Mace & Jones Solicitors Manchester
& Jones Solicitors
Your Ref: NMI/TR/62565/43
My Questionnaire dated 29th June 2005
I refer to your letter dated 5th August 2005 and I note Ms Zahida Manzoor has passed my complaints files to yourselves (Mace & Jones Solicitors) who were not involved in the investigation of my original complaint which I believe means Ms Manzoor should have sought my permission before passing my files to a third party to be use for unrelated purpose(s) to that of my complaint. Let me quote the Consumers Complaints Services (CCS) Data Protection Notice "We will use the information you give us to investigate your complaint. We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent". Let me now quote the Information Commissioner; "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose you should be told about it and given a choice " However, having said that when I took these points up with Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner he stated that as information does not pass outside of the Law Society there would be no contravention of the Data Protection Acts 1998. It would appear any information held by the Legal Services Ombudsman and/or the Law Society can freely be passed to Mace & Jones and the LSO has now created a precedence in as much as she is at liberty to pass any information related to my accusation to you for assessment, I will come back to this point later.
The second point is the use of the Internet to gain and use information that is relevant to my accusation. Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, accessed the Internet to gain personal information so he could telephone me during the evening in an attempt to intimidate me. According to Aman Virk at the CCS and the Information Commissioner, Richard Hegarty was acting on 'Law Society business' when he used the Internet to gain my personal details and also when he telephoned me. The CCS, Zahida Manzoor and Richard Hegarty have carried out an investigation between them behind closed doors (see my website; /ZM2.htm#dickie) so you could ask Ms Manzoor if you require any information in that direction. I think it is quite clear the Law Society has again created a precedence in as much as I am at liberty to use and quote the Internet, including my website (www.solicitorsfromhell.com) as this was related to how Richard Hegarty gained my personal details, in any way I think relates to my accusation concerning Zahida Manzoor. The Law Society and Mace & Jones have websites that contain information to inform or for the general use of the public do they not?
You have my complaints file but say "We cannot identify from the files that you have referred to", I will, to save a lot of writing, refer to letters etc on my website and information on other websites as and when required for I believe I have established above this is now a legitimate means. If you wish to read this letter with all 'Links' live it will be on my website at www.solicitorsfromhell.com/mace&jones.htm
You say "The Legal Services Ombudsman considers each and every case on its own merits" which I agree should be the case, however if you read a letter I sent to Mr Clive Soley MP .../Mr_Soley_MP.htm#zm in relation to undertakings/promises Zahida Manzoor gave in Parliament in May 2004, 3rd to last paragraph starting "I would have thought " I believe you would agree the paragraph in mention must apply equally as much as "every case on its own merits" would it not?If you access /Soley_MP.htm#mj there is a quote by Zahida Manzoor taken from the Internet where she has clearly enforced 'Solicitors Practice Rule 15' in the case of a woman (9 Mar '03) and I do say on behalf of Zahida Manzoor "good for her". If you read on you will see she does not apply the same right to a man, let me refer you to a further part of the undertaking/promise she gave in Parliament;
Let me comment on the last line of the above statement made by Zahida Manzoor in Parliament on 4th May 2004 "and that solicitors who need training in client care are given that training". If you now access my website /omblet5b.htm#discipline a letter I wrote to Zahida Manzoor a year previous (21st May 2003) 2nd to last paragraph in part reads; " refuse to abide by the 'Client Care Agreement', then fail to be 'disciplined' in any way at all by The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and without any reprimand at all, leave Mr Luckhurst in charge of 'Client Care' and 'complaint procedures'". How can somebody stand up in the English Parliament giving undertakings/promises when they clearly know they have not complied/enforced them and have no intention of doing so then or in the future for the 'male' species. The words that spring to mind are 'lying' and 'hypocrite' which I believe to be a 'fair comment'.
Let me point you to a paragraph in a letter I wrote to Mr Clive Soley MP (retired) that a copy of that letter and its contents were sent to my own local MP, Dr Stoate, to be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman as I will do with this letter. If you access and read this paragraph in mention /Mr_Soley_MP.htm#mj including the links therein I believe you will see why I believe Zahida Manzoor never gave me equal treatment to that of a woman which would amount to Sexual Discrimination.
