Email this site to a contact

 

The then Legal Services Ombudsman 'talked the talk' but did not 'walk the talk' - with the approval of the Lord Chancellor - as she was actually A FERTILISER FOR MALPRACTICE

HER MAJESTY'S THEN Legal Services Ombudsman - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for her actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

  • (9) (Removed)
  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

(NB: Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) is covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement).

For the reasons detailed under # 1, below, In total, I referred 3 complaints to this then Ombudsman:  

In 2011, I wrote: the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) is now defunct. As "the public sector does not sack" [below], no doubt the then Head, Zahida Manzoor CBE, will reappear somewhere under a new incarnation. After all, she 'needs to be remembered' for her unfailing support to the Law Society (# 2 and # 3, below) and Bar Council (# 4, below).

Zahida Manzoor CBE was certainly remembered for her colluding and conspiring with the corrupt Law Society and Bar Council (as demonstrated on this page) as, in 2013: she received a peerage! (*)

Reported in the Telegraph, 1 Aug 13: "List of new peerages";

"Zahida Manzoor CBE - former Legal Services Ombudsman; former Deputy Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality"...

...thereby joining her then boss, Lord Falconer of Thoroton (who also suffered from extreme blindness to the evidence), in "the House of Fraud" - where she must be feeling right at home.

Falconer had appointed her as LSO, as well as the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC), in relation to the Law Society.

The 2003/04 Annual Report of the then Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales - stated (pg 24):

"The primary objective of the LSCC is to provide independent oversight of the Law Society's complaints-handling operations and to intervene effectively to improve standards of complaints handling by the Law Society"

(*) Another two, in 2013, also rewarded for services rendered to white-collar criminals:

  • Siobhan McGrath, who played into Andrew David Ladsky's hand by (among other: Overview # 2) refusing to ensure that the tribunal performed its legal remit (LVT # 7) - was made "President and Principal judge for Residential property" (LVT Note).

Thereby providing further endorsement to the conclusion expressed by the Guest Contributor, Harriet Sergeant, in her article in The Sunday Times of 28 Feb 10, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered, in part, by the death, "through neglect", of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events):

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked...

...those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish"

Back to sections

 

(A)- Breaches of the law by Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO).

I hold the view that in:

  • rejecting my complaint against the Law Society re. its rejection of my complaint against Andrew David Ladsky's solicitors, CKFT (pt # 2);
  • rejecting my complaint against the Bar Council re. its rejection of my complaint against 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher (pt # 4);
  • pushing me back to the Law Society re. its handling of my complaint against 'my' solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (pt # 3);

Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE - breached:

  • However - I repeat my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that 'no breach has been committed'!

 

(1)- The factors that fooled me into referring my 3 complaints to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO).

Two factors led me to initially have a little bit of hope that Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) would assist me in getting redress from:

- as their so-called 'professional body': the Law Society and the Bar Council - opted to dismiss / practically dismiss my complaint/s.

The first one was the LSO's 2003/04 annual report, and the second was the Ombudsman's participation on a BBC Radio 4 programme some time previously.

In particular, the fact that both reflected an 'apparent' empathy and understanding of the plight of consumers in attempting to get redress from lawyers e.g.

in the 2003/04 Annual Report, Zahida Manzoor CBE, wrote:

"I believe that the very notion of complaints handling by the professions has now lost all legitimacy among consumers." (pg 10)

"Since taking up the post of Ombudsman in March 2003, I have reviewed over 2,000 complaints." (pg 8)

"It is relatively straightforward to detect the recurrent failings in service delivery that present themselves within these complaints, most notably, excessive delays, excessive costs, poor responsiveness to communications, failure to follow instructions, failure to act in the client's best interest and failure to clarify the implications of proposed actions" (pg 8)

"The LSCC will work closely with the Law Society to gain its co-operation to ensure that the Law Society delivers the high standards of service that the public is entitled to expect and which the Law Society wants to give" (pg 24)

"[she will] scrutinise the Law Society's complaints-handling systems and processes as [she] has been given statutory powers that include the authority to...undertake investigations into their handling of complaints." (pg 25)

As very amply demonstrated by the rest of this page: these claims were a con, typical rhetoric spun by politicians who - for appearances - set-up this department 'as proof that complainants had an avenue for redress' -...

