gunnercookecoaching

“Gunnercooke partner Timothy David Vincent Tyndall represented to the University of Oxford that he was acting for me.

No client care documentation was issued. No terms of engagement were agreed. No payment was made or requested. No authority was given for the solicitor to act on my behalf or to be interposed as my representative in communications concerning that process. The University relied on that representation. A degree-determinative process was conducted through Mr Tyndall. I was not included in the operative communications governing that process. Gunnercooke, including its Head of Compliance, Paul Meredith, and Compliance Manager, Hassan Mohammed, was notified that no authority had been granted and that I was not acting through the firm. The position was clear and capable of immediate correction. No effective corrective step was taken. The representation was not withdrawn in terms sufficient to displace reliance. No steps were taken to restore direct communication or to ensure that the record reflected the absence of authority. The process continued on that basis, with material consequences for my degree. Edit: Gunnercooke llp has stated that the matter has been “dealt with by our compliance team.” That is a mischaracterization. No corrective statement has been issued. The representation remains unwithdrawn.

• Communication

“Mr Nasir Khan’s name appears in materials referring to Asif v Ditta, Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd v Ors [2019] EWHC 89 (Ch), Naseer v Raja…

[2025] EWHC 2565 (KB), and Kingdom Bank Corporation v Moorwand Ltd [2023] EWHC 3069 (Comm). In those materials, one judgment says that “Mr Khan’s evidence on this subject is not entirely satisfactory”; another records the absence of supporting records; and another records that a claim was dismissed for failure to establish the basic threshold conditions for relief. Mr Khan’s own position that, in Asif v Ditta, he defeated a wasted costs application against him personally. In my case he did not supply me with the full case files as he stated and this resulted in a prejudice in a s19 and s19a hearings, something that Mr khan also faced in Asif V Ditta.

“I contacted this firm through their website seeking employment law advice during a difficult period.

After completing the onboarding process and signing the client care letter, I had a single advice call with Carl Atkinson, who was the solicitor handling the matter. Unfortunately the interaction did not feel supportive in the way I had hoped. In my experience the tone of the discussion felt abrupt and transactional, and I did not feel that my situation was properly understood. Because of that interaction I chose not to continue working with the firm and sought advice elsewhere. The matter was then dealt with exactly how I’d have expected by a different firm who was able to advise me to a much better position. I was subsequently invoiced for the document review and advice call. After raising a complaint the firm reduced the invoice and the matter was settled. I cannot comment on the technical accuracy of the advice itself, but the client experience did not match what I expected when approaching a solicitor for guidance.