SRA rebukes London law firm after undertaking remained unfulfilled for nearly two years
Gems Legal Services Limited has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after failing to fulfil an undertaking given during a residential property transaction, with the delay lasting almost two years before the issue was finally resolved.
The regulator published its decision on 23 June 2026, confirming that it issued the firm with a written rebuke on 20 May 2026. The SRA also ordered the firm to pay investigation costs of £1,350.
The matter arose from the sale of a property in which the firm acted for the seller after receiving instructions in September 2021.
In August 2022, the firm informed the purchaser’s solicitors that an interim charging order had been registered against its client’s property. It contacted the creditor that had acquired the debt but was told the charging order could not be removed because it had originally been imposed by a different creditor. The firm was unable to contact that original creditor to obtain a discharge.
Despite those difficulties, the firm gave the purchaser’s solicitors an undertaking on 20 December 2022. It promised to discharge the interim charging order on completion and to provide evidence that notice of the discharge had been submitted to His Majesty’s Land Registry.
The parties exchanged contracts on 20 January 2023, with completion taking place four days later. However, the firm did not discharge the interim charging order as required under the undertaking and failed to do so within the agreed timescale.
Following completion, the purchaser’s solicitors repeatedly contacted the firm seeking confirmation that the undertaking had been fulfilled and requesting an explanation for the delay. After receiving neither confirmation nor a satisfactory response, they reported the matter to the SRA on 10 September 2024.
During the investigation, the firm told the regulator in November 2024 that it had not failed to perform the undertaking but that the matter had been delayed by unusual circumstances.
The firm subsequently commenced court proceedings to obtain an order discharging the interim charging order after paying the amount necessary to settle the outstanding debt secured by it.
On 6 January 2025, the court ordered that the interim charging order be discharged with immediate effect. The firm later supplied the purchaser’s solicitors with the court order and evidence that it had applied to His Majesty’s Land Registry. The interim charging order was formally removed from the property’s title on 29 January 2025.
The SRA found that the firm had failed to perform the undertaking within the agreed timescale, or within a reasonable period, breaching Paragraph 1.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles.
In deciding on the sanction, the regulator acknowledged that the firm eventually remedied the breach and completed the undertaking. However, it concluded that the delay was substantial, had a serious detrimental impact on the property’s purchasers, and diminished public trust and confidence in legal services.
The SRA also noted that the incident was isolated, that there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct or previous regulatory history, and that the firm co-operated with its investigation. It concluded that a written rebuke represented a proportionate outcome