...while, in reality, through legislation, the Establishment was setting-up yet another department to protect its cronies and hangers-on's criminal activities -...

...thereby proving a total waste of time and money for complainants = another opportunity to have fun with 'the Proles' (Orwell's 1984).

(Needless to say that I was far from being the only one being treated in that way by HM's LSO - which eventually led to its demise).

Based on correspondence I received from HM's LSO, I concluded that the LSO's process for 'handling complaints' comprised of 2 stages:  

  • Stage 1 - an initial review of the complaint to determine whether or not it would be investigated;
  • Stage 2 - investigation of the complaint...

...but even that was lied about in order to assist the Law Society (# 3, below), as well as the Bar Council (# 4, below).

Back to list

 

(2)- In spite of the unbelievably damning evidence in my - legitimate - 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society against Andrew David Ladsky's Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)...

...- (typically) in 'her' 11.07.05 'response' to my - legitimate - 02.02.05 complaint against the Law Society, Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE endorsed the Law Society's decision to reject my complaint - thereby breaching legislation.

(For events with CKFT - see summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me, and 'Advisors to Jefferson House' for a snapshot on CKFT).

For the purpose of referring my complaint against the Law Society that - typically - rejected my - legitimate - 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT (Doc library # 2.5) , I replied to the Law Society's 'response' of 08.02.05, in a letter dated 19.02.05.

I copied this letter to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) and, with my covering letter of 20.02.05, provided 51 supporting documents.

Most of these 51 enclosures were 'back-up evidence' to two main sections in my letter: West London County Court and Kensington & Chelsea Police.

These were included in order to provide my answer to the Law Society's outrageous conclusions in its 08.02.05 letter, relating to events it threw back in my court by falsely claiming that it 'viewed' them as falling within the domain of the courts / police: CKFT # 7.

I did this by relating my experiences with both.

In the case of the courts (kangaroo courts / Overview # 19), I wrote:

"In light of the above Mrs Manzoor   - and in the context of Mr Sanghera's comments: I think that, as a defendant acting most of the time in person, I have done all I could to try to get the courts to handle the case fairly and justly"

While, in the case of the police, I wrote:

"In light of this Mrs Manzoor, what chance do I get of the police taking action against CKFT? None"

Let me stress that I was fully aware that the then LSO's remit did not cover the courts. This was her (then) boss, Lord Falconer of Thoroton's role, and that of her predecessor, Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary Ombudsman. And nor, of course, did the LSO's remit cover the police.

In the light of the 'response' from the Law Society, I felt it important that the LSO was made aware of my experiences with both. (Of course, by doing this, I extended awareness of events - and of my views - to another government department. But, as they ALL collude...).

The 'reply' 'from' Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, = 'the Brotherhood', arrived 5 months later.

Dated 11.07.05, the sentence in the penultimate paragraph reads:

"In the circumstances...I take the view that the Law Society's response was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified."

Absolutely unbelievable! As exemplified by the following extracts from the 11.07.05 letter = the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2):

"with no power to discipline members of the legal profession...The question I ask myself is whether it was reasonable for the professional body to reach the decision that it did on the facts and arguments before it"

"Having given full consideration to the very detailed submission that you made to my Office, I am satisfied that their response to your complaint about CKFT was both reasonable and consistent with their role and powers" (1) (3)

"...you were not CKFT's client and, given the adversarial nature of litigation, the solicitors had a primary duty to Steel Services to put forward their instructions as forcefully and robustly as possible, acting in what they considered to be their own client's best interests." (2)

"The Law Society were explaining that they lacked both the jurisdiction and the resources to undertake such investigations and I consider that to be a reasonable response" (3)

