Mace & Jones Solicitors

20 September 2005

Mace & Jones Solicitors
Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester
M2 4PD
Your Ref: NMI/TR/62565/43

Dear Sirs

My Questionnaire dated 29th June 2005

I refer to your letter dated 7 September 2005 and am disappointed that the reading skills of your Solicitors are such that you have no one that can read and understand a letter more than one or two pages at a time.

In your letter you refer to a letter I wrote to Zahida Manzoor dated 28 January last which you would have noticed mainly concerned my complaint against Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, which I made on 3 December 2003 and now almost two years later, after the LSO and the CCS carried out an investigation behind closed doors (see enclosed letter to ZM dated 5 April 2005 highlighted green), I continue to get letters from the CCS telling me "…we are still considering the LSO's response…" see one enclosed letter of many I have received from the CCS. If you move on and read the letter I wrote to ZM dated 28 February 2005 (in my file) you will see I was 'set-up' by the CCS to give a reason(s) for Thos Boyd Whyte to sack me (remember the Law Society tell you "the CCS help you if you have a problem with your solicitors" 'Yeah Right'). Also you will see that after asking the CCS for help (see one of my letters to the OSS/CCS dated 14 July 1999 in my file) they then ignored me for 18 months and it took two years to investigate ('investigate' that's a Joke!!) my complaint.

You have quoted from the letter that ZM sent me on the 6 May 2003 "I note that the Adjudicator did consider this issue…" If you look at my enclosed letter of reply dated 21 May 2003 page 3, 2nd paragraph highlighted green, you will see I asked her to "…please send this part to me so I know where and how it was dealt with for I can't find where it was mentioned by the OSS". If you now look at the subsequent enclosed letter dated 10 June 2003, highlighted blue, I wrote to ZM you will see she failed to give any answers. Let me quote from the LSO's rule book that is sent to all complainants "…check that all your complaints were addressed…" also "She will always look at what you have to say and, if she can't help you, she will tell you why". Let me further quote ZM "Be persistent, she says, remember it's your right to have your complaint investigated and you should pursue it because, hopefully, it can be mediated and conciliated to everyone's satisfaction" As ZM's agent may be you can "tell" me "why" she doesn't show me where 'compliance' of Practice Rule 15 was dealt with by the CCS and/or herself.

I suggest you read closely the letters I have written to the LSO's office for not only is ZM guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination' but in my case I believe it has progressed to 'Victimisation' as well, if not she is running a 'Lawyers Protection Racket'.

In your letter you say "we asked four straightforward questions… We are not prepared to visit the websites in order to track down the answers to questions". Questions 1 & 2 I answered (starting at the bottom of page 2) together and you would have gathered the relevant information is held by the Law Society and from paragraph one of that letter it would be seen the Legal Services Ombudsman has access to it. It appears the quote I made reference to you have found in a letter from me dated 28 January 2005.

Bearing in mind the aforementioned quote by the LSO, it is accepted by you that Zahida Manzoor enforced 'rule 15' in the case of a woman so why would you need this woman's "identity" and the "nature of that woman's complaint and details of what it relates to"?? The Law Society 'Data Protection Notice' states "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". However a precedence has been created where on 7 June 2000 (see enclosed letters to the LSO's office dated 21 May 2003 highlighted blue and 10 June 2003 highlighted pink) information was passed by the CCS from my 'unopened' complaints file to my solicitors, over the telephone, who passed it onto the Ethics Committee and SIF (without my consent) to be used for an "unconnected purpose" to my complaint (my sacking). The Information Commissioner said as the information did not pass outside of the Law Society there had been 'no contravention of the 1998 Data Protection Acts' so as you can see the LSO is at liberty to pass any information from this woman's complaints file that you might want to see.

If you look at an enclosed letter dated 18 February 2004 I wrote to the Information Commissioner it is clear information that is passed around the Law Society by Members of the Law Society, according to Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner, is not a violation of the Data Protection Acts. Back to question 1 and 2, ZM is free to pass any information that you require or have requested from the complaints file of the woman in question.

Question 3 (that is answered on page 3) there are no references to any website and the reference to a case mentioned by Zahida Manzoor '9 March '03' you have quoted in your current letter.

Question 4 (also answered on page 3) there is a reference to a web page concerning advice from the LSO and from below you can see for your ease of reference I have made a copy: -
If all else fails, then there is always Zahida Manzoor, the Legal Services Ombudsman. Last year she looked at 2,130 cases. She can recommend the Law Society pay compensation, and reconsider its decision, as well as formally criticise. Her advice for clients who believe they've had a rough deal? 'Be persistent' she says. 'Remember it's your right to have your complaint investigated and you should pursue it because, hopefully, it can be mediated and conciliated to everyone's satisfaction.' http://money.guardian.co.uk/consumerissues/story/0,14150,1330258,00.html

Let me further quote Zahida Manzoor for your ease of reference: -
A complainant has first got to complain to the practitioner. If they are not satisfied, then the complainant has to write to the professional body and the complainant then may have to go through very complicated processes before the complaint lands on my desk; which it may or may not. Complainants have to be pretty persistent to get through the very complicated process. I often say that they must have persistent genes. I wonder what percentage of complaints do not make it off first base. In these cases we are really looking at the reduction of access to justice for them.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmconst/575/4050403.htm

You state "It was clear that the Senior Partner accepted the criticisms levelled at his firm and…had put forward an extremely generous offer". Considering I had been sacked after almost seven years for asking to discuss my dissatisfaction with the Senior Partner on how my affairs had and were being handled, which would cost me a further £8,000 in as many weeks with a new solicitor to conclude my litigation, also a Surveyors report estimated in 2000, seven years after the contractors left my site, it would cost £50,000.00 to put right the problems and make it safe for the public, I forgot did you say £1,500 or £150,000???? As you say I rejected this "extremely generous offer" and if you look at a letter I wrote to the LSO's office dated 10 June 2003 4th paragraph highlighted blue, it will be seen the refusal by the Senior Partner to honour the Client Care Agreement (rule 15) was not dealt with.

