Woodstock Legal Services Arvostelua 

I’ve actually had to go elsewhere as I’ve emailed and called and no one ever gets back to me.

Slow at responding, hard to get a hold of people directly and condescending.

Woodstock Legal Services
11 Haven Road
Poole
BH13 7LE

Extremely slow at dealing with my case. I was advised that my Transfer of Equity case would be completed after approximately 8 weeks. 7 months later, and they are still dragging their heels and not responding to emails.

In June 2025, Woodstock Legal Services’ solicitor, Ms Zoe Turner (also known as Zoe Brittle), phoned me directly — despite knowing full well that I was legally represented.

This isn’t an allegation. It’s not “my version of events.” Woodstock admitted in writing that it happened, accepted it breached the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct (rule 11.1), and apologised. The SRA rules are, in effect, the police code for solicitors — so not exactly “optional reading.”

I am neurodivergent. The call caused distress and additional legal costs for me. According to Woodstock, however, it was all done “to assist me” and to “potentially avoid protracted proceedings.” An interesting spin — a bit like claiming you were “helping traffic flow” after running a red light.

What makes this stand out is Woodstock’s own public biography of Ms Turner. They say she has a “strong sense of justice,” “integrity,” “empathy,” and that her work is “shaped by her faith.” Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I’ve yet to meet the faith tradition where breaking your own profession’s rules is considered an act of service. If this was “acting with integrity,” I’d hate to see their definition of the opposite.

I disclosed my neurodivergence in prior correspondence that Ms Turner had access to. Yet, instead of going through my solicitor (as the rules require), she called me directly, asked about my legal funding, and tried to discuss the case. In law, the point of rule 11.1 is to protect represented parties — particularly those who are vulnerable. Here, that safeguard was treated like a minor speed bump.

Woodstock’s written defence to my complaint boils down to: yes, she did it; no, she shouldn’t have; but she meant well. That’s one way to frame a regulatory breach. I prefer the simpler version: she broke the rule, they admitted it, and the SRA will decide what happens next.

If you’re a landlord looking for a solicitor who’ll “push boundaries” (literally beyond the SRA’s), perhaps this is the right place. If you’re a tenant, or anyone who values strict professional standards, ask yourself: if this is how they act with a represented, neurodivergent person, what might they do with you?