What
do you do when you find that even the Legal Ombudsman resorts to lying
in an attempt to stop you complaining? Well
I intend telling the whole world.
Lets
us look at a few facts that might throw some light on the problem.
First I believe it is common knowledge that the Law Society has a
financial problem, so probably that is the main reason the public,
to quote Peter Herbert, Lawyer and Vice Chairman of the Metropolitan
Police Authority, "are not treated equally".
According to an advertisement from the
Law society themselves there are upto 25,000
complaints from the public every year, 'The
Observer' said the OSS received 14.880 complaints from the
public in 2002 against 'Solicitors' and if the average pay out was
as little as £500, (one thousands of Kamlesh Bahl estimated
pay out), the average cost would be bewteen £7.44m to £12.5m.
In addition to this there are a large number of complaints settled
locally, so expecting the OSS to carry out an "unbiased
investigation" is
just a
'Pipe Dream'.
The
Law Society say there are 25,000 complaints
every year, however according to Solicitor
Richard Miller who is a member of that 'Mob' (Law Society) he
has stated there are 30,000,000 transactions carried out by lawyers
every year. Zahida Manzoor (the Bee's Knees of complaints handling)
stated that 30% of clients are dissatisfied and the WHICH? Magazine
state it is 40% which equal between 10 and 12 million
'dissatisfied' solicitors clients every year WHOO HEE! -
Click Here to
read a page from 'Legal Banter'.
Also
in the same article of 'The
Observer' it appears complaints against solicitors
went up by 30% in 2002, it goes on to state the Law Society is recruiting
a team of 50 inspectors who this summer (2003) will start visiting
firms to "monitor...the worst offenders
and help them improve". If how the Law Society 'disciplined'
Thos Boyd Whyte of Bexleyheath in Kent then there will only continue
to be a 'deterioration' in service to the public. Oh yes the 'Secrete
Service' will be at work here for the 'solicitors clients'
are not going to be allowed to know if any complaints have been made
against their current or prospective solicitors. Well as we know the
Law Society make their own 'rules' then apply the one that only suit
them at any particular times.
However a bit of information from the ombudsman's office concerning
the current amount of 'live complaints'
with the 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' states: - "At
the end of March 2003 it exceeded 8,000, and estimates from her office
put the current live figure at nearly
9,000". Further to this the Law Society
is considering increasing it's spending on 'complaints handling' from
£6.4m in 2000 to a projected £9m for
2003. There are 182 caseworkers at the OSS, an increase of 47 (approx.
30%) in the last 6 months. Maybe the Law Society should look at the
'standards' of their Solicitors.
If
you read a article on the Law Society's
web pages for a 'Unit Manager' it would be seen there are 100,000+
Solicitors and there are upto 25,000 complaints every year, one dispute
every four Solicitors every year, now that has to be a record 'second
to none'. Secondly, they have four teams of sixty people investigating
these 'disputes', there
must be 'one helluva lot' of bad solicitors out there.
Back
to Kamlesh Bahl,
ex vice-president of the Law Society, who as already cost the Law
Society in excess of £2m, was a 'bully'
and whose treatment of staff was at times 'demeaning,
humiliating' and at times 'offensively
aggressive', said the case affected her 'sanity'
and she had to see a psychiatrist, maybe she needed that chip on her
shoulder seen to. Some people know how to 'milk' the system, but then
again being a lawyer and with a doctor as her husband she had access
to the best advice. Then again there is always a 'sting
in the tail', 'sanity and all', last year she fought her way
back on to the society's governing council and was elected over five
other candidates in a seat representing 'ethnic minority solicitors'.
Maybe its time that devorced 'Fathers' and the 'White
English Male' had representatives?
See
'Law Society Article': - "Bahl set
to take case to Europe"
Back
to the Legal Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE. In a letter I received
from her on the subject of the 'Client Care Agreement' and the fact
the Senior Partner at Thos Boyd Whyte, Gordon Luckhurst, did not turn
up for an arranged meeting and then twice more refused to see me to
discuss my dissatisfaction at the way my case was being conducted
she stated this "was dealt with".
If you look at my letter of reply you
will see she failed to substantiate this claim so obviously she is
telling 'porkies'. One other point is she says there is no evidence
to support 'collusion' between Thos Boyd Whyte and the Office for
the Supervision of Solicitors. If you look at
the 'Attendance Note' below, written by my 'young new recruited Assistant
Solicitor' (Gordon Luckhurst, Senior Partner's Discriptition in his
letter to the OSS) at TBW it clearly shows contact was made with the
OSS concerning the complaint I had made, on the OSS's advice, and
where a "...Mr Fise recalled the file
in relation to the complaint..." and the next day
I was sacked.
I
have to put my hands-up to the fact that in my complaint to the OSS
I made the accusation of 'negligence' by
TBW, but thirteen months prior Gordon Luckhurst had on two occasions
refused to see me and discuss my grievances. My claim that TBW had
been 'negligent' would eventually be
proved to be correct by the opinions of a Barrister, The General Council
of the Bar and the ex-Ombudsman, Ann Abraham who also used the words
in a letter she wrote to me "…their
work was so bad…" but
what does the OSS and the present Ombudsman do? One invents evidence
and the other one denies the existence of evidence.
I
don't see how a firm of solicitors, Thos Boyd Whyte of Bexleyheath
Kent, whose work was so bad (Ann Abraham's, ex-Legal Ombudsman words)
and no disciplinary action was taken against them. Albeit, if it had
any future client of theirs or members of the public would not be
allowed to know (The Secrete Society sees to that).