"If such investigations did lead to a solicitor being implicated in a criminal act, the Law Society would, no doubt, impose the most extreme disciplinary sanctions." (4)

"In the event that such investigations resulted in the identification of any residual related issue(s) of professional misconduct...it would be open to you, the courts or the police to invite, or direct, the Law Society to investigate those issues." (5)

"The Law Society cannot themselves undertake anything comparable with a judicial investigation or a criminal investigation and prosecution. They told you that it (sic) open to you to take independent legal advice about your concerns (particularly in relation to possible defamation) [6] or consider raising them with the police if you believed that that there was evidence of criminal activity" (7)

"I am satisfied that those, too, were reasonable responses, and as much as the Law Society could do for you, given the limits on their own powers to assist you with the matters that you raised with them" (8)

(1)- "the response was reasonable" = 'I am accumulating the brownie points towards my peerage' (Intro, above).

(2)- "acting in their client's best interests"

= Regurgitating what its master, the Law Society, had stated in its 08.02.05 'reply' to me (Extracts under Doc library # 2.5) - which, with the objective of CKFT satisfying its client, as well as its own greed - amounts to, among many others, 'having the right' to ignore legislation, court rules and my Lease: CKFT's summary breaches of the law.

(3)- "lacked both the jurisdiction and the resources"

The remit of the Law Society - stated on its website, which, in May 05 read as follows:

•  "Who we are -

The Law Society is the regulatory and representative body for solicitors in England and Wales "

•  "How the Law Society regulates solicitors -

We set the rules of professional conduct

We monitor solicitors to make sure they comply with the rules

We investigate and, if necessary, discipline solicitors who don't meet the standards"

Further, in the summary of my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society (provided to the LSO), under header 1.1, and taking 2 pages to do this, I captured several key parts of the solicitors' so-called Code of Conduct (extracts under Definitions) - and under each, detailed how CKFT had very blatantly breached the code.

And 'Zahida Manzoor CBE' "considered the Law Society's response reasonable"!

I repeat - Look at the summaries under CKFT: Events ; Breaches of the law - and consider them against the Law Society's so-called Code of Conduct.

Anybody wants to argue with me that Manzoor was not the lapdog of the Law Society?

(4)- "Law Society would, no doubt, impose the most extreme disciplinary sanctions"

Yep! We can certainly see that! Consider also my next comments.

(5)- "it would be open to you, the courts or the police to invite, or direct, the Law Society to investigate those issues "

= The typical Establishment's 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2)

I "invited the Law Society" to look at CKFT's very blatant breaches of its code of conduct - and it totally ignored them.

As to the courts: here is the answer: kangaroo courts.

As to the police: it would also be a 'Get lost!' reply...

...- added to the fact that the Law Society has a Memorandum of Understanding with the police...to ensure that "considered decisions" let its criminal members get away scott-free / suffer very little consequences (blatantly obvious from my experience):

4. Exchange of information

"The police will, so far as is practicable and in accordance with procedure, pass to the Law Society indications of crime, malpractice and/or professional misconduct committed by a solicitor or employee or intelligence relating to such matters"

"The objective is to enable both parties to make a considered decision as to what further action may be taken through disciplinary, regulatory or criminal procedures, and what further co-operative action may be required or desirable."

"4.2- In order to facilitate the flow of information, with both confidence and confidentiality, each police force and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will appoint a nominated senior CID officer to liaise with the Law Society."

"Contact between the police forces and the Law Society will normally be through the Law Society's Fraud Intelligence Office." (A)

"4.3- The parties can then consider the proper course of action having regard to their respective priorities and requirement for confidentiality." (B)

(A)- "The Law Society's Fraud Intelligence Office" - But,... apart from that: "it lacks the resources" - as stated by the LSO, comment # 3, above.

(B)- = Brush everything under the carpet.

= This memorandum = a good example of British Establishment's cover-up tactics.

(6)- "open to you to take independent legal advice about your concerns"

= Throwing me at...another solicitor!

