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.

Ms Samantha Hicks
Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
Victoria Court
8 Dormer Place
Leamington Spa
CV32 5AE

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.

1 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)

2 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)

3 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, when?

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.

Let us now continue with the problems of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years.

5 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 + 20a)

6 Why did we end up with two case numbers at Dartford County Court, DA603906 and DA702112????
7 Why were both case numbers being randomly used at the same time causing confusion, although they didn't realise it at T B W's, this led to Mrs Durrant visiting the Court and stating on at least two attendance notes "the Court is getting in a muddle"???

8 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)

9 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 the problem.

10 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?

11 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?

12 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?

13 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???

14 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?

15 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?

Financial loss
At a hearing on 4 Nov '99 at Dartford Court House District Judge Glover, aware of how evasive the Oakes brother had been, told T B W's Solicitor (Mrs Durrant) my case should have reach a conclusion within two years. Mr Higgins stated in his opinion report that because the brothers had been evasive this would have added a year to the length of my case. Adding these two statements together the conclusion is if my instructions were followed and as we had contact with the brothers and their solicitors there should have been a successful outcome within twelve months, the very latest, February 1995.

From 5 July '93 to November '93 the Oakes brothers made a profit within the region of £120,000 from my ground.
Prior to 1993 and up to at least Nov '96, when they admitted this in Court at that time, they were running a haulage company called "Oakes Construction", this company had large assets at least in vehicles and equipment. This company is now "Limited" and in the names of Adam Oakes' in-laws, according to Companies House it is financially healthy.

Ernie Pallett (PI) witness statement shows Mark Oakes was running the contract tipper truck side of "Oakes Construction Limited" as late as 1997.
Information in my file shows Mark Oakes owned property up 'til Sept '97.

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.

Finally, with so much information to absorb it will be very easy to lose sight of my basic complaints.

1st My instructions were not carried out.

2nd Contact was lost with the Defendants and their solicitors, Chancellor & Ridley.

3rd It took three years to apply for summonses.

4th 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.

Yours sincerely

B R Gray