The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors - OSS *
* Now the CCS - Consumer Complains Service - as of 19/04/2004
Also the Office for the Legal Services Ombudsman (OLSO)
and the Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (OLSCC)
New ! - Update December 2006 – read the "old" OSS/CCS pages here - from Nov. 2006 !
Update 25th June 2008 - FDC Law's Inadequate Professional Service
Update 30th June 2008 - Other "Regulators" - ALCD / ILEX
A loophole that allows criminal lawyers to get off scott-free?
In Nuutinen v Finland [2000] ECHR the Court stated "What is wrong from the beginning cannot be validated by the passage of time" and "Nobody should profit from his or her own wrongdoing".
The Law Society in CDT/33531-2003. What is wrong from the beginning will be IGNORED. All new misconduct and evidence will likewise be ignored because... the more we delay the safer Wayman will be. We (the Law Society) will ensure that our Members, FDC Law, shall quadruple their profits from Wayman's wrongdoing which may include up to £5,000 of tax-payers money. We refused to enforce our own rules back in 2003/04 and now we exploit a loophole that the OLSO has granted us to protect and reward Patricia Wayman and her co-conspirators.
It is NOT just me. The Avon & Somerset police have looked at the CD-ROM of 30/09/2006. They ALSO say there is a GOOD case for the Law Society to investigate. Will the CCS finally look at these complaints? If not, then this major LOOPHOLE has been brought to the attention of Zahida Manzoor. Will SHE do anything in either of her two roles? Well, I have asked her.
Below it the html version of my letter to the Law Society of 7th December 2006. The pdf version may be found here. It is answer to Lorraine Gamble’s (eventual) letter of 5th December – here - regarding a whole CD-ROM of new evidence and complaints dated 30th September 2006.
Your Ref: CDT/33561-2003/LG1/KV2/L GAMBLE CC2
Re: Un-investigated and SERIOUS complaints about FDC Law / Patricia Wayman
Dear Lorraine Gamble,
Thank you for your letter dated 5th December 2005, which I received this morning. A PDF copy of your letter may be found here. It is also attached to the paper copies.
I would remind you that the CCS "temporarily closed" this investigation in mid 2004 because I had applied to the Courts. The original complaint had been with the OSS/CCS for nine months but you had done NOTHING beyond agreeing that Ms. Wayman was guilty of BOTH Professional Misconduct and litigation misconduct (breach of the CPR) – see here. As you know, the CCS paid me £250 in compensation for your offices acknowledged "poor service" from September 2003 onwards. I believe we only managed to get this far because of the intervention of my MP, Dan Norris in April/May 2004, when matters were transferred to the Parliamentary Casework Team. That was, of course, when and you and Andrew Croombes first became involved.
In mid 2004 your office confirmed in writing and on several occasions that, once Court Proceedings were complete, you would then re-open your "investigation" and deal with any new complaints arising. The OLSO also later confirmed the position – see here. I apologise for the quality of the copy though I feel sure Rob Bartrum of the OLSO can send you a better copy of the complete letter should you need one.
The "Court Proceedings" were completed on 1st August 2005. When I wrote to you asking you to fulfil your earlier promises you declined, wrongly stating that I was not raising any new issues, even though you had also promised to resume investigating the old issues. Clearly, there had been new hearings since you closed the complaint in mid 2004. There were (and still are) approved Court transcripts (from Sept. and Dec. 2004) which put the original complaints into proper perspective as well as providing MANY new "heads" of complaint. Still, you would not look at this evidence or consider the complaints. Why? The OLSO could not be persuaded to look, either, though clearly, as you had done nothing there was really nothing for them to investigate. It is strange, though… when pressed the letters of Rob Bartrum (legal advisor to the Ombudsman) contradicted one another and brought irrelevant dates into play. Why this same, unfathomable, treatment by two "independent regulators" each with a clear DUTY?
In late July 2006 an employee of FDC Law "leaked" a number of confidential documents to me. Obviously this breach of Client confidentiality is further professional misconduct by FDC Law.
I remind you that a letter and a detailed CD-ROM dated 30/09/2006 were sent to you and to the Avon & Somerset police. The Law Society acknowledged receipt of these on 09/10/2006 – click here. The CD-ROM contained detailed new complaints based on those same "leaked" documents and contained copies of many new documents the Law Society has never seen to date. There is no evidence that the Law Society has even looked at the CD-ROM at all. How can anyone in the CCS claim to have done his or her job?
In your letter you clearly state…
"…we would normally only reopen files where one of the following occurs.
I now clearly state… once more and for the record…
BOTH criteria were and still are met by the CD-ROM.
