The Law Society Consumer Complaints Services that acts for the Protection of Lawyers
The original - Solicitors from Hell .com
16 June 2006

Your ref: 35295
Zahida Manzoor CBE
Legal Services Ombudsman
3rd Floor
Sunlight House
Quay Street
Manchester M3 3JZ

Dear Ms Manzoor

Re: Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board

Thank you for your letter dated 9th June '06 which makes it very clear that you do not like criticism, however, I believe this is just a guise to give you an excuse not to give answers to my questions which include why the CCS ignored and misused the Law Society's rules also how they refused to comply with the law which you have allowed in order to protect Richard Hegarty.

What I don't understand is when in my letter dated the 5th April 2005 I clearly asked questions about the 'colluding' and 'conspiring' between you and the CCS, in your reply to that letter dated 27th May 2005 it did not even warrant a single comment which I believe shows you accepted that 'collusion' over a 9 month period did take place between the CCS and yourself concerning what the outcome of my complaint would be. Let me further add here the CCS paid me £100 compensation for the delay you were causing which was in addition to the £100 you instructed the CCS to pay me for their 2 month delay. However, 14 months later when I again referred to this period of 'collusion' that you clearly had accepted had taken place, this time it is now so serious that you refuse to continue or finalise your investigation, where is the consistency in that?

On the point of 'collusion' between your office and the CCS, the letter of 5th April 2005 was written after the CCS passed my file back to the LSO Office for your (Ombudsman's) agreement on the outcome of my complaint which your office failed to inform me of or indeed to give a reason as to why you sat on my file for 9 months and it was not untill after I sent a copy of a letter I had received from the CCS to your solicitors Mace & Jones that my case again moved forward. Let me just quote the first paragraph of my letter dated 5th April '05 to you then you tell me that there was no 'collusion' between you and the CCS, you will notice there is a very clear '?' mark at the end of that paragraph;

"I have received a letter from the CCS telling me they are in contact with you concerning my complaint about Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board. I'm a bit confused because I believed that if I was not satisfied with their findings I could appeal to the LSO who supposedly is independent to the Law Society? If the CCS and the LSO are colluding on the outcome of the investigation by the CCS how can the LSO be an independent entity and what happens to my right of appeal against the findings if the LSO are conspiring with the CCS?"

Let me also quote from my letter to you dated 20 February 2006 "The investigation into my complaint has been carried out with the sole collusion of your office the CCS and Richard Hegarty which in all has taken over two years (nine months by the LSO office)…". Again you never responded to this allegation on 'collusion' clearly accepting that your office, Richard Hegarty and the CCS were excluding me from the investigation and the available evidence which I believe was unlawful

When the Lord Chancellor told me there are a set of 'Enforceable Rules' that all Data Controllers must comply with I wrote to him to ask how one could get these rules 'enforced'. In short his answer was "if you don't like it, take us to the High Court". I wrote back to tell him his reply was clear 'intimidation' and his attitude changed immediately. Richard Hegarty rang me during the evening of 6 November 2003 with the clear intention, as evidence I have supplied shows, of trying to intimidate me also along with Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors he used intimidation on my Hosting Company to close down my website and also to get me removed from the internet search-engines. Your letter of the 9th June is paramount to 'intimidation' by sowing the seeds that I will need to go to the High Court to get the Law Society to comply with their own rules and to obey the law. I thought the Ombudsman's job was to oversee that the complaints procedures were carried out in line with the rules and the law in an unbiased fashion but it is clear the present Ombudsman has prejudices and preferences.

Let me quote from your 'little blue book' that you send to all complainants; "What the Ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed and that this was done within a reasonable time". I have continually complained that Richard Hegarty's version of that evening 'phone call should be sent to me which you even instructed the CCS to contact him for. You and/or the CCS are breaking the law by not making all the evidence in my complaint available to me. Let me once more request you to provide me with the evidence that has been received from Richard Hegarty or that you instruct the CCS to send it to me. Oh yes, in case you don't know what's in your 'little blue book' I have sent you a copy with various parts highlighted.

Your right to personally withdraw the services as Ombudsman I believe is questionable and in doing so I also believe it could be a violation of my human rights in as much as I am being denied the right of an Ombudsman to oversee that my complaint against a member of the Law Society is and was carried out in compliance with the Law Society's rules and the law. I believe you should reconsider your position for to use as a 'guise' an allegation that you accepted in April 2005 also in February this year to be fact you now in June 2006 consider a repeat of that allegation to be so serious and 'unacceptable' to the extent of you personally removing my right to the services of an Ombudsman. If you have any personal problems with me you should take the appropriate court actions which Richard Hegarty should have done instead of trying to intimidate me with a personal 'phone call.

Yours sincerely