Violation of Law Society Rules

20 May 2004

Your Ref. C03/297/2
James Shutlar
Legal Services Development Division
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selbourne House
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

Dear Sir

Re; Violation of Law Society Rules

Since my letter to you dated 7 May last I have received a letter from the OSS's Miss Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Services Standards, copy enclosed. As you know there are, supposedly, strict rules on the supplying and collection of data. If you read part of Aman Virk's letter regarding Richard Hegarty collecting my 'personal' data, which I believe he did over the telephone (unsecured), she implies she would have given it. Let me refer you back to a copy of a letter I sent to you on 7 May that I wrote to Bob Stanley, Information Compliance Manager, that shows when a Complainant uses the correct procedures in seeking data from their complaints files the file is not "of sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar" data but when any other Tom, Dick or Harry picks up the 'phone and say they are a member of the Law Society they are given whatever they ask for and Aman Virk states that "this would not be regarded as improper". Remember Richard Hegarty collected 'personal' information that was also 'unrelated' to my complaint that I had not given my permission for him to collect.

Secondly, she states the reason 'Dickie' used my 'personal' data to ring me at home during the evening "was Law Society business". If you go to; (this info is also on page 4 of my reply to Ms Virk)
"http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/news.htm#56" that was put on my website on 6/7 Nov '03 at the time 'Dickie' rang me you will see there is no doubt the reason(s) was because what I was saying about Hegarty & Co was in his opinion 'defamatory'. If he considered what I was saying was defamatory or libellous he would personally have to take me to the High Court and this would be solely a personal matter. So tell me how does Aman Virk make this out to be "Law Society business"?

One other thing, Aman Virk is saying the reason Richard Hegarty collected my personal details was so he could ring me during the evening so he could "address" with me an "issue" which I had "raised". If you look at the letter I wrote to Richard Hegarty dated 5 Dec '03, four weeks after he rang me (6 Nov '03) then I believe you must agree that if there was an "issue" that was related to "Law Society business" he would or should have replied, but he did not instead he totally ignored me. If you read the last paragraph of that letter it is clear he did not have "Law Society business" in mind.

If you read my letter of reply to Aman Virk a copy of which I enclose I believe it is clear she has not conducted, to quote the LSO's 'little blue book' a "…detailed, unbiased investigation…" If you read the enclosed copy of a letter I received from the OSS's Caseworker concerning my complaint against Richard Hegarty dated 18 Feb '04 it appears there are "special procedures" when you make a complaint against "a member of the Council of the Law Society". Now three months later after considering that to carry out a "detailed, unbiased investigation" would not serve the interests of the Law Society and Richard Hegarty's progress within the Law Society, what have the Protection Team (OSS) done, what is considered to be 'Common Practice' to protect members of the Law Society, torn up the rule book.

You will no doubt notice that Aman Virk has "examined the papers, and made enquiries" and she clearly states "I can confirm that this Office did not provide your telephone number". First of all Richard Hegarty should, I assume, be the first to know the rules (the reason I wrote to him in the first place) and I have the right to know what data/information is being given/collected by whom, when, where and how. The 'how' bit means were the rules for collection and/or the refusal of data followed.

Richard Hegarty I believe is clearly guilty of violating the Law Society's Data Protection Notice and in doing so is probably guilty of being in violation of the Data Protection Acts 1998. I also believe Aman Virk has failed to carry out a "detailed, unbiased investigation" which would have led to disciplinary action being taken against Richard Hegarty for violation of the Data Protection Notice and disciplinary action being taken against the third party who supplied my personal data to him. If you read a copy of a previous letter I sent you that I wrote to Zahida Manoor dated 21 May 2003 you will see the OSS and Ms Manoor refused to investigate the passing of information from my closed complaints file by the OSS to my solicitors to assist in my sacking on 7 June 2000 and also the Senior Partner's refusal to comply with the Client Care Agreement when he refused three times to see me and discuss my dissatisfaction at the way my affairs had been handled. Things haven't changed, the Protection Racket is still firmly in place.

You have in the past talked of 'enforceable rules' Lord Falconer talks about 'knowing your rights and enforcing your rights' but when it is pointed out the rules are being violated to protect members of the Law Society what do you say 'if you don't like it, take us to the High Court'. The point is, you know what's going on as well does Lord Falconer and if you turn a 'blind eye' then you people are part of this corruption being operated within the complaints system.

Let me once again quote Lord Falconer "a complainant is somebody who doesn't quite understand the process, therefore must be wrong". OK, somebody needs to explain "the process".

Finally I have enclosed a copy of the letter I wrote to Mr John Squires Compliance Officer at The Information Commissioners Office on the subject of Aman Virk's letter which then between you, you can 'use a sledge hammer to crack an egg'.


Yours faithfully

X X Xxxx

enc. Copies of 5 letters.