Higgs Newton Kenyon Solicitors

Mohanad Sharif

2 months ago

It took over full 4 years to bring my civil claim to court. Whilst I was waiting to be seen by a Cleveland court of justice, Cleveland Police brought what I would identify as the best Malicious prosecution I ever known personally reducing the chances for a successful civil claim, and topped with a Malicious exit from HNK means I would never recommend this firm based on my own personal experience.

David Shepherd

a month ago

Took out a no win no fee with hnk solicitors it went so far with no result so i ask hnk to end the claim i was threatened with thousands and thousands off pounds if I pulled out then without my consent they made a three day trial against a third party and told me legal aid covers costs of the case the trial went against me mainly because they imployed an inept barrister wet behind the ears for me. now I'm being chased for 33 grand half I have had to Borrow off my wife and sister the rest on a payment plan hnk ask me if I own any property at the start off the claim i did not understand at the time why they ask this .now I know they have passed my details to the claims company to put a charging order on my house which they have done steer well clear of hnk they will lie mislead you threatened you disgusting practice in my opinion should be struck off

Jamie165

8 months ago

Shockingly poor law firm. I spoke with one of their paralegals (Justyna Grzelak) about my case last month, making her aware from the outset that I have significant and enduring mental health issues including ptsd following a traumatic incident which took place two years ago. I also notified her that I suffered a mental breakdown as a direct consequence of the organisation responsible for what happened to me deleting the CCTV footage of the incident several weeks after I wrote to them requesting the preservation of said footage. Justyna exhibited zero empathy and even cut me short to alternatively focus on inappropriate questioning completely unrelated to my case. HNK's website (riddled with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes) describes her as a qualified mental health first aider who is purportedly "well equipped to assist any of our client [sic] who struggle with their mental health" with a supposed additional interest in the "mental health welling [sic] of her co-workers". In stark contrast to her self-serving online profile, she was callous, abrupt and rude towards me throughout my consultation with her. In spite of spending several hours preparing and collating a comprehensive bundle of evidence (at her insistence) I was subsequently informed weeks later, without any discernible valid reason or explanation, that my case lacked merit. Thereafter, when I wrote back to HNK requesting clarification of the evidential/legal basis of their decision, they refused to provide one. To add further insult to injury, HNK said they would only be prepared to reconsider their (unreasoned) position if I was able to somehow obtain CCTV footage of the incident, in spite of the fact that I had advised them from the outset that the footage was deliberately and wilfully erased by those responsible for what happened to me and had provided them with incontrovertible documentary evidence of this. HNK's unabashed lack of empathy and/or professionalism has only served to compound the significant trauma and injury I have already suffered. I would respectfully suggest exercising extreme caution before deciding to instruct them. I would not wish the unpleasant ordeal they put me through on my worst enemy. Postscript: Since writing this review, I have since become aware of HNK's rating on Trustpilot (at the time of writing, just 2.2 stars out of a possible 5, with 75% of reviews giving them just 1 star). I wish that I had known this before instructing them. It would have saved me a significant amount of time and trouble.

martha spurlock

a month ago

In your analysis of the Miranda warning and British caution, you report that the Miranda warning came into use during the late 1990s. The case of Miranda v. Arizona dates to 1966. That warning has been in use WELL BEFORE the 1990s.

Nigel Bishop

6 months ago

I was supported all the way through the process, kept up to date with developments and advice,i would recommend this very professional company to any seeking help and advice thy are so thorough and keep you up to date on everything,i would like to say a big thank you for your help and support throughout the process. Best wishes, N Bishop.