"Solicitors from Hell"
To Mr. Gray,

Your letter was copied to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

Please find attach our response to your letter.

Yours sincerely

Yelena Ford
(Professional Regulation Branch)

  This is an e-mail I received from 'Chuckling Charlie's' office (DCA) and if you click Here you can read the attachment it refers to.  
 

Below is the e-mail I sent to the DCA's office in reply to which no reply was received.

Dear Yelena Ford

I love that bit under the 'DCA' title "Justice, rights and democracy" it goes along with that hypocrite, Zahida Manzoor, when she stood in Parliament on 4 May 2004 lying about enforcing 'rule 15' and giving training to firms of solicitors who don't have a complaints procedure in place when less than a year previous she covered up the fact Thos Boyd Whyte had refused to honour the 'Client Care Agreement' (under rule 15) knowing full well the Senior Partner had admitted he had not complied with 'Solicitors Practice Rule 15'. Then again when I complained that the 'Data Controller' in charge of the CCS's complaints files had allowed my complaints file to be misused Charlie Falconer told me there are a set of 'enforceable' rules known as the 'eight principles' that all Data Controllers must comply with. When I asked how one can get these rules 'enforced' I'm told "if you don't like the way we apply the rules take us to the High Court", Charlie is just as a big a hypocrite as Zahida Manzoor.

Click Here to read the last letter I wrote to that 'hypocrite', Zahida Manzoor, and you will see she is just about guilty of ignoring every rule and law in the book. Any other person who deliberately and consistently ignored the rules/law would be classified as a 'criminal'. I just wonder, apart from being a member of an 'ethnic minority' as Charlie is himself (Scotsman), what 'Charlie' considered her special 'qualifications' were/are to 'protect' members of his profession!
Louise Hanson, head of campaigns at Which?, said: "It just goes to show how badly consumers are being served by the very organisation that is supposed to be looking out for them and how desperately the government's forthcoming legal services reforms are needed."
The PCS claimed there has been a 40% turnover in case workers since Manzoor took up her position and that morale of employees had hit rock bottom.
It is understood that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), which oversees the legal ombudsman's office, has expressed concern.

Right to the end Zahida Manzoor ignored even the rules she quoted herself. If you look at her 'report' dated 18 January 2005 which criticized the CCS's poor performance of their investigation, the last paragraph of that letter quotes 'Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990' that the CCS should comply with, within 3 months, although I complained about this failure Zahida Manzoor ignored me. The CCS's reply to her report came on 18 January 2006, twelve months later after being prompted by me, and apart from being nine months 'outside of the time limit it didn't even come near to complying with her instructions. I complained to the LSO on the 20 February '06 about the CCS's failure to fully comply with her instructions all to no avail although I must say she is consistent in ignoring questions.

Let me quote what Zahida Manzoor said on 'fairness and transparency' and the 'interests of the consumer';
Ms Manzoor welcomes Sir David's report and states:
"In principle I welcome the report and am looking forward to reviewing the recommendations within it. At the heart of my considerations will be the interests of the consumer and increasing public confidence in legal services. That means fairness and transparency for all users and ensuring that their views and experience help shape any changes in the way services are delivered in the future".

The DCA state on: - 'Rights' - responsibilities include human rights and information rights law. 'Out and Out Bullshit'.

The law states: - "When a public body is investigating a complaint all evidence must be available for all concerned". Please tell me why I was refused access to all "available evidence", ZM won't say, and don't tell me the Law Society are 'exempt' from the Freedom of Information Acts because the law states I am entitled to all "available information". You have to wonder what ZM's interpretation of the words 'fairness' and 'transparency' are.

Further to "fairness and transparency" instead of allowing the CCS to comply with her instructions she even 'colluded' with the CCS on the outcome of my complaint against Richard Hegarty that concerned an evening 'phone call he made to me when he tried to 'intimidate' me with threats. She said Richard Hegarty made the call for and on behalf of the Law Society and she is clearly illegally withholding his version of the content of that call that she instructed the CCS to ask him for. You should bear in mind that prior to me making a complaint I wrote to Richard Hegarty on the 5/12/2003 for details concerning that 'phone call, he ignored me. If you click Here it will provide documentary evidence that Zahida Manzoor was 'colluding' with the CCS during their complying with her instructions, but I suppose 'Charlie' couldn't care less.

Website war on solicitors sets off legal retaliation
The Sunday Times May 29, 2005. By Dearbhail McDonald.

