ONP Solicitors

Extremely happy with the service we received from O'Neill Patient Solicitors! Our solicitor Harry Thompson kept us updated throughout the whole process he has been very helpful answering all of my questions in speedy time and explaining things when I didn't understand, he was ready to complete a month before the rest of the chain, always very polite,
Thank you Harry for your excellent service! Very reasonable charge for the service provided.

Absolutely obismal performance from oneils from start to finesh. Laura Ellis imparticular is close to completely useless. Was never EVER available to be contacted regarding serious matters and NEVER returned calls, emails, messages complaints you name it. Quite literally a total circus. They tell lie after lie after lie, work at a PAINFULLY slow rate, avoid avoid avoid, absolutely horrendous experience trying to work with them. Hands down the worst form I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with.

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.