This letter to the OSS (now the CCS) lays out my complaint to this 'Protection Team' concerning my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte with comprehensive evidence enclosed. But yes you guessed it the OSS and Zahida Manzoor, LSO, ignore it and protect the solicitors. It also took the OSS over 2 years to allot my file to a Caseworker.
10 August 2001
Dear Ms Hicks
Your Ref. CRO/6531-1999/SH2/KR
Re: Thos Boyd Whyte of 302 Broadway Bexleyheath Kent
Thank you for your letter dated 30 July and I confirm our three recent telephone conversations. I think there must be something in me that brings out the "delays" in people and that seems to be the basis of my complaint these days. However, I will accept your apology and offer of compensation. Thank you.
Back to my complaint of the way my litigation was handled between the 3 December 1993 and 8 June 2000 when T B W, within ten weeks of the trial, sacked me as a client.
I have enclosed an up-to-date chronology of how my case progressed. As you can see this amounts to sixteen pages, but when you consider it is almost eight years (3 Dec '93) since my first encounter with solicitors this only amounts to two pages per year. If you want to relate anything I have said with my chronology just go by the dates or the numbers in brackets, if you would like any evidence of what I have stated just quote the date or the number on my chronology.
I will list the main points of my dissatisfaction although it is hard to see just what did go right.
Why after I stated on 3 Dec '93 "I would pay whatever it took"
was I advised ten months later to apply for legal aid? (1)
Why did it take sixteen months to process the legal aid and why were
dates, without my knowledge, altered on the application also why were
conflicting stories told? (13)
We received a solicitors letter from the Defendants on 24 Feb 1994 and
it appears T B W wrote to them in Dec '94 (11). Losing contact with
the defendants was the root cause of the problems which arose, and I
have asked this question time and time again with no answer. What, why,
4 My instructions are clearly documented in Irene Long's "attendance notes". Why were my instructions ignored for three years, until I eventually sent a recorded delivery letter, by Irene Long and Miss Dunton? (5)
At this point (Feb 1994) I have given instructions (Irene Long's "attendance note" 8 Feb 1994), I had already stated I "was happy to pay whatever it took" (Irene Long's "attendance note" 3 Dec 1993) we have contact with the Defendants and their solicitors (solicitors letter dated 24 Feb '94), there is no sign or reason to believe they will be evasive, from District Judge Grover's comments and what Mr Higgins put in his opinion report my case should have reached a conclusion the very latest at the end of 1995. All the problems from now on were caused by the fact it took three years to apply for summonses and contact was lost with the Defendants, and their solicitors. This is most firmly the fault of my solicitors, and through no fault of mine I will have to foot the bill for the problems that arose along with all the errors that were made.
At this point it should be understood the "delays" are the main stay of my complaint. Two years into my case on 15 December 1995 I asked to see a Senior Partner, Miss Dunton at that time, she apologised for the delays and said she didn't know, but "she would now get things moving" (ignorance is no excuse for negligence). It will take Miss Dunton another year, 'til I sent a "recorded delivery" letter, for her to apply for a summons on 18 Nov '96. DJ Glover aware of the problems of my case told my Solicitor on 4 Nov '99 that my case should have reached a conclusion within two years. We know it will now take a further four years and a total of seven years. I don't believe you can even imagine my frustration and the Senior Partner, Mr Luckhurst, at the end refuses point blank to see me. I don't believe you can tell me that this is acceptable.