Let me address points 1 and 2 in your letter, if you refer back to paragraph one of this letter I believe we established that any file in the LSO's and/or the Law Society's possession can be passed to Mace & Jones Solicitors by the LSO. If you read part of a statement made by Ms Manzoor that is on the Internet it said, in part; "I had one ludicrous example recently where a woman ": - /Soley_MP.htm#mj. Clearly she said "I had" meaning the file for that case is in the Law Society's possession so if you require further information concerning details of that 'complaint' and/or the 'woman' they are accessible to Ms Manzoor which the Information Commission has stated she (LSO) is at liberty to pass to members of the Law Society. Being as the LSO has spoken publicly (Internet) about this case I believe I would have the right to ask the racial descent of the 'woman' in question and if she turns out to be a member of an ethnic minority it could possibly be that Ms Manzoor was racially motivated when she refused to investigate all aspects of my complaint.
Item 3 in your letter "The manner in which you say the complaint was addressed differently " When the case of the woman in question came before the LSO she with no persuasion or hesitation at all enforced 'Practice Rule 15' as she should have done and even publicly told that she had done so, she would also later give an undertaking in Parliament of the "enforcing of rule 15" and training of solicitors who fail to comply. In my case the Law Society had advised me to send them an official complaint because the solicitors failed to comply with 'rule 15' and fourteen months after I had asked the CCS for help that was not given the Ethics Committee advised the solicitors to sack me because I had made a complaint. You ask how my " complaint was addressed differently "? Very simple, in the case of a 'woman' mentioned by Zahida Manzoor on the 9 March '03 rule 15 was enforced by her. In my case although I have been persistent Zahida Manzoor would not/did not enforce rule 15 and refuses to carry out or instruct the CCS to carry out any investigation. Just how more "differently" can two almost identical scenario's be "addressed"?Item 4 the " differential treatment " in the case of where women are concerned Ms Manzoor will freely apply and enforce the Law Society rules with it appears no or very little difficulty at all for members of the female species. However it appears Ms Manzoor will not apply the rules to men even when they take her advice and are 'persistent'; /ZM3.htm#persistent this I would call very " differential treatment ".
My conclusion is that there could be one of three reasons or even all three why rule 15 was not enforced or investigated by the CCS and/or the Legal Services Ombudsman: -
In case by now you have lost the plot let me give a brief run through again. If you once again access /Soley_MP.htm#mj you will again see where Zahadi Manzoor commented on the case of a woman prior to 3 March 2003 where she saw that a firm of solicitors complied with the 'in-house' complaints procedures (rule 15). If you access; .../no13.htm 12 May 1998 my file is referred to Gordon Luckhurst which had been done several times before with the same result. .../no2.htm 7 Jan 1999 I request a meeting with the 'Senior Partner' Gordon Luckhurst as was stated in the Client Care Agreement (rule 15) Thos Boyd Whyte sent to me. .../no5.htm handwritten Attendance Note by my Solicitor (Sandra Durrant) shows Gordon Luckhurst failed to turn up for the arranged meeting but MVD (Margaret Dunton) did and in the same scenario described by Zahida Manzoor she was one of the Solicitors I was complaining about who at this time was an ex-employee. .../no6.htm 29 April 1999 a letter from Gordon Luckhurst giving the first of two reasons he did not turn up and the last paragraph he clearly has refused to see me which is a violation of the Client Care Agreement (rule 15) and which under the Law Society rules Gordon Luckhurst is guilty of 'Professional Misconduct'. In the same paragraph he sarcastically tells me "I assume you are aware how to complain in this case " .../no4.htm this a letter Gordon Luckhurst wrote to the CCS and it now appears it was Mr Smith who was detained in Court not himself. However if you read highlighted in yellow Gordon Luckhurst states "I do fully appreciate that Mr Gray's complaint was not dealt with appropriately", this is clearly an admittance of 'Professional Misconduct' by him and I don't understand why Zahida Manzoor didn't investigate unless it is for the reason(s) I have stated.
In case you assume my complaint of non-compliance of rule 15 was dealt with please refer to a letter I wrote to Zahida Manzoor dated 10th June 2003 (4th paragraph) in my file or access; .../10june2.htm#55 which show she failed to identify where and how the Senior Partner's refusal to see me had been dealt with. Let me quote the LSO's rule book sent to all complainants "She will always look at what you have to say and, if she can't help, she will tell you why". I was told by the Law Society to make an official complaint about the Senior Partner's refusal to see me and discuss my dissatisfaction on how my litigation was being handled. Now I need to be told "why" I cannot get it dealt with and the impression that comes to mind amounts to 'Sexual Discrimination'.
Finally one question I would like to ask Mace & Jones Solicitors, do you treat your male clients in the same way as I have described? If you did or do would you expect the Law Society's 'Old Boy Network' (.../Lord_Charlie.htm#slj) to come to your rescue? May be you shouldn't answer the second question and I suppose you will ignore the first.
If there is any further information you need just ask and I will send it or make it available on my website.
To my MP Dr Stoate to be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.