----- Original Message -----

From: David Clare

To: Spenser Poultney

Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:53 AM

Subject: RE: FDC Law

Dear Mr Poultney

 

Thank you for your e-mail. The LCS have been asked to refer this and any future communication from you to the SRA without comment or acknowledgement from the ourselves. I have therefore referred your message to the SRA.

 

I am sorry I can not provide a more satisfactory response.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

David Clare

Customer Services Manager

Complaints Centre 2

-----Original Message-----
From: Spenser Poultney [mailto:spenser@lcs-test.co.uk]
Sent: 24 February 2009 00:34
To: David Clare
Cc: info@olscc.gsi.gov.uk; lso@olso.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: FDC Law
Importance: High

Dear David Clare,

 

Thank you for your email and letter of 12th January in which you said...

 

"As you rightly indicate, although the procedure does require the complaint to come to us in the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) first, the issues raised are properly within the jurisdiction of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). I have therefore referred your letter to our colleagues in the SRA and you should hear from them shortly."

 

I have today received the attached from your "colleagues in the SRA".  I can only describe this as THE most inept letter I have EVER received in my LIFE.

 

As a reminder, my SIX heads of complaint are here

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

 

You need look no further than the FIRST Head - which clearly states the misconduct complained of (Ben Whelan signing a false declaration on a bill of costs) took place on 25th June 2008.  Please explain (if you can) how Misconduct in 2008 COULD have been dealt with in 2005?  The whole idea is ABSOLUTELY BARMY.  Not even a child would try to get by with such lies.

 

Are you aware that the complaints YOUR Office passes on are dealt with in this way?  What can be done (at your end) to ensure the SRA deals properly with the complaints YOU pass on?  (to use the vernacular "The SRA is pissing on your Bar-B-Q").  Please remember that ultimately, this may reflect on your own office (statistics rarely discriminate) - what was the point of Clementi, The Legal Services Act and all the hard work of our MP's if THIS (I'm sorry, I can only describe it as "completely insulting CRAP") is allowed to continue in 2009?

 

Please help.  To whom do I complain now?

 

Perhaps THE most insulting part is this...

"In view of this we will not be responding to further correspondence with you on this matter, either in writing or over the telephone, unless it is clear that you are raising new issues that require further investigation by us.  Any correspondence that does not raise new issues will simply be placed on file without further action or response on our part"

Excuse ME!  I rather thought 2008 WAS "new" compared with 2005?

Why not simply tell the TRUTH... "ANY correspondence THAT raises NEW issues will NOT be actioned by us"

What CAN be done?  A letter written by someone who thinks that acts of misconduct carried out in 2008 were dealt with in 2005?  Nobody should have to suffer this absolute rubbish.  Not EVEN the old OSS was THIS bad.  I had to double-check that the letter was not dated 1st April.  Who can I write to?

 

Many Thanks,

Kind Regards,

Spenser Poultney

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Clare" <David.Clare@legalcomplaints.org.uk>

To:

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:24 PM

Subject: FDC Law

[Home]
______________________________________________________________________

This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and copy your communication to Postmaster@legalcomplaints.org.uk. Please then delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of this email is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the Legal Complaints Service by email.

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for quality and training purposes.

Thank you.
______________________________________________________________________

PS

Latest correspondence will be added here

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/sra1.htm

and here

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lcs1.htm

If I do not hear from you soon I will carry on with the above mentioned Press Relaese / MP Update

It seems the SRA is a public joke - it would even be funny if it wasn't a cover-up of solicitor crime

 

FACT: FDC Law has a 100% record (in one case, spread over > 4 YEARS) of signing FALSE declarations on bills of costs.

QUESTION: How many OTHER bills has FDC Law and Nigel Long raised in > 4 years?

FACT: FDC Law claimed £1,000's they were NOT entitled to - see Henry LJ in Bailey Vs IBC Vehicles - (Liars? Certainly! Fraudsters also?)

QUESTION: If the Law Society HAD dealt with the FIRST instance (in 2004) would Ben Whelan have made a similar false declaration in 2008?

FACT: FDC Law's Senior Partner misled District Judge Rutherford over costs in 2003? (judgement to this effect 2008) - she was assisted on that occasion by Catriona Duthie (Council).

