[Sitemap] -
Calling ALL Solicitor's... especially Wayman's Partners...
Note to H. M. Customs & Revenues. This case is at very least a VAT nightmare for FDC Law's accounts department. If you were considering an inspection of FDC Law then the "Poultney" file may well warrant some scrutiny. I am not suggesting that FDC Law's accountants are not both clever and honest, but the Input tax and Output tax over such a LONG period must have changed so OFTEN that it is possible that FDC Law may even have overpaid their VAT - and given Wayman's financial Incompetence the firm may need all the help it can get. Please consider helping FDC Law to get things RIGHT! Finally, just suppose the documents I have seen are RIGHT. Is VAT due on money obtained by fraud? If so, have FDC Law paid their dues?
Ok, Wayman has been at this for nearly four years. She is "senior partner" and commands a (claimed) rate of £165/hour. Adding up the bills she has claimed in this case on behalf of FDC Law, I make the total to date a little over £37,000. A big earner for FDC Law? Worth her keep?
Well, she might have been if it wasn't for the fact that some £22,000 was spent after the event because Wayman refused to provide costs information that she should have provided before the event under the Civil Procedures Rules and the Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct. Furthermore, all the documentary evidence seen to date suggests that Wayman had attempted to defraud her Client and myself over a total sum £3,525 by charging us BOTH for the SAME work back in July 2003 - this would certainly explain £22,000 spent "defending £4,500". These documents STILL show this and no evidence to the contrary or explanation to the Law Society, the Courts or to myself has been forthcoming. Why? Is this NORMAL behaviour within FDC Law? Perhaps you would like to provide documents which disprove those I have?
In addition Wayman failed to keep any proper records (admitted in Court by your Nigel Long and available as an approved transcript) - she has clearly spent many tens of hours, at least, in fabricating "records" - time she will NEVER get paid for. So, of the £37,000 she HAS billed to date how much better off is FDC Law?
In: £8,000 - see "receipts" - below
Out: £8,550 - see "paid out" - below
Net: -£550 (in 4 years for 100's of hours work)
Lost Business - estimated at min. £20,000 per annum - see below
Receipts
£1,500 + VAT - From Client October 2003. Actually, this money became due to FDC Law in September 2002 but the evidence suggests that Wayman did not bill her Client at the time because she wanted to bill us both for the same money. If this is so then she had to wait a further 9 months to obtain a (fraudulant) court order and then a further 3 months in case of Appeal or Detailed Assessment. That Wayman waited for more than a year to bill her Client is a FACT. I suggest you ask her why? In my line of work we send out bills every month, as soon as they are due - sound business sense.
£1,500 - paid in October 2003 by my sister to stave off your legal bullying. Have a chat with Brendon Ferris of your Firm. He represented you and disapproved of your actions. The judge refused your Firm extra costs and (much to Mr. Ferris's chagrin) gave you some "extra homework" as well. According to a letter you are "holding this money on account for your Client". Does that count as a receipt? Well let's be generous and say "yes".
£5,000 (up to, limit of certificate) - From the LSC for the Appeal Wayman LOST in September 2004 - LOST because Wayman had failed to follow the Civil Procedures Rules back in July 2003. Of course Wayman may be congratulated for obtaining some of the last Legal Aid money... but still, without that you would be over £5,500 down to date.
Paid Out
£5,153 Counsel Fees and other disbursements
£3,400 Bills of Nigel Long (costs draughtsman). These are interesting. FDC Law will have had to pay them and yet it seems you haven't billed your Client. Why would you write off £3,000? Since one of them (a mere £1,500) didn't make it in to the court record, I am permitted to publish it - here - (I have hidden your Client's name and the case number).
So, FDC Law, you've spent 100's of hours, paid out more than you've received to date and your chances of recovering anything significant in the next five years are not good unless you bankrupt your Client. I don't believe you DARE do that .... see later...
Lost Business
This website is WORKING. In May 2005 I received an email from a local business man who was already dissatisfied with your Firm's work (he expressed the opinion that you still write everything with a quill, you are THAT slow). I think it highly likely that you have lost since TWO major business accounts. How many OTHERS have simply found my pages and gone elsewhere because the risks with your firm are too great? Search for your firm on any search engine - you will find me - often above your own web offerings. How long must this go on?
