
My experience is as a buyer dealing with T. Duncan & Co's estate-agency department.
One of the features that appeared in T. Duncan's earlier sales particulars for the property I am buying was “Communal Garden”. The rear courtyard was also shown prominently in the marketing.
During conveyancing, however, the legal position concerning that courtyard became unclear.
What particularly concerns me is that T. Duncan later confirmed that it too had originally assumed the courtyard was shared. When concerns arose, the written garden reference was removed from the marketing, but the photographs of the courtyard were left in place. The firm's Property Manager subsequently accepted responsibility for that photographic oversight.
I formally complained on 22nd July.
The following day I was told that my complaint had been referred to T. Duncan's Senior Partner. Despite that, the firm's stated response periods passed without a substantive determination.
I chased matters again and, on 18th August, allowed an additional final five-working-day period, expiring on 25th August. That also passed without a substantive response.
The first communication eventually issued on behalf of the Senior Partner was dated 15th September. His letter confirmed that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had by then contacted him.
At the time of writing, the underlying complaint remains unanswered.
Separately, the courtyard position is still being investigated through my solicitor and Registers of Scotland, at additional time and cost to me.
For a prospective purchaser, my concern is therefore not simply that an issue arose. Property transactions sometimes uncover unexpected title questions. My concern is how the property was presented before that issue became apparent, what remained in the marketing afterwards, and how the resulting complaint has then been handled.
I will revise this review once the firm has completed its complaint process.... Read more
Buyer
16th Sep 2026 (6 weeks ago)