AND THANK YOU - IT IS GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT ALONE.
We have read your web pages with interest (and amusement - It's a wonder
you still have your humour with all that you have gone through / are
going through) and can see that you have more than enough to deal with
Everything you are saying is true and has happened / is happening to
us - The Protection Racket is a joke and a complete waste of time, money
and a persons life and they do not care that they will ruin people who
are not as strong as you and ourselves through their sheer bloody-mindedness
and ignorance. There is no way that the Law Society are Consumer Complaints
as you say they should be renamed Solicitor Protection - The same as
We have been having / are having exactly the problems, lies, contradictions,
incompetence etc., etc. from solicitors - Law Society and Ombudsman
being pushed from pillar to post - We have said / are saying exactly
the same as you and once you stand up to them they pull rank - ignore
you - intimidate you and, using your words, treat you like a piece of
shit with absolutely no respect instead of a consumer (member of the
public) with genuine complaints against rouge solicitors.
Solicitors know that they can get away with their wrongdoings and will
not be brought to task.
As agreed with a solicitor (number two) who had been advising us re
our complaints against solicitor number one, the Law
Society completely mishandled our complaint completely getting their
facts wrong with their misinterpretations, assumptions, opinions and
contradictions etc., ignoring our response drafted and supported by
solicitor number two, facts and evidence submitted and even solicitor
number one's own written admissions, in order to side and agree with
solicitor number one despite we had solicitor number two saying that
solicitor number one was completely out of order under the Law Society's
own rules ?? And as you said the Law Society was using using what solicitor
number one did, against us??
Like you, according to solicitor number two, solicitor number one broke
all the rules under the Law Society's "Poor Service", which
solicitor number two built our complaints on??
But where did that / does that leave solicitor number two who had been
advising us that solicitor number one was / is out of order and that
quote "The Law Society will through the book at him (number one)
and he (number two) would not be surprised if his (number one) name
did not appear in the Gazette" HOW CONVINCING WAS / IS THAT - WE
Upon receiving the Law Society's response, solicitor number two said
it was clear that the Law Society have completely misunderstood OUR
(his and ours) complaints and have ignored our response. facts and evidence.
He therefore himself sent our complaint to the Ombudsman (ZM) telling
us that she will look at our complaint more effectively than the Law
Society and that she will contact him for his response and further information??
What solicitor number two did not tell us was, as you know, that the
Ombudsman does not look at complaints but at the way the Law Society
handles complaints. So we have been led up the garden path by solicitor
Therefore in our case despite the Law Society having all their facts
wrong - Like you, ZM completely got her facts wrong and agreed that
the Law Society (despite we can prove with facts and evidence got their
facts and response wrong) agreed that the Law Society did not mishandle
our complaint which was based upon solicitor number two's advice???
We can prove that the Law Society mishandled our complaint so how can
ZM say that they handled it correctly.
I forwarded a 130 page complaint to the Ombudsman and Law Society clearly
highlighting where they both have / had their facts wrong, which is
conveniently being ignored by both of them??
And what about solicitor number two - In view of all this the Law Society
and Ombudsman, although they will not say have obviously disagreed with
solicitor number tow and his advise??
We are no further forward than we were before we met him and took his
advice and we are approximately £15,000 lighter.Solicitor number
two failed to follow up representations that he made to us and the Complaints
Partner is ignoring our complaints - So, in affect, he is now doing
almost the same as solicitor number one who he said was out of order??
Solicitor number two knows that the Law Society will do nothing if we
complain - Therefore it is pointless in us complaining to the Law Society
in order to get back onto this bent Merry-Go-Round. Reading your article
makes us think that solicitor number two may have been knobbled by the
We are still being a thorn in the Law Society's and Ombudsman side by
writing to them making them look stupid, because their comments are
so stupid, contradictory and bloody minded and, as you know, they never
answer or give you direct answers your questions.
We are not as conversant with procedures like yourself - However we
believe in justice.
We note that there are other sites that we have to look at - How many
people do you you receive replies from who are in the same boat?? Have
you any idea how many people (different ones) write to the other sites??
Can we get them all together??
We notice that Which Magazine are doing a campaign against the legal
profession is there any way we can contact them??
We note that you say that the internet is a powerful tool and we agree
- Is there anyway that we can all get together (perhaps pool the sites
etc. to have one official site - apologies if you have already gone
down that route) to warn the public and expose these practices and firms
where the public does not have a leg to stand on when they come up against
solicitors who - Take your money - Foul up - Then try to blame you -
and then come off record leaving you to pick up the pieces and the bill??
Getting away with what they have done to you??