Wayman is clearly eating up your profits and resources. She has brought your firm into disrepute. She breached the Law Society Rules, the FPR, the CPR, her duty to the Courts and to her Client. None of this can be doubted and can be proven with authoritative court documents. She has failed to keep proper records which is gross professional negligence - as a result your Firm's Insurers will shortly be facing a claim for over £25,000 in damages. Furthermore, we begin once more on rallying the MP's, the police, the Law Society, the OLSO to properly investigate your firm because the documents in this more than suggest criminal activity. Finally, the Legal eXchange goes live very soon - Wayman has done much damage to family lawers and solicitors in general. Isn't it time to consider the worth of your senior partner? She is hurting YOUR pockets - isn't that (at least) something you understand?
In my opinion Wayman is already morally bankrupt so why not? You need only issue a Statutory Demand against your Client and (since she has no money) bankruptcy proceedings 30 days later - simplicity for a firm of solicitors - indeed, normal practice. With the forced sale of your Client's property you could probably call-in over £20,000. But you WON'T. Why? I believe your Client has records that would prove Wayman's declarations on a bill for over £16,000 are entirely false. As you know, a solicitor's signature on a bill is NOT a mere formality. In Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570, the Court of Appeal held that the signature on the bill of costs is effectively the certificate of an officer of the court. (see here). If proven Wayman would be guilty of gross contempt of Court. Furthermore, this would be attempted fraud over a sum in excess of £16,000 and factual fraud in the sum of between £3,000 and £5,000 (against ME) and at least £3,000 against your Client (depending on whether or not you have written off Nigel Long's bills - don't forget to ask Wayman about that!). On 1st August 2005 a senior Circuit Judge described Wayman's conduct as "Complete Incompetence" - but even I don't think she's THAT stupid. Why don't YOU ask her? £20,000+ for the taking? ... it must be tempting. Wayman is still attempting to dodge every attempt to have her summoned before a Court. Do you have a coward at the top of your firm?
Notes to my ISP
This site is hosted in Britain and I am extremely proud that British ISP's lead the WORLD in stamping out Internet crime. This site is now around two years old. FDC Law HATES it with a vengeance. It is costing them vast sums of money though they have had MANY opportunities to resolve matters. At least twice FDC Law have contacted you (my ISP) claiming this site is defamatory. It is NOT. The information given here is both true and in the public interest. FDC Law knows I can prove both.
The Pre-action protocol for defamation states ... "The Claimant should notify the Defendant of his/her claim in writing at the earliest reasonable opportunity." and it goes on to specify the information they need to provide - lots of detail including the passage(s) / statements complained of. Legalbullies is two years old and yet so far they have not written to me at all unless you count this letter? Certainly it does not satisfy the pre-action protocol - that letter was simply to cover up (justify) another dirty trick - and that was AGES ago - and not a sausage since.
Finally: PlusNet (Force 9) does NOT host this site. It does not reside on computers belonging to them. It is hard to see why FDC Law thinks you can help them. Still, PlusNet do provide me with a connection (which I value) so I don't mind hearing from you regarding outrageous claims or threats by FDC Law. It's ME thay have business with, not you.
Under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights, you have the right to freedom of speech, expression and to voice your complaint.
The (Internet) world is a small place and I could host anywhere... but I am proud to host in Britain. I am grateful for the technology which enables me to pursue my Article 10 Rights. A happy 2006 to PlusNet and all it's customers.
Would you like to leave feedback? Express an opinion? Send me hate mail? e-mail me spenser@legalbullies.co.uk
Finally, are YOU a Legal Professional here by invitation?
Are you concerned that the actions of a few rogue solicitors bring the whole of your profession into disrepute by association?
Do you believe that self-regulation can work? Do you want to express an opinion to me? The OSS? FDC Law? It's your profession. It seems that complaints are at an all-time high and public confidence is at an all-time low. Do you care?
Need more information? I have a CD-ROM which is based upon the "costs" documentation (also in CD format) which I sent to the OSS in January. I will not lecture you on "confidentiality" - if you would like a copy of the proof in this matter then please Contact Me.