(7)- "if you believed that that there was evidence of criminal activity"

Unbelievable! Look at the evidence e.g. the summaries on the CKFT page: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me.

(8)- "I am satisfied that those, too, were reasonable responses, and as much as the Law Society could do for you, given the limits on their own powers"

I repeat, all of my above comments.

= "I am satisfied that" this will gain me brownie points towards my peerage (Intro, above) - as the Law Society will see that I continue to be its devoted lapdog...

...something I will, of course, continue to do: (1)- # 3, below ; (2)- the case against Private Eye when the complaint was taken away from me and submitted to my Scottish counterpart.

And, of course, I am doing the same thing for the Bar Council' (below).

In light of this 'reply' I just sent a 01.08.05 acknowledgement capturing the above sentence.

I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing this website, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied. As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round.

Statistics

1 main document, supported by 51 documents; = c.45 hours of my time; c.£90 in costs; 5 months from the start of my complaint.

In the light of events, I hold the view that Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, breached the legislation outlined under # A, above.

 

Hence: yet again, the mafia had succeeded in crushing yet another legitimate complaint!

My name for what took place? The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' in very sick, "Corrupt Britain" - in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

It was blatantly obvious that the Law Society (like the Bar Council) also had a 'memorandum of understanding' with its corrupt lapdog, Zahida Manzoor CBE (as it has with the police (above))...

...- with the primary objective of typically turning a blind eye to gross misconduct.

In this instance, there was the added consideration of also sparing the 'sacrosanct' multi-criminal Rachman landlord Andrew David Ladsky, as well as his other supporters: 'the brothers'.

This was confirmed further in relation to my (below) other complaint against the Law Society, and against the Bar Council.

This is "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West territory - as further exemplified by Manzoor being made a peer!

Back to list

 

(3)- Typically - yet more collusion and conspiring between Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE and the Law Society...

...- resulted in the same expected outcome of my giving up on my - legitimate - 05.12.04 complaint against the Law Society re. its handling of my - legitimate - 16.03.04 complaint against 'my' solicitors Piper Smith Basham /Watton.

Preceding events with Piper Smith Basham(Watton) (PSB) are discussed under Doc library # 2.1, and the introduction under # 2.

For surrounding events see: Kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2.

After PSB refused to address my complaint, I escalated it to the Law Society (Doc Library # 2.2).

As the Law Society's caseworker was refusing repeatedly to acknowledge highly material evidence in my 16.03.04 complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton - it was clear to me that, after 9 months of battling, there was no way out and that I was wasting my time, as well as money. (A point I stated at the end of my 30.11.04 reply to the Law Society).

My complaint against the Law Society to Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) consisted of a 05.12.04 letter supported by 13 documents, including my (39-page) 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society, and my final 30.11.04 reply (33 pages).

In my letter, I stated that I was doing this because:

"The subsequent correspondence entails a total of 3 replies from Ms Tutt [in fact [02.06.04 , 03.08.04 , 22.09.04]

and 2 [in fact, more than 2] from me [30.04.04 , 06.06.04 , 17.06.04 , 16.08.04 , 30.11.04].

[NB: Tutt was playing the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2) - in order to make me give up on my complaint]

As you can see, in her 3rd reply [22.09.04] Ms Tutt is counting on keeping the exchange of correspondence going.

I am simply not prepared to waste any more of my time corresponding with her.  

She has opted to ignore, among others, highly material evidence supplied to her on 2 occasions: in my complaint ; in my reply dated 6 June 2004. I therefore see no point engaging in further correspondence"

I received a 09.12.04 acknowledgement from Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman - stating

"...have today asked the Law Society for their file.

When we have received it, we will decide whether or not the Ombudsman should investigate the allegations you have made about their handling of your complaint"

"If an investigation is to be undertaken, we will give you further information on how long it is likely to take.

If no investigation is to be carried out, we will tell you the reason why."

