Discrimination not progressed
Kesar received repeated instructions to pursue disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The client received no claim number or evidence that the requested separate proceedings had been issued.
Correspondence and case handling
2. Documented failures and unresolved requests
Later deadlines passed
Several ordinary judicial-review and Equality Act limitation dates passed during October 2026.
No effective later warning or evidence of protective proceedings was provided to the client.
Case handover concerns
Nicole's administrative reassignment was followed by a change in the way the scope of the matter was described.
Previously discussed safeguarding issues were subsequently treated as outside the case.
13 October complaint not addressed
Mariah Evans-Marshall did not substantively deal with the formal complaint dated 13 October 2026.
Correspondence concerning the language used in communications did not resolve the substantive professional-service complaints.
21 October complaint unresolved
A further formal complaint was submitted on 21 October 2026.
The substantive concerns remained unresolved despite further correspondence.
29 October promise not fulfilled
Mariah promised a substantive response by 29 October.
The promised response was not received by that date.
Complete client file outstanding
Kesar had not supplied the complete client file by the review date.
The missing records affected the client's ability to investigate supervision, internal advice, handover arrangements and limitation decisions.
Insurer information outstanding
Professional indemnity insurer details were requested.
The requested information had not been provided by 6 November. The client sought assistance from the SRA.
Postal-letter dispute
The client expressly requested communication by email.
Kesar later claimed to have sent a letter by post.
The client reported receiving no such letter.
6 November 2026 — Telephone call with Kesar & Co
The woman answering at Kesar & Co said that Mariah Evans-Marshall would not be back in the office until Monday 9 November 2026.
The client objected, stating that this was unacceptable because Mariah had already promised a substantive reply by 29 October 2026. That reply was overdue before the telephone call occurred.
The formal complaints submitted on 13 and 21 October remained unresolved in substance.
Why this matters
A client should not have to repeatedly ask whether legal proceedings have been issued, whether limitation is protected or why a promised complaint response has not arrived.
The documented correspondence raises serious questions about Kesar's supervision, case management and professional service.