Staying on this "extremely generous offer" if you look at the enclosed letter to Zahida Manzoor dated 21 May 2003 page 5 highlighted in green you will see I never wanted, asked for or agreed to accept compensation, all I wanted was what I had been promised but never got.

In the 3rd to last paragraph you state "Our client's "primary role is to oversee the manner in which the various professional bodies deal with complaints about lawyers…" If you look at the enclosed two page letter I wrote to my local MP dated 27 August 2005 highlighted in green for referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman I think you will find it deals with this issue.

Reference to the last paragraph of your letter with the thoughts of intimidation in mind. Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, took some persuasion by the Deputy President of the Law Society to reply to my letter then called me a "disgruntled complainant", he then followed it up with an evening 'phone call trying to intimidate me. The Lord Chancellor told me there are a 'set of enforceable rules' known as the 'eight principles' then said to get them 'enforced' I would have to take the Law Society to the High Court. When I wrote back to the Lord Chancellor to complain that, by telling me I would have to go to the High Court to get these 'enforceable rules' enforced, it was in fact a form of intimidation he then wrote back and said these rules are enforced by the Information Commissioner. Yeah Right. At this point I believe it best that you read the enclosed letter I sent to my MP dated 12 July 2005 highlighted yellow that he has again referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The last three lines of your letter say "If you were to institute proceedings, our client would apply to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that they are out of time and would also seek an order for costs against you". I believe you are clearly trying to intimidate me with the threat of costs being awarded against me. Let us look further, you state "…our client would apply to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that they are out of time…" Zahida Manzoor must at this point know she is guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination' and is turning to the 'rule book' (under your advice) to get proceedings struck out to protect herself. The ironery of this is Zahida Manzoor refused to 'enforce' the Law Society rules in my case to protect Members of The Law Society but now in her case wants the rules 'enforced' to protect herself. You people are bigger crooks than the American Mafia although they will just put a bullet in your head and done with it.

Let me just refer back to your "extremely generous offer". In the case of Judge Roger Davies where a 'high ranking' lawyer said he should have been sacked he was in fact given a years 'garden leave' and a £1,000,000.00 pension deal. Now that's what I call a very, very "extremely generous offer". In case you don't understand the word 'sacked' that is what Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors in Bexleyheath Kent, with the help and conspiracy of the CCS and the Ethics Committee, did to me for daring to complain (You know, to hell with the Client Care Agreement and Practice Rule 15 (see my letter to Dr Howard Stoate MP dated 12 July 2005 highlighted orange "A robust approach needs to be taken to enforce, …, Rule 15...)). Read Zahida Manzoor's "TBW were entitled to sack me"; see enclosed letter to Zahida Manzoor dated 21 May 2003 highlighted pink.

I did ask you two questions that you just ignore so it could be assumed that if a client did ask to see the Senior Partner (Practice Rule 15) at Mace & Jones responsible for their case the likelihood that this would be denied and you would rely on the 'Old Boys Network' to protect you is a possibility. One final question, if ZM is not guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination', why does she need solicitors to fill in a 'Questionnaire' and why do these solicitors advise she should apply, as a defence, that the case is struck out on an 'out of time' rule??

Once again in case you have lost the plot let me recap. As you know if a Senior Partner violates 'Solicitors Practice Rule 15', under the Law Society's rules, they are guilty of 'Professional Misconduct'. In April 1999 because Gordon Luckhurst the Senior Partner at Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors refused to honour the Client Care Agreement (under rule 15) the CCS advised me to send them an official complaint which I did on 13 May 1999. On 7 March 2002 Gordon Luckhurst wrote a letter to the CCS stating "I do fully appreciate Mr Gray's complaint was not dealt with appropriately…" a clear admittance of 'Professional Misconduct'. At this point as ZM's advocate you are saying this 'Professional Misconduct' by Gordon Luckhurst was dealt with (you referred to ZM's letter to me dated 6 May 2003 to which I have given answers above) although you never identified where and how it was dealt with (the very question I asked ZM) in accordance with the rules. In your current letter on behalf of ZM you are 'grabbing hold' of the rule book (out of time) to defend ZM from a 'Sexual Discrimination' accusation but in my complaint against my solicitors she refused to apply the rules. They say 'Fat for the Goose is fat for the Gander' in this case 'The Goose is getting all the Fat' ('Goose' as in representing that of the female species). As the Legal Services Ombudsman, Complaints Director and a Member of the Race Relations Board she must treat everyone equal. Clearly she did not treat me equal to how she treated a woman. The Parliamentary Ombudsman's remit covers the Legal Complaints Commission and that of not "Being treated equal to others" which is a road I am at present pursuing.

Sorry it looks like another 'Four Page' letter plus enclosures, can you manage?


Yours sincerely


B R Gray

cc. On or after the 19 September I have been invited to make an appointment to see Dr Stoate MP to discuss my grievances, I will refer this letter to him to pass onto the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

dd. Oh yes you might want to refresh your memory concerning Judge Roger Davies so try: - www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Lord_Charlie.htm#slj (slj as in 'Shirt Lifting Judge)

Top -------- Home Page