7 September 2004
Jonathan Gray Compliance Officer
Data Protection Act
If you look at document A9 from the file I sent you on 18 February last a letter, that was one of many, I wrote to OSS dated 4 September '02 where I complain bitterly about the 'misuse' of my file which at that time should have been held by the OSS Data Controller in a 'secure' environment. If you also look at a document marked A5 in that file you will see this information that was 'requested' from an 'unopened file, by my solicitors that was 'unrelated' to my complaint, was 'illegally' given over the telephone by the OSS to my solicitors who then passed this 'unrelated' information, again over the 'phone, to the Ethics Committee (Doc. A5) who advised them there was an 'Inherent Conflict of Interests'. Yeah Right, and ?ula ?itzpatrick didn't bother to tell the Ethics Committee that Gordon Luckhurst, Senior Partner, had three times refused to comply with the Client Care Agreement. Maybe the IC would like, as he appears to know without any investigation why Richard Hegarty rang me at home during the evening, too hazard a guess as to why the OSS refused to investigate or give answers to this part of my complaint?
By the Law Society's rules and the IC's rules I should have been informed and/or my permission asked for at the time that unrelated information to my complaint was collected from my file, but as you know I was not and when I did 'request' information (that at the time I should have been informed of) using the correct procedures, my file is suddenly "not part of a relevant filing system" which the IC agreed with. I fail to see how the IC upholds the OSS's right to not give me information that I 'requested' then fails to uphold my right to be informed and my permission sought when information from my file is used for unrelated purposes to my complaint. It appears complainants cannot request/collect information from their files before, during or after an investigation into their complaint(s), but in the case of members of the Law Society all files are an 'open book' at all times and for their benefit the 'rule book' doesn't apply.
In my file document A11 is a letter I wrote to the LSO dated 10 June 03, on page 2 top paragraph you can see the LSO states, "there is no evidence to support collusion" (that is between the OSS and my solicitors). Evidence in the file I sent you on the 18 February last shows that on 7 June 2000 ?ula ?itzpatrick telephoned a Mr Fise at the OSS to 'r-e-q-u-e-s-t' (not 'revealed' in the normal course of an investigation) information from my complaints file that was 'pending investigation' he 'leafed' through the pages and passed information to ?ula ?itzpatrick which was, after being discussed with two other Solicitors, subsequently passed on to the Ethics Committee. All the rules, concerning 'collection' and 'purpose', had been ignored and as this was all carried out using information from my file that was 'unrelated' to my complaint, obtained without my consent and used without my knowledge for as documents A4 & A5 show ?ula ?itzpatrick my Solicitor, Geoff Smith the Senior Litigation Solicitor, Gordon Luckhurst the Senior Partner and the Ethics Committee discussed this illegally gained information from the OSS to bring about my sacking. By no stretch of the imagination can these members of the Law Society claim they acted 'ethically' correct not by ignoring the rules (remember your own rule: - "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose you should be told about it and given a choice" I was not "told" or "given a choice") can it be called anything less than a 'conspiracy'. Maybe the IC, once again, might have an idea as to why the OSS and Zahida Manzoor refused to investigate what went on? If you access; www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ombudsman3.htm#zahida read, then click 'Ludicrous' you will see Zahida Manzoor treats the male species much less favourably than the female species. What is the Information Commissioners excuse for applying rules one way and not the other?It might be appropriate, at this point, for me to quote a French Jurist;
By the Law Society's own rules Gordon Luckhurst is guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' for failing to comply with the 'Client Care Agreement' and Richard Hegarty by illegally collecting information from an independent law firm (possibly Gordon Luckhurst) for his personal use and then telephoning me in an attempt to intimidate me must be guilty of serious 'Professional Misconduct'. In your letter dated 21 June '04 you were of the opinion Richard Hegarty rang me to 'address' an 'issue' which I had 'raised'? If you read my reply dated 1 July '04 2nd page 2nd paragraph I asked you what that 'issue' was, you failed to answer, obviously their was no 'issue' that you could find.
I have listened to and read with great interest the Information Commissioner's views on the proposed ID Cards and note his concern with the collection and possible 'misuse' of data. I have to smile when I consider his views regarding the security and use of information held by the Law Society.
Finally I note from your complaints form I can complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, depending on your reply I will if I consider I have not been given equality by the IC with the Law Society and the rules applied as written I will most definitely contact my MP to take my complaint to the PO. I note the Law Society rules are made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls if as I believe the IC is not applying the rules as they are written I will write to him and I'm sure he will love his name splattered all over my web site.
Please find enclosed Office of the Information Commissioner: Complaint Form.