In its 06.01.05 letter to me the Law Society stated that it had sent its complete file to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

The 17.01.05 letter from HM's Legal Services Ombudsman stated:

"We have now received the file" [Law Society letter to me of 06.01.05 that it had sent the file].

After reviewing your file, the Ombudsman has decided to investigate the way in which the Law Society dealt with your complaint"

More than 3 months later,...

...a caseworker from the Legal Services Ombudsman informed me in a 27.04.05 letter that:

"...your case has been passed to me and I am in the process of examining the way the Law Society dealt with your complaint. (*)

I will not need to trouble you for further information and I expect final report within the next two to four weeks" (*)

(*) = When considering the above letter of 09.12.04, an irrebutable confirmation that the LSO was considering my complaint.

Another 3 weeks go by.

I then received a 12.05.05 letter from HM's LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE - stating:

"However it is clear to me that your referral to my Office is premature.

The difficulty I have in this case is that there is no concluded investigatory procedure or resulting decision for me to review.

I cannot consider matters that have not first been dealt with by the relevant professional body."

In my 22.05.05 reply to the 12th May letter, I asked her why it had taken 5 months for me to be informed of this - given the correspondence that had been exchanged (above), added to the fact that, in the first 2 pages of my complaint i.e. my covering letter of 05.12.04, I had clearly stated the circumstances.

"matters not dealt with by the relevant body"!

Come on! Manzoor could be in no doubt whatsoever from my 30.11.04 reply to the Law Society that it was refusing - repeatedly - to deal with my complaint.

Reason for Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, ignoring the evidence?

Because of the blatant collusion between the corrupt fertilisers for malpractice: Manzoor and the Law Society who agreed they would not - typically (above) - take action against the gross misconduct by Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Watton...

...- thereby sparing the 'sacrosanct' multi-criminal Rachman landlord Andrew David Ladsky, as well as his other supporters: 'the brothers'.

(For snapshots of events with PSB and concurrently Stan Gallagher, see: Gallagher-Summary of events; more detail in my Comments attached to Gallagher's 13.11.03 'draft reply').

 

In my 22.05.05 reply, I also challenged many of the points made by HM's LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE in her 12.05.05 letter. For example, her absolutely outrageous comment that

"...the Law Society are able to exercise only a limited measure of control over the parties"

I argued against this by:

(1)- drawing her attention to the remit of the Law Society: # 2, above.

(2) - Highlighting her remit:

"to oversee the manner in which professional bodies like the Law Society deal with complaints about lawyers."

In my 22.05.05 letter (referred to above), I also asked HM's Zahida Manzoor CBE:

•  "Precisely how many more letters am I expected to write back to the Law Society repeating exactly the same thing: "you have not considered the evidence I supplied"?

•  How many more of their correspondence in which they twist, distort and muddle the facts (all with the aim of wearing me down so that I give up) am I meant to answer?

[NB: the 'Frustrate and Discourage' game (Header 2)...also very blatantly played by Manzoor]

•  Exactly for how long is this 'game' meant to be taking place? Is it perhaps until I have passed the 3-year deadline for issuing proceedings against Piper Smith & Basham?"

In the same context, in reply to Manzoor's comments in her 12.05.05 letter (above) that (pg 2):

"the caseworker was prepared to reconsider her conclusions if you were able to provide further relevant information or evidence"

This is absolutely unbelievable!

Look at my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham - supported by 140+ documents.

I highlighted some of the key evidence I had supplied to the Law Society and the fact that it had been totally ignored. I then wrote,

"You state in your letter that the Law Society "are required to conduct their investigation fairly".

Considering just the three above examples (*): do you consider that this requirement has been met?"

(*) Referring to my letters to Ms Rajdeep Tutt, Law Society, of:

  • As reported in my 22.05.05 letter to HM's LSO: the proof that this was done deliberately is that, in her 08.06.04 'reply', Tutt claimed that she would raise them "at a later stage";
  • as I had pointed out in my 30.11.04 letter to Tutt: "There is no indication whatsoever that you have done this. PSB does not make a single comment about this in its reply, and nor do you".

