The Protection Society

Office for Supervision of Solicitors
Victoria Court
8 Dormer Place
Lemmington Spa
CV32 5AE

Dear Miss A Atwal

Your Ref. CRO/6531-1999/SH2/AA1

Re: Thos Boyd Whyte of 302 Broadway Bexleyheath Kent

As you know I have decided to start a web page to show my utter disgust of how my case was handled by TBW and at my total disbelief of the outcome of the way it is dealt with by the solicitor's internal complaints procedure. In collating information from my file for use on my web page I'm still amazed at what is in there and I believe some points you must be made aware of. From your recent letter I'm aware TBW do not wish that any further information should be put before the Adjudication Panel which from TBW's position would be an ideal state of affairs. However if what I have to say is not put before the Adjudication Panel then I believe this will give credence to Peter Herbert's remarks that where internal complaints procedures are involved, "the public are not treated equally".

First, if you look at a letter dated 21 January 1999 (doc 39b in your file) that shows my 'utter confusion' over the previous nine months and in a letter dated 5 February 1999 (doc 40a in your file) I refused to pay any more money until I saw Mr Luckhurst to discus my case, as you know he refused to see me. Now at this point there appears from my file an 'Attendance Note' ((1) enclosed) written by 'SD' Sandra Durrant to 'GNL' Gordon Luckhurst dated 10 February 1999 in which they clearly admit 'delays' have taken place also they freely admit "he would have a right to taxation at the end of the day".

In the third paragraph of this 'Attendance Note' they admit the Legal Aid application that they told so many lies about was not sent off, "It appears that Irene Long told Mr Gray that an application for Legal Aid had been sent off when in fact it had not". If you have not got the significance of that it means they are admitting to lying.

In the final paragraph it appears "SD thought that he (a reference to myself) had not been well served by her pre-decessors at TBW". Again TBW's own Solicitor is of the opinion the service I got was far from adequate.

Let us take stock of opinions, a Judge is of the opinion my case ran five years longer than it should have. A Barrister, The Bar Council and the Legal Ombudsman have in relation to the 'delays' labelled TBW "Negligent". TBW themselves, from this 'Attendance Note', recognise the fact that there were "initial delays", "so that no further time was wasted" and, if I read them right, at the end of the day they believe I have a claim against them. The Adjudicator, Mr John Lymbury, is of the opinion there were delays albeit for some reason he believes there is evidence that was sent to me to explain them. From the Caseworker's 'FORMAL REPORT' it identifies a four month period from July 1996 to November 1996 and her conclusions that the Adjudicator based his findings on was "I therefore recommend that no formal findings of inadequate professional service be made in respect of this complaint".

All due respect to the Caseworker but from her 'FORMAL REPORT' she had trouble trying to sorting out the confusion that TBW had with addresses, that she never mastered, and ended up in a muddle herself, I believe her lone conclusion on the question of 'delays' needs a rethinking. In fact I believe there is sufficient evidence in the way of five professional people or bodies of people (A Barrister, The Bar Council, Legal Ombudsman, a Judge and TBW themselves) concerning delays against one Caseworker's opinion who managed to identify one four month period (July 1996 to November 1996), referred to as "some delay".

Thos Boyd Whyte might want to dispute that they agree with there being delays so I will identify where they occured.

