SRA - CDT/56504-2008 AND
CDT/33561-2003
OLSO -
43877
Lexical and LCS - Please read, file and
act. There are Quality issues to address, too.
There are notes to you both at the
end. Please reply for further information.
Dear Sirs,
I am now in receipt of two letters - both are
attached to this email:-
- The first, from the SRA, is dated 15th May and may
be found here
- The second, from the OLSO is dated 19th May and
may be found here
To deal with Karen Liptrot (SRA, FIRST
letter) first...
Dear Karen Liptrot,
Please note that I am NOT
aware that CDT/56504-2008 was created in error as your letter
suggests.
In December 2008 I complained to the LCS about
Ben Whelan (amongst others) who signed a false declaration on a bill of
costs on claiming OVER £2,500 in costs that FDC LIAR was NOT entitled to
under the law. More about this later. The LCS passed my NEW
complaints to the SRA see this letter from them.
CDT/56504-2008 was
PROPERLY CREATED by the SRA.
The other point, of course, is that if you HAVEN'T
sent the OLSO BOTH FILES - the OLD AND the NEW - then they
might just fail to appreciate the FULL set of complaints against this
Firm. The 2008 ones AND the NEW evidence (from 2008) about the original
complaints. Indeed, if you look at the OLSO's letter of 19th May (here and
attached) you will see it is actually headed "Re: The Senior Partner,
FDC Law". The Liar Ben Whelan is NOT, as far as I'm aware, the
Senior Partner and it does INDEED seem that the wool has been well and truly
pulled over the LSO's eyes (again).
Please therefore confirm that you have forwarded
BOTH files IN FULL to the OLSO AND a copy of the CD-ROM I sent your offices in
2006 (and which the Law Society studied in detail on 26/Feb/2007). Only
then can we be sure the OLSO has the FULL picture. Please also confirm
that you have forwarded this to the Q&S Standards Team. I want to know
HOW the SRA could have "completely missed" the ALL NEW 2008
complaints?
I look forward to hearing from you and from the
Q&S Standards Team.
Q&S - please refer to the "First Head of
Complaint" below - and answer HOW the SRA "missed" the
obvious?
Now to deal with the OLSO (second
letter)...
Dear Sirs,
- Please read the above and confirm that you have
received BOTH "files" AND the CD-ROM (in fact, there should be TWO CD's, one
of which dates back to 2004).
- Please confirm that (despite the heading on your
letter of 19th May) your Office understands that SOME of the complaints are
about the misconduct of Ben Whelan and not JUST the (former) Senior Partner,
Patricia Wayman (who ALSO finally admitted making a similar false declaration
on a bill of costs in 2004)
Finally, in December 2008 I asked the LSC/SRA four
questions (below) which need to be answered before ANYONE can complete a FULL
investigation.
WHO will answer these to move matters
forward?
I look forward to hearing from you.
All....
I reiterate my FIRST HEAD OF
COMPLAINT...
...Not because it is the most important, simply
because it requires no further "proof", it is verifiably "A Most
SERIOUS disciplinary offence", the ALCD has already found
it's Member guilty (and fined the Liar),
it appears tantamount to CRIMINAL FRAUD and is ENTIRELY compatible, on it's
OWN, with a referral to the SDT. It stands alone. It is almost a
"no-brainer" and yet it has been completely ignored. How?
Why?
On 23rd June 2008 Ben Whelan signed a
false declaration on a bill of costs.
He falsely claimed over £2,500 FDC
Liar was NOT entitled to under the LAW.
Whelan was present on 7th March 2008 when the
Former Senior Partner ALSO admitted under oath that SHE had signed a similar
false declaration in 2004.
The entire CASE was about false declarations on
bills, the Indemnity Principle and the (initial lack of) contract between
FDC Liar and their Client.
If Whelan HAS an "excuse" - what IS
it?
I point out that the Firm Claims BOTH the
Quality Mark and Lexical Accreditation
Surely, this CANNOT be a
"mistake"?