us now continue with the problems of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh
Why was there confusion over addresses? The addresses were all correct
in 1994, Mark would move some two years later, Adam's is still the same
today. Their mother gave Miss Dunton the correct addresses in November
1996 but wrong addresses would continue to be used. (see docs. 20 +
Why did we end up with two case numbers at Dartford County Court, DA603906
After a number of bungled attempts at "substituted service"
caused by there being two files at Dartford Court, on the final failed
attempt on 17 Oct '97 when Mrs Durrant spent 30 minutes at Court "sorting
this out" as she stated, she still used the first case number
(DA603906), the Court wrote back on 13 Nov '97 to explain the problem
and of course refused "substituted service". Would Mr Luckhurst
explain how the wrong case number was used and why there were so many
refusals of "substituted service"? (docs. 29c + d)
Because of "substituted service" being refused on 17 Oct all
information will have to be amended, affidavits returned to Lionel Stolton
(PI) to be re-sworn and updated, returned to T BW and back to the Court
on 17 Dec. Would Mr Luckhurst now tell me why Mrs Durrant wrote to me
on 27 November disguising the facts that had happened and went on to
tell me I would be charged for their mistakes and I would be charged
for them to correct the problem? This was downright dishonest (29g +
h + k1) and Mrs Durrant writes to me again on 5 Feb '98 still disguising
On the 19 Feb '98 there was "substituted service" on the Defendants
and I am told I got Judgment on 15 June '98. It appears from a letter
I received on the 30 July '98 two years after the Defendants mother
gave Miss Dunton the correct addresses we have slipped back to the old
address and I am told I will again have to go all through video evidence
once more to establish the Defendants whereabouts? Letters from T B
W show Mr Luckhurst has for some time been very aware of my plight but
he is keeping a very low profile, why?
We got judgment against Adam Oakes on 15 June '98. On 21 Dec '98 I am
told I will have to prove proceeding have been served? Substituted service,
judgment, I write to T B W showing my utter confusion over the last
9 months or so. I receive a reply on 2 Jan '99 that states they "will
be writing a substantive reply to you in the near future";
also my file had been passed to Mr Luckhurst. There will be no reply.
Why could I not get answers to my questions?
We got judgment against Adam Oakes on 15 June '98. For the next two
years I kept asking for them to apply for an enforcement order which
they never did. Why?
In Feb '99 arrangements are made for me to see Mr Luckhurst and Mr Smith
(Senior Litigation Solicitor) the arrangements will be altered to accommodate
Miss Dunton who T B W will later state on 28 June on a Court document
that had a declaration of truth on it that Miss Dunton left T B W on
15 Sept '97 some 19 months ago? On the 3 March I arrive for the meeting.
No Mr Luckhurst. No Mr Smith just Miss Dunton, ex-employee who some
of my complaints concern. Complaints procedure???
26 April '97 I spoke to the OSS who suggested I should once again ask
to see Mr Luckhurst, this I did on the same day. 29 April Mr Luckhurst
wrote saying the case is as Miss Dunton has explained it. Mr Luckhurst's
refusal to see me is not in keeping with the "Client Care"
letter, which I believe is a form of contract. Why did he refuse to
see me and send an ex-employee that some of my complaints were against?
On the 28 June '99 T B W apply to the Court to come off the register
as my solicitors. They have been writing to me now for five years and
have always got my address right, how come they get my address wrong
when they sent their application to Dartford Court and I will not be
informed of the hearing date?
5 July '93 to November '93 the Oakes brothers made a profit within the
region of £120,000 from my ground.
Pallett (PI) witness statement shows Mark Oakes was running the contract
tipper truck side of "Oakes Construction Limited" as late
The above information shows I would in all probability been successful in recovering costs and damages within the first, second or even the third year.
16-17 August 2000 I was awarded costs and damages.
13 September 2000 the Oakes brothers applied for bankruptcy.
Through the delays caused by the negligence of my solicitors I believe I have clearly had a financial loss. Mr Higgins (Barrister) has stated, because of the delays, T B W had been negligent.
with so much information to absorb it will be very easy to lose sight
of my basic complaints.
My instructions were not carried out.
Contact was lost with the Defendants and their solicitors, Chancellor
It took three years to apply for summonses.
The Senior Partner (Mr Luckhurst), aware of my dissatisfaction for several
months, would refuse to see me.
We know from the comments of Counsel and a District Judge the outside limit my case should have taken is two years. There is still five years to account for along with the negligence, incompetence, lies and dishonesty. If you would like evidence on anything I have stated, just ask.
B R Gray