|
8
April 2004
James
Shutlar
Legal Services Development Division
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selbourne House
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Dear Sir
Thank
you for your letter dated 25 March '04. I note you state "I
have looked through your file and although I sympathise with your concerns…"
from that I will take it you are in agreement with me that the rules,
in my case, have not been complied with? However by enclosing your letter
dated 24 November 2003, which I did reply to, it appears we are back to
the intimidation game 'if you don't like it, take us to the High Court'.
Let
me refer to my previous letter, which you conveniently ignored, where
I referred to those "set of enforceable
rules" that you tell me the data controller must comply
with. First from the evidence I have supplied it is clear collusion between
the data controller and my solicitors took place on 7 June 2000 when the
data controller illegally passed data to my solicitors for their personal
use. You also tell me I should in the first instance make a complaint
to the OSS, which I did, however the OSS refused to investigate the violation
of these "set of enforceable rules"
likewise Zahida Manzoor followed the same route (Conspiracy?? Protection
Racket??)
The
point here is if as you say these "set of
enforceable rules" must be complied with and remember
you don't mention going to the High Court to 'enforce' them (which if
they are 'enforceable' one should not need to?), then the OSS cannot refuse
to investigate this violation and if they do the LSO must either direct
them to or investigate why they refused. If you read the LSO's 'little
blue book' it states, which I quoted to her on several occasions (I will
supply those letters if asked), "What the
Ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed…"
and "they refused to investigated your complaint"
(rules that Zahida Manzoor refused to implement, why?), also "…didn't
investigate your complaints properly or didn't investigate them at all,
she will recommend that they reconsider some or all of your complaints".
I have enclosed the LSO's 'little blue book' in case you don't have one
then maybe you could tell me if this has any validity at all or is it
the same as the 'Client Care Agreement' just another 'Load of Rubbish'
put out by the Law Society?
At
this point I believe Lord Falconer must, as he states in his many speeches
about peoples rights (see my letter dated 27 January 2004), tell me how
I can get these "set of enforceable rules"
complied with or in my case 'non-compliance' dealt with, I will then send
his letter to Zahida Manzoor who must then either investigate it or refer
my complaint back to the OSS.
Secondly
if you look at the enclosed letter from the OSS you will see my complaint
about the Chair of the Compliance Board has been passed to an independent
Solicitor.
Being as Richard Hegarty and the data controller have violated these "set
of enforceable rules" I will also send a copy of Lord
Falconer's reply to this independent Solicitor so he cannot avoid investigating
this illegal violation of my complaints file ("set
of enforceable rules").
`
Let me go back to your current letter, you again mention that "Lord
Falconer has launched a review of the Legal Services…":
-
| 1 |
Are
you telling me I should wait for the findings of that review? |
| 2 |
Can
you assure me if I do wait I will not be told I have run out of any
time limits and my complaint will come within the findings of this
review? |
| 3 |
If
I do run out of time and it won't come within the confines of the
review, why the hell are you telling me about it apart from admitting
the present system is a shambles and out of control? |
| 4 |
How
is Mrs Susan Samuel going to be of any help to me? |
Let
me refer you back to my letter of 25 October that I wrote to Lord Falconer,
page 2, which is to date the current present "…initiatives in
client care": -
| September
1996 |
The
Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) replaces the Solicitors
Complaints Bureau. The Office's declared aim
is 'excellence and fairness in enforcing standards'. Peter
Ross is appointed as the first Director. No new powers, but the Law
Society promise a 'complete restructuring of the old Solicitors Complaints
Bureau', 'a new emphasis on conciliation' and
'major initiatives in client care'. |
It seems
since 1996 the Law Society's "…excellence
and fairness…" have amounted to not comply with their
own rules but strictly apply them to solicitors' clients when it was beneficial
to a member of the Law Society. The using of complainants files as if they
are some kind of 'Criminal Data Base' for members of the Law Society's benefit
and personal use. Intimidation, conspiracy, blather mouthing clients personal
details to anyone who will listen, violation of the Law Society's Data Protection
Notice the list is endless and you tell me "Lord
Falconer has launched a review of the Legal Services…"
this from a man who talks 'Big' acts 'Little' and
probably wears girls knickers for the simple reason he hasn't got
any 'Balls' to put in them and don't you write back mentioning that word
'respect' because until Lord Falconer practices what he preaches then there
will be no respect.
Finally
you told me I should write to the data controller to obtain the information
I previously sought from your department (remember this is 'information'
that I should have been given at the time(s) it took place), however you
neglected to tell me that the 'goalposts' had once more been moved further
back, again shoring up this neat 'Protection Racket' the Law Society
operates. Please read the enclosed letter I received from the Information
Compliance Manager (ICM) that, despite the Law Society's 'Data Protection
Notice', it now appears that Complainants' complaints files come "outside
the Data Protection Act" and the data controller can with
impunity 'blather mouth', despite you telling me he his bound by a "set
of enforceable rules", data from complaints files to anyone
who picks up the 'phone and asks him. Let me once again quote Lord Falconer
"a Complainant is someone who doesn't quite
understand the rules and therefore must be wrong". I believe
you should try to explain the rules for although I have quoted them as
I see they have been written it appears I don't "quite
understand the rules and therefore must be wrong" albeit,
if the ICM is correct it would appear you don't "quite
understand the rules" either?
Let
me just refer to your letter dated 27 January '04 you quote "…eight
data protection principles" you state 'secure' and 'not
transferring without adequate protection'. From my correspondence with
the OSS they have numerous copies of my signature but I have got to produce
proof of my identity, Ok fair enough, but the data controller, in breach
of the rules, passed data over the 'phone with no 'adequate protection'
at all? Secondly I am being charged £10 for asking for information
that I should have been informed of at the time it happened (i.e. my consent
should have been given, I should have been told of the purpose for its
collection and I should have been informed who was collecting it) but
the data controller gave information illegally and free of charge to people
he assumed to be members of the Law Society over the 'phone with
no charge at all and it now appears the ICM is inferring that if I went
to the High Court I would not have a case. Explain to me how is it that
information that should have been given to me or I should have been informed
of at the time I am now going to be denied access to as inferred by the
ICM? Am I mad at this bent and twisted legal Mafia? You can bet your boots
on it.
I
have, as I have done with others, possibly decided to do a web page solely
relating to Lord Falconer. At the moment you can be the sole visitor by
keying in the following web address "http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxx.xxx"
which will give you links to "Hegarty & Co" and "Has
Zahida Manzoor got all her Marbles" web pages.
Yours
sincerely
X
X Xxxx
PS
I decided to put a copy of my reply to the Information Compliance Manager
in with this letter.
Enc.
Top
|