Worryingly...
Against the majority of Litigants in Person
this ruse WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE SUCCEEDED.
Even MORE
worrying...
Before the majority of Judges this ruse
WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE SUCCEEDED.
MOST judges would look no further. This was
the WHOLE point of the Signature and Bailey Vs IBC Vehicles. It is ONLY
because the LIP insisted AND the judge was a Regional Costs Judge (District
Judge R James, normally of Aldershot and Farnham) that this dishonesty even
came to light.
From this case alone we KNOW that this
is NOT an isolated incident for FDC Liar.
It seems likely that such false declarations
are "policy" within the Firm.
How MANY bills will this firm have raised between
2004 and 2008? What is the cost of their LIES?
If the Law Society had acted in 2004/05 (the first
time in THIS case) it is VERY unlikely that Whelan would have DARED to lie THIS
TIME.
It seems VERY likely that he
(and others) will DO IT AGAIN if no action is taken THIS
time.
If anyone else were to attempt to steal
£2,500 they would almost certainly loose their job and go to prison -
and rightly so.
I suggest this ABUSE OF A POSITION OF TRUST
is far WORSE than simple attempted theft.
This LIAR is a solicitor and an "Officer of the
Court". THIS liar is Ben Whelan, partner in FDC Law.
The "monkey" (Nigel Long) has been found
"guilty" and fined while the "organ grinder" (Whelan) has (so far) got
away Scott Free.
This we call "regulation"? No, of course
not.
Recipients (and Joe Public) please note
that I am CCing the LIAR Ben Whelan.
What use is a solicitor who's misconduct means that
he can't even protect his OWN reputation?
Whelan, you are a liar and a
disgrace. You bring your profession and the regulators into
disrepute.
I am happy to publish any response you may wish to
make.
Here's a thought... why
not START with an apology to all concerned?
Although I state that Whelan attempted to claim
over £2,500 his firm was NOT entitled to - I base this ONLY on his false
declaration with regard to the RATES claimed - almost £10,000 was actually
knocked off FDC Liar's claim. This is in contrast to Wayman's false
declaration in 2004 - as we discovered in 2008, HER estimates were ALL based on
a rate of £80/hr which she decided to DOUBLE two YEARS later.
Some thoughts... Wayman has now been "retired" long
enough to be "safe" from the SDT. A criminal investigation is now
unlikely. D J James has handed FDC Liar something of a scapegoat in the
form of Nigel Long. Isn't it time the "regulators" actually took SOME
disciplinary action to safeguard the public. You keep trying to brush it
under the carpet and I keep on pulling the carpet up. Surely the lairs are
running out of "favours"?
Final Notes for LEXICAL and the
LSC
At some point in all of this Lexical awarded FDC
Liar the Quality Mark. How this happened in the circumstances beggars
belief, but I suggest that a FULL QA audit is needed SOON. FDC
Liar seems aptly named (I suggest FDC may stand for Fraud, Deceit and
Corruption) - so your auditor will need to stay awake. Remember, it
reflects on YOU if "incompetence" breaks "the system" so easily - of course,
dishonesty is another matter entirely.
Also, FDC Liar holds (or at least held) and LSC
franchise for Family Law. Given what I have now
seen of their so-called "record keeping" (right up to late 2005) one wonders how
they passed ANY sort of muster. Again, I suggest that a FULL audit of this
firm is needed. In 2004 they took public funds for a "defence" (which they
LOST) in the FULL knowledge that they had misled District Judge Rutherford in
2003, lied to the Law Society in 2004, did NOT have the records they needed and
finally had to resort to lies, deceit, dishonesty and FALSE DECLARATIONS in an
attempt to hide the TRUTH from EVERYONE. Why do they receive public
funds? Audit, Investigation, Report, please, Mr. Mountjoy.
I look forward to hearing from you
ALL.
Spenser Poultney (26/05/2009)