Last week DI Richard Budd of the Avon & Somerset police (who has studied the CD-ROM in detail) told me that, in his opinion, there is a very GOOD case for the Law Society to investigate. Earlier this evening, DI Budd informed me that the police would be writing to the Law Society to reinforce this view. He also told me that the CD-ROM was easy to navigate despite the comprehensive list of documents it contains. It seems I am not alone in my bafflement at the Law Society’s refusal to even look at these complaints.
As a quick "recap" … the CD-ROM contains many new documents and complaints. Among the less serious are numerous breaches of "Rule 15" and the Client care code. The evidence for these complaints only became available in late July 2006. The desire to conceal these breaches fully explains the original misconduct and the ongoing deceit (breach of Principle 17.01) which Patricia Wayman maintained for more than three YEARS, both when your "investigation" was active, and since. Among the most SERIOUS new complaints is that of Wayman’s false declarations on a bill of costs she signed in October 2004. Clearly you have not dealt with this as it did not occur until four months AFTER you had "temporarily closed" your investigation.
Your letterhead says "Resolving complaints about solicitors". Surely this task is impossible if you won’t even read the complaints which are sent to you? How does the CCS now propose to do its DUTY as "regulator"?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Spenser Poultney
Encs:
It would seem that once a case is "temporarily closed" the Law Society will refuse point blank to reopen it (despite earlier promises) and the OLSO will do NOTHING to make them. I suspect that bad solicitors KNOW of this protection and can then seek further rewards too. In this case the protection and rewards extend to the Legal Executive (Elaine Pitman) and Council (David Curwen) who later colluded to hide the misconduct. Knowing this from the start meant they could behave as badly as they wished - because the KNEW the Law Society would not raise a finger despite earlier promises in writing
In MY case, a whole YEAR later an employee of FDC Law "leaked" some confidential documents to me. This suggests conflict within FDC Law itself and (internal) disapproval of Wayman's conduct. These documents were sent to the Avon and Somerset police AND the CCS at the end of September 2006. According to the police there is a very GOOD case for the CCS to investigate… the trouble is… the Law Society won’t EVEN SPIN UP THE CD and LOOK!!! I believe they KNOW the evidence is damning and will inevitably open the flood-gates for ILEX and the Bar Council... But... Why won’t the OLSO even contact me? Ah!
The Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (OLSCC)
Everyone tells me there is no appeal from the Legal Services Ombudsman's decision. Of course, in this case there has been NO "DECISION". Unless the Law Society will LOOK (and this is their duty) it seems the OLSO will do NOTHING - see here. This is the LOOPHOLE the Law Society exploits (seemingly) with the full blessing of the OLSO. OK, what of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner?
According to the OLSCC on 13th December 2006 ... "I
hope that your case is resolved soon. This Office remains committed to
achieving an improved service from the Law Society for all consumers who
complain".
Sounds hopeful? In the same email they also said...
"Ms Zahida Manzoor is currently the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner for England and Wales. Although at the moment held by a single individual, the two roles are distinct and governed by different legislation. Each role has different powers. The powers of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner relate to the improvement of the complaints handling system of the Law Society and do not extend to consideration of individual cases. However, the Legal Services Ombudsman can investigate the way that complaints are dealt with by the Law Society" - see here.
With reference to the bold bit above... I have now brought this LOOPHOLE to the attention of the OLSCC who's powers "relate to the improvement of the complaints handling system of the Law Society". Surely once this is brought to her attention then she can and SHOULD use those powers?
In fact, she has a LOT more powers... the first-line against the failings of the Law Society is surely the OLSO? If the SAME PERSON can't influence HERSELF (the LSO) or her Office (the OLSO) without a lot of red-tape then something is seriously wrong. Where is the common sense? Will Ms. Zahida Manzoor now try and shirk her dual duties now this loophole had been brought to her attention?
The roles and the Offices are indeed different. There is no appeal from the OLSO's decision (if you can get her to make one in the first place, that is) but is this true if the LSCC fails in her appointed duty? A friend has suggested...
Have you thought about making a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman given that it's free and they can investigate the Legal Services Complaints Commission? http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
Well, it would seem worth a go... if I don't hear further from Ms. Manzoor, that is. I think my friend is correct, though I am having difficulty getting the DCA - see here and the OLSCC to confirm - see here... actually, since they are government offices I am sure they will in time... but...
What else... the MPs? Please check this link...
The bit below is from the page that this one replaces... read it here.
Update Nov 2006! - Apart from a postcard acknowledging receipt of the CD-ROM sent to the CCS and the police dated 30/09/2006, I haven't had a peep out of them. Personal message: I do indeed have persistent genes and I commend to you the tale of the singing horse. Regards, Spenser
New! Website - www.echr-action.co.uk - Human Rights - Nov 2006!
Read the old OSS Chronology Page Here (nothing much new)