"Providing further information" - It is another typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) to avoid taking action.

'My' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind did the same thing: Rifkind # 2 - which contains other examples I have received.

The 07.06.05 'reply' 'from' HM's LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE:

"I note your comments [22 May 05 letter, above] about the impression that you were left with after your initial contacts with this Office, particularly in light of the wording of the letter of 17 January." (1)

"That standard letter...is intended to reflect the fact that a preliminary sift of the file has taken place at that stage, and no more than that, so that an indication can be given to a complainant as to when they might expect a report on their complaint." (1)

"I accept that it is misleading as it gives the impression that a review of the professional body's file has taken place, when that does not happen until the complaint is allocated for investigation." (2)

(1)- Contrast that with the above 17.01.05 letter that states: "After reviewing your file, the Ombudsman has decided to investigate"

(2)- Contrast that with the above 27.04.05 letter i.e. sent 3 months after the 17.01.05 later - that stated:

"...your case has been passed to me and I am in the process of examining the way the Law Society dealt with your complaint" and "I expect final report within the next 2-4 weeks"

= When considering the above letter of 09.12.04, an irrebutable confirmation that the LSO was considering my complaint.

(NB: I forgot to mention this letter in my 22.05.05 letter to the LSO).

Talk of the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2)... and of treating the complainants with utter contempt and like absolute idiots!

(In the same class as e.g. HMCS 'Customer Service' 'response' to my complaint against West London County Court (WLCC # 18.2) - because part of the same mafia group).

(Another example in the same vein i.e. of blatant lie by the public sector - in spite of the glaring evidence to the contrary: in the context of my 19 Apr 11 Claim, the then Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson denying - under a statement of truth - that one of his staff had made false accusations against me to my website Host (Queen's Bench - Summary of events # 6).

If it suits them, that public sector mafia will swear to you until they are blue in the face that snow falls from the sky 'as black as coal').

In the light of events, I hold the view that Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, breached the legislation outlined under # A, above.

 

In her 2003/04 Annual Report, HM's LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE wrote - pg 14:

"Other noteworthy issues are the substantial reduction (down from 14.7% to 9.2%) in cases being referred on to OLSO from the Law Society, for reasons which are as yet unclear" .  

"[The] reasons are yet unclear"? Hypocrite!

The answer to that one was very easy - and Manzoor knew it was the outcome of the Palace of Westminster's legislators allowing her to play a double act with the Law Society (and the Bar Council) with the aim of ensuring that any serious misconduct would not be sanctioned (also # 1, above).

As briefly reported above in relation to my complaint against PSB, the Law Society's typical 'Frustrate and Discourage' tactics (Header 2) aimed to keep me running on a treadmill - with the objective of making me abandon my complaint (as I stated in my above 22.05.05 letter to Manzoor).

The set-up between the mafia:

Had I accepted the Law Society's outrageous 'response' for the purpose of escalating my complaint to HM's LSO (Manzoor's 12.05.05 letter, above) - you can bet your bottom dollar that corrupt Manzoor who was meant to "oversee" the so-called 'regulators' handling of complaints, would have replied: "But you accepted the Law Society's decision. So, what are you complaining about?"

Moreover, this reply would have been most strongly put to the fore by the corrupt Law Society.

Outcome: no action taken against the solicitor, other than giving me (an insulting) £150-200 (US$265-350) "in compensation". (The Law Society could not even make up its mind on the insulting amount of "compensation" (para.6 of 22.09.04).

Needless to say that I did not waste my time, nor money, to go back to the equally corrupt Law Society.

Statistics

2 major letters supported by a pack of 13 documents; = c. 30 hours of my time, c. £35 in costs; duration: 6 months

= A success for the mafia's 'pillar-to-post' tactic.

I repeat my conclusions under CKFT (# 2, above)

Back to list

(4)- My legitimate - 25.03.05 complaint to Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE against the Bar Council for rejecting my - legitimate - 05.04.04 complaint against 'my' barrister Stan Gallagher,...