We are with you but don't know what to do I.E to get a National - International
- Worldwide campaign going.
We find it quite amazing that the Law Society are telling you to sue
them - What a disgrace and a joke?? Talk about as you would say "covering
their arse" - They are supposed to be protecting you - AREN'T THEY???
Hope you have time to reply,
Oh one last question - How come you are not in the Tower?? Ha! Ha! -
How come they have not touched you with what you quite rightly say /
are saying and for being so outspoken?? Sorry that was two questions??
& Roger Phipps
Re my email 13 August 2005
Forgot to mention - In a letter 8 August 2005 from the Ombudsman's Office
a Rob Bartram Legal Adviser (as you say it's all crap titles??) we are
being told the following
"I am sorry that you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of your application to this Office, and I note that
you intend to take this matter further. I should explain, however, that
the Legal Services Ombudsman is the final stage in the mechanism that
exists in England and Wales for dealing with complaints about lawyers.
Is this correct??
with all public bodies, the Legal Services Ombudsman is subject to the
supervision of the High Court through judicial review and you may wish
to seek legal advice with regard to that procedure. Whilst I am unable
to offer that advice, I can confirm that the time limits for an application
for permission to apply for judicial review are very short; namely three
months after the Ombudsmans report issued. Consequently, in the
event of you wishing to pursue this possibility, you will need to act
you can see, like you we are being told to pursue the matter through
the money-making-merry-go- round, (The Legal System??) when like the
rouge solicitors - It is the Law Society and the Ombudsman who have
failed to get their facts right etc., etc.
will note they say we will need to act quickly - Well to be honest the
three months that he refers to is up at the end of the month?? Obviously
we shall not be pursuing matters through the Court as we do not want
to get further involved in a bent system??
think that it is incredible that like you we have no redress to their
mistakes and they, who are supposed to protect the public are telling
us to sue them?? WHAT KIND OF A SYSTEM IS THIS??
THEY SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM ROUGE SOLICITORS AND
NOT PROTECTING ROUGE SOLICITORS FROM THE PUBLIC??
& Roger Phipps
--- Next --- Home
Thanks for getting in touch with us - Apologies are unnecessary as we
know that you have your hands full with all this incompetence, bloodymindedness
From looking at what has gone on in your case - It is clear that you
are dealing with incompetent pratts and bloodymindedness (similar to
us) You are too clever for them and tie them up in knots with their
continual contradictions and lies (similar to us). They do not like
that as once they have made their decision/s (even though completely
wrong) they are above themselves and too proud to admit that you are
right and they are wrong.
We thought that we were making some headway at last - Harvinder Kang
passed our file to one of her case workers for investigation - Roger
spoke to him 3-days ago to make sure that he understood the situation
- He agreed with Roger and could clearly see that the Law Society had
misinterpreted our complaints - Had the facts wrong - Did not take into
account the facts (they based their response on wrong assumptions -
contradictions - misinterpretations - opinions etc.) and did not take
into account evidence submitted where the solicitor concerned (solicitor
number 1) clearly admitted his wrongdoings??
In fact their response made no reference to these facts and evidence
However - The person in question agreed with us and said that he would
recommend that the case/file to be reopened - The next day he telephoned
to basically say that his recommendation had been blocked???? As we
said once they have made their decision, although wrong, they are too
proud to admit it and refuse to back down??
Note: As we may have said - We brought our complaints on the advice,
instructions and personal assistance of solicitor number 2 who was in
personal contact with the Law Society regarding what he told us was
the wrongdoings of solicitor number 1. The Law Society have taken absolutely
no notice of him - But now we are having almost the same problems with
solicitor number 2 who has not followed up the representations that
he made to us and is basically ignoring us - To-date we have had no
reply to our complaints regarding solicitor number 2 (18 May 2005) to
his complaints partner.
In view of the fact that solicitor number 2's advice has amounted to
nothing (the Law Society and Ombudsman have not upheld our complaint
even though they both mishandled it) at a cost of almost £16,000
and we are no further forward now than we were before we met solicitor
number 2 (6 February 2004) - We have asked for our money back??
They (solicitor number 2) now say that they will be looking into our
complaint and if we are not happy with the result we can refer to the
Law Society knowing that the Law Society will do sweet FA??? except
waste our time and cover solicitor number 2's arse??
We find this quite unbelievable as what solicitor number 2 is now doing
is exactly the same as solicitor number 1 who solicitor number 2 told
us was wrong and we brought our complaints based upon the advice that
solicitor number 2 gave us??
You mention Rule 15 (how can we look at this) as it would appear that
they (solicitor number 2) are not complying with this rule??
Joyce & Roger Phipps