  1. TBW wrote to me on 3 November 1995 (doc 13 in your file) where Irene Long "apologised most sincerely for not coming back to me sooner". We are now almost two years into my case, proceedings have not been started and according to DJ Glover there should now be a conclusion.
  2. On the 15 December 1995 at a meeting with Miss Dunton, at that time a Senior Partner at TBW, she apologises for the past two years of delays (doc 16 in your file)
  3. This 'Attendance Note' (1. enclosed) dated 10 February 1999 shows Sandra Durrant and Gordon Luckhurst have discussed the delays over the past five years and they both agree, "he would have a right to taxation at the end of the day".
  4. If you look at Tula Fitzpatrick's 'Attendance Note (doc 46. in your file) it refers to the two years when I kept asking them to apply for an enforcement order against the second Defendant. Tula Fitzpatrick states "I found this question rather difficult to answer from the contents of the file", She is admitting that she can find no reasons for this two year delay.
Concerning the meeting that Mr Luckhurst didn't turn up for: -
  1. The letter dated 5 February 1999 (2. enclosed) shows Mr Luckhurst asked me to make arrangements "convenient to yourself and to Mr Smith and myself".
  2. If you look at the 'Attendance Note' (1. enclosed) it is dated 10 February 1999 (five days later) this shows Mr Luckhurst would now discuss my case and it shows he is very aware just how angry I am also we know Mr Smith was previously handed my file (see doc 2. enclosed) so we now know Mr Smith and Mr Luckhurst are aware just how badly my affairs were handled. If you recall I previously stated it was my belief that Mr Smith was aware of how badly I had been treated and advised Mr Luckhurst not to get involved, hence an ex-employee was brought back to deal with it.
  3. The letter dated 22 February 1999 (3. enclosed) I wrote confirms the arrangements were made for '2pm on Wednesday 3 March '99'.
  4. The letter dated 29 April 1999 (4 enclosed) show Mr Luckhurst stated, "I was unavoidably delayed at Court".
  5. If you look at the insert below which is taken from the letter Mr Luckhurst sent to you dated 7 March 2002 he is now saying Mr Smith was ' detained in Court'? Obviously he doesn't know if it was himself or Mr Smith who was 'detained in Court'.
    "At paragraph 8.8 of your report you indicate that Mr Gray believes that Mr Smith, the Senior Litigation Solicitor and I conspired so as not to be involved in the complaint I really would like to assure Mr Gray that this could not be farther from the truth. In fact, on the day that Mr Smith was due to meet with Mr Gray and Margaret Dunton, Mr Smith, who is also a Children Panel Member was detained in Court on a children's matter which had overrun. I was actual duty solicitor on the day and was unable to return in good time for the meeting. I do fully appreciate that Mr Gray's complaint was not dealt with appropriately and for this I sincerely apologise to him. However, as I have indicated, procedures have been adopted which will prevent this from happening in the future".
I believe you should draw your own conclusions of what went on from the period in mention and if you are truthful it won't take much imagination.

On the 26 April 1999 I rang your office and I was told Mr Luckhurst cannot refuse to see me, as you know he would still refuse to see me, even though he was aware of your comments. I wrote to you on 13 May 1999 and then I again rang your office on 3 June 1999, although I wrote to you several times more it would be 20 November 2000 that you finally look at my complaint, nineteen months. My complaint and the reason I refused to pay TBW for a short period all stems from Mr Luckhurst's refusal to discuss the problems caused by his office also when I wrote to the OSS in May '99 this was part of my complaint. Now the point is I continually keep mentioning this part of my complaint and for some reason you totally avoid it, so now the Adjudication Panel must address this issue and explain to me why you are avoiding all reference to it also as you are the 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' why did you not at least ring TBW three years ago.

Regardless of what TBW say in their letter to you dated 19 June 2002 I am the one making the appeal against the Adjudicator's decision so I believe I have the right in using further evidence to substantiate my claim. I believe there are sufficient reasons in all the evidence I have supplied to the OSS to instigate an investigation into how my case was handled by TBW also why is the OSS deliberately avoiding some parts of my complaint.

From the start I believe I have been honest and everything I have said or stated I have backed up with evidence, on the other hand TBW have been deceitful, dishonest, they have told numerous lies and even admitted this in their own 'Attendance Notes'. The worrying factor about all this is the OSS knows all this but they are trying to cover it all up or at best ignoring it. Lying, deceitful and dishonest are all attributes of rogues, thieves and vagabonds; you would not expect to find these in members of the Law Society. May be what was said in the Kamlesh Bahl report about members of the Law Society is deeper rooted than the report even states.

Finally, I'm aware I am not making any friends from my approach to this problem but after almost nine years ones patience wears a bit thin and I'm sure you are aware it is now over three years since I first wrote to the OSS. However I'm not looking for friends but what I do expect is people to get off their arses and sort out the bad apples in their midst before the whole barrel goes rotten.

Yours sincerely