Rt. Hon. The Lord Hunt of Wirral MBE, c/o 100 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1BN.

 

Lord Hunt told The Lawyer: "I want my inbox to be as full as possible. This is the moment when people should speak out about how the profession should be regulated in this rapidly changing environment."

 

Dear Sirs,

 

In no especial order here is the response of www.lcs-test.co.uk

 

 

1.    I am no stranger to this.  With the assistance of my MP, Dan Norris my complaints about a local law firm was finally transferred to the Parliamentary Casework Team of the all-new CSS back in 2004.  The PCT continued the policy of Willing Blindness started by the OSS in 2003.  They took NO ACTION against the solicitor concerned and (as predicted by other complainants at the time) the OLSO proved to be of exactly the same metal.

 

2.   In late 2004, at the request of Susan Samuel, secretary to the Clementi Review, I submitted information for the Review Team base on my experiences.

 

3.   In 2008 I had SOME success with the smallest and perhaps most insignificant of "regulators".  The Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen (ALCD) fined it's Member £5000 with £500 costs for HIS part in the Law Firms later lies and deceit (see http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/images/ALCD2Me121108.pdf).

 

4.   Under the Law Society Rules it is the solicitor not the costs draughtsman that is responsible for the bill.  However, it seems that post Clementi and post Legal Services Act we now live in a Britain where the Monkey is reasonably well regulated but the Organ Grinder (who stood to gain far more by his false declarations) is allowed to get off Scott-free.  We live in a Britain where the all-new and so-called "independent" SRA will STILL protect mal-practicing Law Society Members.  Out of interest the all-new LCS (now the acknowledged the first point of contact) has been banned from communicating with me - who has imposed this ban and why has been withheld... which is strange, I am sure you will own.

 

The attached email may interest you.

 

1.   In late February 2009 I received what I can only describe as "The Most Inept Letter Ever" from the CIU in response to ALL NEW complaints about solicitor misconduct in 2008.  It seems the all-new SRA now believes in crystal balls, reading the tea-leaves and/or time travel!  The letter is here...

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/images/SRA18022009CRAP.pdf

and against this is set the complaints here

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lcs2.htm

Consider that the very FIRST head of complaint starts ...

 

First Head of Complaint

On 25^th June 2008 FDC Law attempted to deceive the Court into awarding costs based upon much higher hourly rates than they had agreed with their client...

ALSO consider that the ALCD had already found against it's Member in the SAME complaint ... One HAS to wonder HOW the Law Society dealt with this THREE YEARS EARLIER as the "most inept letter" claims they did?  Simply put, this is an absolute "crock"

 

The attached email contains the Ministry of Justice's response to MY email (to all MP's) of 9th March 2008 which was forwarded to the MOJ by Jack Straw and a number of other MP's.  One sees that the Government is still promising Jam Tomorrow but fails to acknowledge the OBVIOUS failure Today of it's present course of action.  It seems the Law Society STILL has teeth and influence and is STILL exercising these in protection of it's Members.  A so-called "independence" that in truth isn't worth a monkeys... scroll down to read my (tongue in cheek, but taken seriously none-the-less) email to our MP's.

 

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/SurveyF.htm also has a survey which contrasts the old OSS / CCS with the new LCS / SRA

 

 

This is REAL evidence in answer to your "call" - we also live to see what Ms. Manzoor will say about the time-travelling SRA

 

Yours sincerely

Spenser Poultney

 

Results so far may be found here http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/srall.htm - some 21 complainants to date think there is no difference, or, if anything, things are now worse.  Some of their comments are below:-

 

Law Society Regulation - Survey Results

Comments made about the LCS/SRA by complainants...

In responding to our survey complainants made the following comments about the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and/or the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

 

3 complaints between 2001 and 2005 against the same solicitor /

THE SERVICE PROVIDED WAS POOR AND SLOPPY / THE LAW SOCIETY IS THERE TO PROTECT THE LAWYER

The Personal Injury Litigation side of this firm are a complete sham. / Ombudsman not 'found' yet

still an on-going NIGHTMARE / PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!! Spenser!!!!!

they hid behind paper hoping i would give up / no regulation what sover its a free for all. NO PUNTER PROTECTION

Richard Caplan denied I was a client of his firm to LCS / My complaint has been sent to Scottish Ombudsman

USELESS / THEY TRAP U WITH PAPER IN THE HOPE U GIVE UP

twisted and fiddled everything / an organised cover up

Education and medical negligence law / The LCC covered the law firm while the ombuds covered the LCC's tracks

Poor service complaint was largely ignored /

THEY HIDE BEHINED HIDEN RULES AND PAPER / NOTHING SHORT OF A COVER UP

We are two disabled 69 years old pensioners / They investigated nothing.

Concrete written evidence ignored

Fraud investigation dept refused to intervene and contact police / My complaint against ombudsman now sent to Scotland

fraud, no costing etc / What do they door regulate

 

Interestingly ... 42% were ALSO dissatisfied with the OLSO 

 

Law Society Regulation - Survey Results

Comments made about the OLSO by complainants...

Folks who are unhappy with the "Service" provided by the Law Society can complain to the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) - see here.  In theory, at least, the Ombudsman can order the Law Society to re-open the complaint and/or pay order the Law Society to pay compensation for their "poor service".

Some of our survey respondents DID complain to the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman (OLSO).  Their comments about their experiences with this office are below:-

 

the LSO HAVE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANY FURTHER CORRESSPONDENCE FROM M

Useless

None so far

OLSO Lied to avoid investigating

report supported my complaint

Useless

I was intimidated and threatened by Robert Bartram

They failed in their duty to even look at it

Useless

Useless

Useless

Fully supported caseworker's decision not to investigate

See http://www.leasehold-outrage.com/pg_lso/legal_services.htm #2

An incestuous extension of the LCS, and NOT independent

harassing and intimidating me then sent my complaint to scottish ombud

same

great reluctance

Useless

workshy and protecting lawyers

BIAS

 

Top complaints were...

 

The Three offices over the years