I have had horrible experiences with Clientele Legal on at least three occasions. In each case, Clientele Legal do not deliver anything.

<p>First Experience.</p> <p> </p> <p>I was erroeously black-listed on several credit bureaus in 2015 -On TransUnion, Experian (Credit Expert), XDS and Compuscan for several accounts that I had already settled. Proof of settlement of the credits was made available to Clientele Legal to assist with the clearing of the black-listing. Clientele Legal kept taking me around in an endless fashion without resolving the problem. More than a quarter of a year passed by with no tangible results from Clientele Legal.</p> <p>I then had to personally take the matters myself and approached each of the credit bureaus with the proofs. I also had to engage the services of other private Attorneys in some cases. In certain instances, I had to also obtain the confirmations of clearance requests from the service providers themselves. I managed to get all the listings rectified and removed from the black lists.</p> <p>Way after i had concluded the process, that is when Clientele Legal came back to me with the appointment of an Attorney to facilitate with the process of removal from the credit bureaus. I informed them that they were rather too late. I then asked them if they could consider assisting with the refund of all or at least a portion of the legal expenses that I had incurred in the process; they accepted to check internally and revert back to me. To date, nearly a whole year has gone by and they have never reverted to me with any feedback or decision reached on that request.</p> <p> </p> <p>Second Experience.</p> <p> </p> <p>I had approached Clientele Legal for assistance with the issued sunmmonses against me from Prosperitas, a debt Collection organisation. Prosperitas were representing Pro Arte Alphen Park High School for outstanding bills of school fees for my children. My contention here was that the school and the debt collectors had created several accounts for the same children and there was a clear double counting and billing. I submitted the case to Clientele Legal but they climed they had not received the submissions. I resubmitted several times but they ignored me. I then had to again approach private attorneys to help me out. The private attorneys also just gobbled my money without helping. I had to go to court to file the motion of intetion to defend. Prosperitas retaliated by filing a submission for a summary judgement. i also filed a motion to defend the summary judgement with the arguments that the attorneys and the complainant had not reconciled their numbers since 2007. My application was upheld and we then engaged with the attorneys of the plaintiff. It turned out that the numbers that were being claimed substantially differed on the consolidated version compared to the sum of the individual claims on the four summonses. The attorney then failed to find sufficient grounds to proceed with the four cases. Clientele legal was all the time continuously enjoying debiting my bank account for their monthly premiums - which they have continued to debit for the past 5 years now.</p> <p> </p> <p>Third Experience</p> <p> </p> <p>In the third experiencen, I have a labour matter that I have had with my employer for unfair labour practices and **************s perpertuated by my supervisor. I withhold the names of both the entity and the supervisor because the matter is still due for concilliation. The long and short of the matter is that I outlined in greater detail all the issues and the steps that I had followed internally which included filing two grievances and ultimately reaching a dead end with the employer. Internally, all the facts show clearly that there were mulpractices and Clientele Legal's earlier response to my submission was that they would take up the case because the prospects of success were high. However, as we continued with the engagements, Clientele Legal slackened as usual and I had to engage then services of a private attorney for guidance. As the engagements and submissions took shape, Clientele Legal came back on the scene and requested that I should disengage the private attorney and only deal with them, which I did. thereafter the bargaining caouncil requested for submission of applications for condonation, just in case that would be necessary, which Clientele Legal offered to assist me with. However, along the way, clientele legal started to duck and dive and could not prpapare the much awaited applications for condonation. They started to argus with me that accrding to their assessment, the chances for success to obtain a condonation for the cases which had occured more than 90 days ago was zero. I argued that the matters had a fair chance to succed because I was following due internal process which was delayed by the employer and that the last such meetings happened in August and September of 2016 on matters that had started way back in 2014. I submitted to Clientele Legal that the counting of the 90 days should start on the date of the last meeting which is when I became aware that the employer was not going to resolve the issues. Howver, Clientele Legal remained adamant and refused to act.</p> <p>I then had to personally motivate to the bargaining council why I felt that the matters needed to be brough for concilliation for the above reasons. the Bargaining Council accepted my submission and proceeded to assign a case number and advised me to await a date for the concilliation. I informed Clientelle Legal of this outcome. I was so dissappointed with the ineptitude of Clientele Legal that I advised my bank to reverse the debit order for Clientele Legal for October and September, 2016. The bank successfully reversed the debit order for October, 2016. Clientele Legal then redebited my account in November, 2016. They approached me with a call a few days ago to offer me assistance with advice regarding what to expect at the concilliation. But annoyingly, they again submitted that they will not represent me if the case proceeds to arbitration for two possible reasons.</p> <p>1. that their representation would be conditional upon their assessed chnaces of success</p> <p>2. that their representation is on condition that I have paid up premiums and that in this case because of the protest reversal of the one debit order in October, they will according not represent me any further and that they will close the case on their side.</p> <p> </p> <p>The foregoing is my clear testimony that Clientele Legal are just a money meking sche,me and completely useless ****. More details will be provided if needed. they have flawed processes and are not acting in the best interest of the client but in their own interest to maximise their pockets.</p> <p> </p>