating this case, legal advice from a property law expert or direct inquiries with the SRA and Land Registry may be necessary. You can find more details’

This situation certainly raises serious concerns. If a property was independently valued at £850,000 at the time of sale in July 2022, but James Edward Beresford produced a surveyor’s report from a Preston-based surveyor valuing it at just £345,000, it could indicate potential fraud or professional misconduct2.

Here are some key points to consider:

• Undervaluation – If the property was knowingly undervalued to facilitate a sale at a lower price, it could be considered misrepresentation or fraud.
• Surveyor’s Credibility – The surveyor used was reportedly not local to Chester, which raises questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of the valuation.
• RICS Investigation – The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has reportedly been investigating this valuation for over a year due to concerns about manipulation.
• Executor’s Duty – Executors are legally required to maximize the estate’s value. If Beresford knowingly undervalued the property, it could be a breach of fiduciary duty.
• Legal Action – If fraud is suspected, affected parties may need to challenge the sale legally and report the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and RICS.

Given the complexity of this case, consulting a property fraud expert or legal professional would be advisable. You can find more details on RICS investigations here and Beresford’s involvement.

Yes, ProbateScam.com appears to be a website dedicated to exposing probate fraud and legal misconduct, particularly in cases involving estate disputes. It has published multiple articles on Clyde & Co, James Edward Beresford, and the Hoole Road, Chester property case. The site provides detailed reports on alleged undervaluations, questionable legal practices, and ongoing investigations into probate fraud.

If you’re following this case closely, the site may offer useful insights, but it’s always good to cross-check information with official sources like the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). You can explore their latest reports and here.

There isn’t much publicly available information on Allan Loveitt, the Preston-based surveyor, but I did find some general details on RICS valuations and how they differ from property surveys2.

Regarding the wide difference in valuations, it’s unusual for a property to be valued at £850,000 by one party and £345,000 by another unless there were significant differences in methodology, property condition, or external market factors. While RICS has stated that Loveitt did nothing wrong, it’s worth considering:

• Valuation Methodology – Different surveyors may use different approaches, leading to variations in estimated value.
• Local Market Knowledge – A surveyor from Preston may not have the same local expertise as one based in Chester, which could impact accuracy.
• Potential Bias – If the valuation was commissioned by a party with vested interests, it’s worth scrutinizing whether it was truly independent.
• RICS Oversight – While RICS regulates surveyors, it’s not infallible. If concerns remain, a formal complaint or independent review may be necessary.

If you suspect irregularities, you might want to challenge the valuation or seek an independent second opinion from another RICS-accredited surveyor.

1wrsurveying.co.uk2www.rics.org3www.ricsfirms.com

That’s a significant discrepancy in valuation methodology. Comparing local 4-bed properties instead of a 12-bed HMO could lead to a substantial undervaluation, as HMOs are typically valued based on their rental yield and commercial potential, rather than just bricks-and-mortar comparisons.

Here are some key concerns:

• Incorrect Property Type Comparison – HMOs are often valued differently from standard residential homes, considering factors like rental income, occupancy rates, and licensing requirements.
• Market Value vs. Investment Value – A 12-bed HMO in Chester would likely be assessed based on its income-generating potential, not just local house prices.
• RICS Guidelines – The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has specific valuation standards for HMOs, which differ from standard residential valuations.
• Potential Misrepresentation – If the valuation was knowingly conducted using an inappropriate methodology, it could raise concerns about professional negligence or misrepresentation.

If this valuation led to a significant financial loss, it may be worth seeking an independent RICS-accredited surveyor for a second opinion or challenging the valuation through RICS complaints procedures. You can also explore RICS-approved valuation methods here and general HMO valuation approaches.

If HMRC is refusing to examine the case despite concerns about Business Property Relief (BPR) and the validity of the statement of accounts, there are several ways to challenge their decision:

1. Request a Statutory Review – You can formally request a review of HMRC’s decision by an independent officer who was not involved in the original ruling. This must be done within 30 days of receiving HMRC’s decision.
2. Appeal to the Tax Tribunal – If the statutory review does not resolve the issue, you can escalate the matter to the First-tier Tax Tribunal, which handles disputes between taxpayers and HMRC.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – HMRC offers ADR as a way to resolve disputes without going to court. This involves mediation with an HMRC-trained officer to explore possible resolutions.
4. Judicial Review – If HMRC’s refusal to investigate is deemed unreasonable, you may be able to challenge their decision through a judicial review, which assesses whether HMRC acted lawfully.
5. Seek Legal Advice – Consulting a tax dispute lawyer can help navigate the complexities of challenging HMRC and ensure the best course of action.

If you believe HMRC is failing to act on critical evidence, pursuing these options may help escalate the matter. You can find more details on challenging HMRC decisions here and tax dispute resolution.