The family’s allegation
Receiving evidence is not the same as explaining its assessment.
Mr J alleges that Laurence Price deliberately failed to discharge his regulatory responsibilities by declining to investigate the particularised evidence submitted to the SRA.
The October submission identified disputed utility emails, forestry correspondence, banking evidence, conveyancing records and disclosure issues. Mr J challenges what he regards as a failure to test those specific concerns. His allegation concerns the handling and intention behind the decision; the documented questions below ask for the assessment and reasons that would allow that handling to be examined.
23 October 2025: Price confirmed receipt of the files. 30 October: he signed the closure decision. 4 November: Mr J challenged the handling. 8 November: the Contact Centre said Price or the Report Team would respond in due course. No subsequent substantive answer was located in the correspondence searched for this review.
The decision—and the gap it leaves.
Price said the information had been assessed, recognised the potentially serious email-falsification allegation and said the court should consider the disputed matters first. He referred to the absence of judicial criticism or positive findings and allowed for possible reconsideration. The written decision does not separately explain the banking, completion-record and disclosure strands or record an original-to-copy authentication exercise. Which checks were made, which issues were deferred, and why?
Compare the five allegation strands with the decision → · Read the challenge and policy comparison →
The later July 2026 court order and its outcome in Mr Mayo’s favour are recorded in the wider response chronology. The question here is the regulator’s assessment of conduct and evidence—not a claim that the website can reverse that order.
The professional identification.
- Name in the decision
- Laurence Price
- Recorded position
- Investigation Officer, Solicitors Regulation Authority, in the correspondence and decision of October 2025. This records his role then; a current position has not been independently confirmed.
- Organisation
- Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited (SRA), company number 12608059. Official legal notice ↗
- Regulatory context
- The SRA’s regulation of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales. The correspondence concerns Seldons LLP, SRA number 570661, and complaint reference RGC-000162355.
- Institutional office
- The Cube, 199 Wharfside Street, Birmingham, B1 1RN. This is the SRA’s published headquarters and registered office, not a verified personal workplace or regional assignment for Price. Official office details ↗
- Identification basis
- The signed 30 October 2025 decision and related correspondence, described in the source record. No verified public personal biography or portrait is used.
SRA-H01–SRA-H07 · Direct questions
Identify the assessment.
Explain the closure.
These seven publication questions are addressed to Laurence Price in his documented role and to the SRA as the responsible institution. They have not yet been sent. The earlier objections and promised November follow-up are identified separately in the chronology.
Read the SRA policy comparison → · Go to the promised-response question →
What exactly did you receive—and assess?
Laurence Price, as the Investigation Officer who signed the decision, and the SRA: identify the report, index and exhibit versions received through Mimecast and considered before 30 October 2025. Your 23 October email acknowledged receipt. Which allegations and documents were included in the assessment, and which were excluded or referred elsewhere?
Why this matters
Receipt is established. A document list would make the scope of the decision checkable and separate the October evidence from later expansions.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
Which threshold failed, and on what evidence?
For the alleged email alteration, banking-record anomalies, conveyancing discrepancies and disclosure omissions, identify which stage of the Assessment Threshold Test was not satisfied and why. Did the assessment address each conduct allegation, or treat them together as a property dispute? Explain how evidence realistically obtainable was taken into account.
Why this matters
A general reference to disputed facts does not tell the reporter how distinct evidence-integrity concerns were assessed.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
What was done to test the disputed copies?
The 21 October submission offered native files, metadata and witness statements. What inquiries were made or considered to obtain the original utility messages, compare them with the court exhibits and establish any changes, redaction notice and preservation of originals? Why was a further discussion or evidence request considered unnecessary, if that was the decision?
Why this matters
The allegation concerns the relationship between originals and copies. Identifying the authentication steps would show whether that question was tested or left for someone else.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
Why was a court finding required first?
Your decision relied on the absence of judicial criticism or positive findings. Was that a case-specific evidential decision, or a requirement that the court must first establish misconduct? Identify its policy basis. Explain how the parallel-investigations guidance was considered, including any risk of prejudice, need to preserve evidence and reason to await the civil court.
Why this matters
The published policy allows regulatory work alongside other proceedings. The decision needs a case-specific explanation of why that route was not taken here.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
Where is the assessment of the financial and disclosure strands?
What assessment was made of the banking, completion-record and disclosure allegations identified in the October report? Which required further originals or reconciliation, which were answered by the supplied documents, and which were deferred? Identify the non-confidential reasons and the further evidence that would make a difference.
Why this matters
The two-page decision does not separately discuss those documents. This asks for the assessment behind the outcome, rather than assuming every allegation was correct.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
Where is the response promised after the challenge?
On 4 November 2025 Mr J challenged the handling; on 8 November the Contact Centre said you or the Report Team would respond in due course. Who considered that challenge, when, and what substantive response was sent? If none was sent, explain the omission and identify who will now provide an answer.
Why this matters
The promise of a follow-up is documented. A substantive later answer has not been located in the correspondence searched for this review.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
What would now justify reconsideration?
The closure decision allowed for possible reopening after judicial criticism. In light of the later July 2026 order and any further evidence, identify which issues have actually been determined, the relevant judgment passages and what additional evidence could justify reconsideration. Explain how a challenge to a solicitor’s handling of evidence would be distinguished from an attempt to reverse a property judgment.
Why this matters
A court outcome and a regulatory conduct assessment have different purposes. The answer should identify the actual findings and the remaining evidential route.
Prepared 18 September 2026 · addressed to Laurence Price and the SRA
Public-source research · checked 18 September 2026
Another published account: what can be compared?
Maureen Booth-Martin’s CURB website attributes a 25 October 2024 SRA refusal to an officer named Laurence Price and alleges that evidence was minimised and an Ombudsman referral did not occur. Read the author’s account ↗
The limited similarity is a complainant’s contention that particularised evidence was not substantively tested. The underlying disputes differ: her account concerns alleged pressure for property access and complaint referral; this record concerns disputed litigation documents and the SRA’s assessment.
This is one author’s account, not several independent complaints. The site warns that some names may be changed. An original signed decision and independent confirmation that the named officer is the same Laurence Price have not been obtained. It remains a research lead, not evidence of a shared scheme or an established reputation. Read the author’s declaration ↗
The public searches reviewed did not locate a relevant independent judicial or disciplinary finding against this officer. The questions in this profile stand on the correspondence in this case.
An answer belongs beside the question.
Laurence Price or the SRA can respond by question number, identify the documents assessed, correct the chronology or supply the substantive follow-up. Material responses and corrections will be linked to the relevant reporting.
Respond to the editorial desk →
Read the connected article → · View the accountability register →