Page below is a good intro - latest 16/6/2009

Will the LSC please read and respond too?  I know it is confusing with the LSC vs the LCS etc. but I'm waiting to hear from you :-)

Dear Clare Jarratt,
 
Thank you for your email.  I also received a reply from Sandra Drain, this time using lexcel@lawsociety.org.uk as a return email address.
 
It does appear that neither you nor Ms. Drain have fully understood the nature of these complaints... which is somewhat confusing... particularly (as I now learn) that the email was INDEED passed to the Manager of Lexcel BY the Administrator of Lexcel.  Some questions for the Manager in red...
 
Firstly, however, I DO, without reservation, apologise for any confusion I may have caused? in all this...
It DOES appear that the your Organisation is actually called LEXCEL and not LEXICAL - though the email address was clearly correct.
 
Please read the heading at the top of the emails (below) as:-
"Lexcel and LSC - Please read, file and act.  There are Quality issues to address, too." 
and the heading at the bottom as:-
"Final Notes for LEXCEL and the LSC".
Enough said?
 
Ok... my understanding is that Lexcel is a Quality Management System that is at least comparable with the more widely used and recognised ISO9000.  I have heard (for example) that:-
"[The standard] ... has been refined and tailored to meet the specific needs of legal practices and also to address the main areas that cause both formal complaints and/or claims against professional indemnity policies due to errors or omissions."
(my emphasis) and
"As with most quality management standards the Lexcel standard focuses on both administrative procedures, administration and organisation, training and client care plus most importantly the procedural ways in which the actual legal service is delivered."
Would you please confirm my understanding?
 
Furthermore, I assume that Lexcel, an arm of the prestigious Law Society, fulfils the roles of "auditor" and "accrediting body"?
Please would you confirm this assumption?
 
If I am correct in my Understanding then there is clear evidence that, in the case of FDC Law, the standard is FAILING in the underlined objectives and focus.  If my Assumption is correct then YOU should be extremely concerned.
 
Way back in 2002 I had some problems with the Telcoms Giant O2.  Complaints were going nowhere UNTIL I contacted the BSI - the Body that had audited the company and given them ISO9000 rating.  I have to say the BSI took the matter VERY seriously indeed ... as one would EXPECT ... it is, afterall, THEIR reputation on the line to some extent - their name, their logo, their audits, their credibility AS an auditor.
 
With reference to my complaints about FDC Law - whenever I complain about their dishonesty THEY claim they made "mistakes" The following link (for example) shows the Firm has a 100% record, over FOUR YEARS, of signing false declarations on bills of costs.  We see also that the so-called "records" they kept were inadequate eben for a firm WITHOUT any QA systems.  As every auditor will tell you ... where there is ONE case or incident there is likely to be MANY.  My evidence suggests that the Lexcal award they claim on their own web site may not be worth the paper it is written on.
http://www.legalbullies.co.uk/judges/
 
Something is CLEARLY VERY WRONG if this...
http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lcs2.htm
... could happen in 2008.  Deliberate dishonesty or FAILED QA?  Is there another explanation?  I don't think so.
 
I suggest a FULL audit of this firm is needed to see if the firm meets Lexcel standards.  I also suggest that the firm's so-called "record keeping" does NOT meet the LSC Standards, EITHER.  I will even give the auditor some help... ask to see the "Poultney" file and then ask them to demonstrate compliance with ANY part of ANY claimed QA system... dig deeper ... this is VERY unlikely to be an isolated case... prepare to DROWN in MAJOR non-conformances.
 
One cannot expect any QA system to cope with deliberate dishonesty - but I suggest FDL Liar CAN'T have it BOTH ways... EITHER they are dishonest OR their (claimed ... false advertising?) QA System(s) are completely failing in such a way that they are repeating the SAME incompetent "mistakes" again, and Again and AGAIN.
 
Hmm... if an audit DID find evidence of fraud and dishonesty ... would the auditor be duty bound to report it?
 
If the public is to have any confidence in Lexcel then you need to act.  I will gladly provide you (and the LSC) with any further information you need.  You ahve further information in the .ZIP (attached to the email Ms. Drain deleted, which you say you have)
 
Finally, the whole purpose of http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/HomeNav.htm site is to test ALL the "regulators" - from the lowly ALCD (best so far) right up to the SDT and the High Courts if necessary.  I will change "lexical" to "lexcal" on the home page and activate the link on the left.
 
I look forward to hearing from you.
 
Spenser Poultney (10/06/2009)
 
The URL for this email is http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lexcel.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Clare Jarratt
To: spenser@lcs-test.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:18 AM
Subject: FW: Karen Liptrot (SRA) and Support Team (OLSO)

Dear Mr Poultney,
 
As per my colleague Sandra Drain's e-mail, your correspondence was not deleted and was forwarded for my attention.  We will keep your correspondence on file for our record.  Please note that complaints against solicitors are dealt with by the Legal Complaints Service not by the Lexcel office of the Law Society. My understanding is that you have contacted and are dealing with the Legal Complaints Service about this matter.
 
With kind regards,
Clare
 
Clare Jarratt
Lexcel Manager
The Law Society
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Spenser Poultney [mailto:spenser@lcs-test.co.uk]
Sent: 27 May 2009 01:27
To: CIUnit; lso@olso.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: BWhelan@fdc-law.co.uk; bristol@legalservices.gov.uk; lexcel
Subject: Karen Liptrot (SRA) and Support Team (OLSO)
Importance: High

SRA - CDT/56504-2008 AND CDT/33561-2003
OLSO - 43877
Lexical and LSC - 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:-
  1. The first, from the SRA, is dated 15th May and may be found here
  2. 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.
http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/images/LCS2ME12012009.pdf
 
CDT/56504-2008 was PROPERLY CREATED by the SRA.
It was only in February 2009 that Katie Jackson (http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/images/SRA18022009CRAP.pdf) of the SRA wrote her "Inept" letter attempting to claim that there was NOTHING to investigate.  How is this POSSIBLE?  Please pass THIS email to the Q&S Standards Team for a response - you DON'T need to recall the file (again), the complaints are all HERE:- http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/lcs2.htm
 
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,
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
 
I need to know:-
 
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.
His signature and the date are here for all to see.
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.
The URL for this email is http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/Whelan.htm
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)
[Home]

______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail 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@lawsociety.org.uk. Please then delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the Law Society by e-mail.

The Law Society's Annual General Meeting will be held at the Society's Hall on 23 July 2009. All members are welcome to attend.

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

Thank you.

______________________________________________________________________