Dear Gavin Brown,
I attach the contents of the CD-ROM dated 26th
September 2006 as a ZIP file (3.61MBytes)
On a standard Windows PC simply unzip the attached
file to the root of your C drive.
Navigate to C:\CCS-POL-CD and double-click
index.htm - all other material is linked from here (including a
copy of the 2004 CD-ROM sent to Greg Clark).
If you have any difficulties I am sure your IT
folks can advise (please show them this email)...
...and PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW YOU GET
ON?
Please note that whilst the CD-ROMs provide a very
useful "snapshot in time" (i.e. what was KNOWN at that time) they:-
- Relate only to "Head Six" of the
complaints of 2008 (Heads 1 to 5 stand alone http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lcs2.htm )
- Some of the external links are now out of
date
- New evidence came to light in 2008 which
PROVES many of the assumptions made then (and not investigated) to be
FACT
At the time FDC Liar was mostly pleading
"incompetence" and "mistakes" whilst still hiding the TRUTH (which they clearly
KNEW all along) and misleading the public that Lexical and LSC accreditation and
the Law Society somehow protects prospective Clients FROM such
misconduct.
The Complaints and evidence as they stood in 2006
are clearly outlined in 17 paragraphs in index.htm
Key things which are now established
FACTS
- Jan 2008 - FDC Law's Client finally admitted there
was no contract
- In 2008 D J James found that FDC Law had misled D
J Rutherford over costs in 2003
- In 2008 D J James found that Wayman had
DELIBERATELY included those other costs (i.e. the HEADING on the form
H)
- In 2008 D J James found that Wayman / FDC Liar had
"Completely Ignored" The Client Care Code and Costs Direction
(IPS)
- We finally saw the records which proved that Nigel
Long had LIED to D J Brookes in 2004 about the "reason" for the increase in
costs - i.e. records which showed that the Estimates were based on £80/hr
whereas the fabricated bill was based on £155/165
- The admission under Oath (by Wayman) that Wayman
should NOT have signed the bill in October 2004
- Points 1 to 3 relate to "Heads" 1 to 13 on
index.htm - amongst other things they show the MOTIVE Wayman had
- To mislead D J Rutherford on
29/07/03
- To LIE to the Law Society in 2004 and H H J
Barclay
- To sign that FALSE DECLARATION in 2004 and
to LIE to subsequent Courts
- Point 4 shows IPS (misconduct in it's own right) -
and ANOTHER reason/motive why FDC Law LIED.
- Points 5 and 6 are the most
serious
- By 2005 Wayman had seen a transcript of
proceedings before D J Brookes and FDC Law MUST and KNOWN that Nigel Long
LIED and yet they kept quiet about this when the matter was before H H
J Cardinal (2005,
Birmingham)
- In 2006 FDC Liar conned their Client into
seeking Security for Costs KNOWING that BOTH ORDERS for costs were based on
the LIES of Nigel Long - they deliberately misled D J Rutherford (once
again) to service their own GREED - is there any other term than CRIMINAL
FRAUD? It is bad enough that these lying vermin hid their
incompetence, their IPS and their earlier attempts at
double-charging. It is bad enough they took public funds to defend
themselves KNOWING of their earlier failings and their duplicity.
Being allowed to profit from it while the Law Society turned ever-blind eyes
is adds insult to injury. To do the self-SAME in 2008 (Tosser
Whelan's "copy-cat" false declaration) is surely the most arrogant stupidity
yet? ...
I assume you HAVE the Judgement of District Judge R
James handed down on 25th June 2008? I do not know what ELSE you have or
do not have?
PLEASE answer the questions I asked the SRA in
December 2008...
In ADDITION to the CD-ROMs ... I need to know:-
- How we deal with
this?
- Who deals with
what?
- Which "heads" will
be taken on board by which regulator?
- What ELSE you need
to know?
The LCS/SRA has not even bothered to look at the
ALL NEW complaints... much LESS the New Evidence about the ORIGINAL
complaints
I do NOT trust the SRA for
OBVIOUS reasons and it is plain, even to a child, that they have not addressed
ANY of them. Why?
Whatever else happens
I ask the Ombudsman to take over the investigation of Head 6 (and the
underlying misconduct) HERSELF.
I ask the LSC and
Lexical to answer HOW they can allow FDC Liar to mislead the
public?
I look forward to hearing from you
(all).
Spenser Poultney (01/06/2009)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:16
AM
Subject: 43877
Dear Mr Poultney
Unfortunately the CD Rom which accompanied your
letter dated 30 September 2006 to the then Consumer Complaints Service has
sustained some damage (presumably in transit) which has rendered it impossible
for us to access.
I should be most grateful if you would be kind
enough to provide us with a copy.
Thank you for your anticipated assistance.
Yours sincerely
Gavin Brown
Operations Manager
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking
software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a
responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding
e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by
Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus
free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.