MORE LIKELY THAN NOT: FDC Law lied to the Law Society in early 2004.  FACTS they hid:-

    1.  They had "completely abandoned" Rule 15 (Client Care Code / Costs info) which was Inadequate Professional Service (IPS - judgement 2008)

    2.  Their so-called "record keeping" amounted to Professional Negligence (admitted December 2004 as part of ANOTHER and BIGGER LIE - below)

    3.  There was no contract between FDC Law and their Client (admitted 2008)

    4.  In July 2003 they tricked District Judge Rutherford into making an inter-party costs order that INCLUDED their client's OWN costs (judgement 2008)

    5.  In October 2003 FDC Law wrote to their Client saying that she was ALSO responsible for those included costs (double charging? App. 2007)

 

FACT: The same "team" (Wayman/Duthie) hid the truth from H H J Barclay in 2004 (lost the appeal but hid the TRUTH, took public funds, nonetheless)

FACT: FDC Law's former Senior Partner admitted under oath (in March 2008) that she should NOT have signed the bill in 2004?

FACT: District Judge Nigel Brookes was not ONLY misled by the solicitor's FALSE certificate but also by the proven liar Nigel Long (ALCD) over the REASON for the huge difference between the "bill" and Form H estimates (as much as 530%).  Long told the District Judge that that the solicitor did not record her TIME properly.  Certainly true, but the MAIN reason was that the estimates were based on £80/hr and the bill was based on £160/hr.  (only proved in 2008)

FACT: in 2005 FDC Law and David Curwen (Council, Duthie had had enough lies by now, it seems) continued to hide the TRUTH from H H J Barclay (Bristol), H H J Deeley and H H J Cardinal (both Birmingham).  In August 2005 H H J Cardinal accepted the deception that Nigel Long had inflicted on D J Brookes as the "reason" - and yet Curwen kept silent - he SHOULD have known the REAL reason and I am certain that he DID.  DECEPTION is the ONLY word.

FACT: In a further bill in 2005 Eliane Pitman (ILEX) claimed she had done work that Council had in fact done and charged for (MORE double-charging).  Again the Senior Partner falsely signed the declaration on THAT fraudulent bill (once again the Liar Long was involved)

FACT: In 2008 Ben Whelan AGAIN signed a false declaration on yet another of the Liar Long's bills - falsely claiming £1,000's FDC Law was NOT entitled to.  The "monkey" has been punished.  The SRA seem intent on letting the "organ grinders" off scott-free.  (Cover up?)

FACT: FDC Law has a 100% record (in one case, spread over > 4 YEARS) of signing FALSE declarations on bills of costs AND of LYING at almost every turn

 

FDC Law, Norton House, High Street, Midsomer Norton - Incompetent, Negligent, LIARS!

Patricia Wayman, Ben Whelan, Elaine Pitman!

Watch out also for Tony Williams, John Killah, David Curwen and Catriona Duthie

These are REAL people - and the above facts are TRUE - you have been warned

 

Judges: You need to deal with firms like this at source.  If the Courts won't uphold the LAW, then my experiences with the SRA show that the so-called "regulators" won't do a thing - their "rules" are WORTHLESS.  Deceit is bad enough.  Hiding the truth is bad enough.  Staying silent is bad enough.  But solicitors are "officers of the court" and signing a false declaration is an abuse of TRUST and tantamount to criminal fraud.  Turning a blind-eye to such is Oath Breaking.  PLEASE don't do it.  Firms like FDC Liar bring not only the Profession into disrepute, but the whole of the Court system, the judiciary and Family Law.  Pretending this doesn't happen or, worse still, granting a "favour" to a "fellow senior partner" doesn't make things better... it makes them STINK!  FDC Liar is a disgrace.  Be warned.  Remember the OATH you swore.  Defamation?

OPINION: FDC Law and Curwen might just be ok with clandestine visits to judges (Pitman 2005, see "The Curwen Ruse") or getting judges to "overlook" certain FACTS in behind-closed-doors family cases but I believe they are too cowardly to dispute the above FACTS in open Court, no matter how FAR this email travels.  What use IS a Law Firm that can't even protect it's OWN reputation?

[Home]