I suppose because you don't approve of my website, you might have noticed the internet is being flood with beefs about the Law Society and it's members which eventually will run into thousands, you will no doubt use that 'ignore' rule, well what's the difference 'Charlie's Favourite' has ignored my questions and anxieties so let me quote Lord Falconer: - "Who will stand up for our basic rights and freedoms if we are unpopular or don't have money or don't have power" ? Well obviously, being a member of the Law Society Charlie won't "stand up" for any 'solicitor's client's' "basic rights", for like his 'protégé' he says plenty but does nothing.

Two important things about the CCS, first the Law Society say on their website; "The Comsumers Complaints Service is the part of the Law Society that helps you if you have a problem with your solicitors". Please explain to me why, when I asked the CCS for help when Thos Boyd Whyte refused to honour the 'Client Care Agreement', they ignored my pleas but instead illegally gave information from my, not yet under investigation, complaints file, that they had advised me to make, allowing my solicitors to seek advice, based on the contents that came 'illegally' from my complaints file, from the Ethics Committee who with no hesitation or investigation and based on 'hearsay' of a telephone conversation from my Solicitor they advised that they (TBW) should sack me as a paying client. Please access http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Ethics_Committee.htm to read the 'Noble' Ethics Committee's involvement in my sacking which shows their total lack of consideration for 'Client Care'. Because Gordon Luckhurst did not honour the 'Client Care Agreement' the Law Society rules state he is/was guilty of 'Professional Misconduct', tell me why I could not get it investigated? Oh sorry, I forgot 'The Law Society's 'Old Boys Network' came to the rescue. Oh yes, how did that "help" me when I asked the CCS for 'help' to get Thos Boyd Whyte to comply with the 'Client Care Agreement'?

The second point, we are told that the 'Consumers Complaints Service' is a 'free service' that the Law Society provides to solicitors' clients if they have a complaint about their solicitors. Explain to me how that service is 'free' for when a client points out the rules are being ignored to favour and protect solicitors and they (client) ask that the rules be followed or an explanation be given they are told by the CCS, the LSO and DCA "if you don't like it, take us to the High Court". Even your current letter (sent by e-mail) is saying that, so tell me why must a solicitor's client have to go to the High Court to get the rules 'enforced', this defeats the whole 'complaints process' and is it possible that all complainants should go to the High Court in the first place? For instance, as I have stated above, Lord Falconer told me there are a set of 'Enforceable Rules' known as the 'eight principles', when I asked how one 'Enforces' these rules he said I will need to go to the High Court'. Now come on, you people are a joke and clearly all part of the 'Protection Racket'. I suppose the Lord Chancellor's attitude to saying "if you don't like it, take us to the High Court" is passed down to the CCS and the LSO.

My complaint started about the 'Client Care Agreement' that solicitors' are required to enter into with their clients. As you are aware the Senior Partner at Thos Boyd Whyte's didn't turn up for a pre-arranged meeting but sent an ex-employee I had complained about then he twice more refused to see me, by the L S rules he is guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' and should have been dealt with by the CCS. After several 'phone calls to the CCS asking them for help they told me to send them an official complaint which despite letters and 'phone calls and promises it would be dealt with in 6 weeks it was investigated over 2 years later and by that time, as you can see from above, my complaints file was misused and I had been sacked. In short the CCS would not investigate the Senior Partner's refusal to honour the 'Client Care Agreement' or his 'Professional Misconduct', the LSO, despite her promises she later gave in Parliament on 'enforcing' these rules, stated the 'Professional Misconduct' issue had been dealt with but failed, when asked, to produce any evidence to support her claim (she lied). I then wrote a letter to the Chair of the Compliance Board, my letter was redirected to Richard Hegarty who first of all ignored me but when prompted by Kevin Martin he replied and called me a "disgruntled complainant" which he followed up with a threatening evening 'phone call about my website, all I had done was to ask a simple question. As you would have gathered from above I made a complaint about Richard Hegarty's behaviour but I had not reckoned with the 'Old Boys Protection Racket' that swung into action to 'protect' Dickie.

Well I've asked questions but I suppose the answer is "if you don't like it, take us to the High Court".

From a, as Dickie Hegarty would say, "disgruntled complainant"

B R Gray

Can be accessed at http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/dca.htm and http://www.ratpack.v21hosting.co.uk/dca.html

PS You will no doubt ignore this and just repeat "if you don't like it, take us to the High Court", so what, it will make good reading on the internet and show the world 'Charlie's' commitment to the 'Old Boys Protection Racket' is 100%.

Top