...was the cue for yet more blatant colluding and conspiring - entailing U-turns - and resulting in the typical rejection of my complaint in 'her' 30.08.05 'reply' - thereby breaching legislation.

Events in relation to my 25.03.05 complaint against the Bar Council for its rejection of my 05.04.04 complaint against Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers, (Doc library # 2.4) are equally 'fascinating'.

For the very damning evidence I have against Gallagher, see:

For surrounding events see: Kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2.

After many months of its being copied on my exchange of letters with Stan Gallagher, in its 27.01.05 letter, the Bar Council informed me that:

"After a very full discussion, the Committee decided that there was no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service on the part of Mr Gallagher.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

"The Committee however, may be prepared to look at the matter again if you have some additional evidence in support of your complaint which was not included in the letters you have already sent" (1)

"Under the Rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision. (2)

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been considered by the Bar Council, you may approach the Legal Services Ombudsman to investigate the way we have dealt with it ." (3)

(1)- Absolutely unbelievable! It is another typical British Establishment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) to avoid taking action.

'My' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind did the same thing: Rifkind # 2 - which contains other examples I have received.

(I repeat my Comments, under # 3, above).

Under para.78 of my 25.03.05 response, I wrote: "Your Office has already been provided with ample evidence and has opted to disregard it".

I stated at the beginning of my letter that "my reply [was] for the benefit of the LSO, to whom I am referring my complaint". (I spent more than one week writing the 17-page letter, as I cross-referenced everything by capturing the relevant paragraph/s; (a fact that was subsequently recognised by the Bar Council (below)).

In the letter, I referred to:

  • (2)- Gallagher's replies and mine - in the process cross-referencing everything by capturing the relevant paragraph/s (a fact that was subsequently recognised by the Bar Council (below)).

I wanted to ensure that the LSO had the absolute proof that the Bar Council had been provided with irrebutable evidence, and had opted to turn a blind to it.

(2)- Of particular note, in the light of its (below) follow-on correspondence.

(3)- I stated that my 25.03.05 reply was for the benefit of the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) to whom I was referring my complaint.

I referred my complaint to Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE against the Bar Council on 25.03.05...

... - which was the cue for yet, more (# 2 and # 3 above), collusion and conspiring by Zahida Manzoor CBE with a so-called 'regulator' she was meant to "oversee"...

...- in the process, dishing out more of the 'Frustrate and Discourage tactics' (Header 2).

The 01.04.05 HM's Legal Services Ombudsman's reply to my 25.03.05 complaint was:

"However, it appears from what you have told us in the application form that the Ombudsman is unable to help because the Bar Council are still investigating your complaint and there are no strong reasons which would justify the Ombudsman's involvement at this stage"

What had taken place: following my (above) 25.03.05 letter, ...

...clearly with the blessings of its lapdog, Zahida Manzoor CBE (who followed 2 days later, with the above letter) - the Bar Council had made a U-turn in its 30.03.05 letter - claiming

"In light of the issues you have raised, I am seeking further advice namely whether your complaint should be re-considered in the light of your analysis"

Note that by the time the Bar Council sent me this letter, 11 months had passed since it had received my 05.04.04 complaint.

And, as reported in my (above) 25.03.05 letter to the Council, numerous correspondence had been exchanged arguing about my complaint.

In my 02.04.05 reply to the LSO's above letter - I wrote:

"there is absolutely nothing in the documents sent which could remotely lead to this conclusion"

and asked that the LSO proceeds with my complaint.

With my 25.03.05 letter to Manzoor, I had, of course, supplied the above 27.01.05 letter from the Bar Council - that very clearly states:

"there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision...

...you may approach the Legal Services Ombudsman to investigate the way we have dealt with [your complaint].

Conclusion: Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE had put the blindfold on as soon as she saw a complaint against the Bar Council...she held in high regard (below)...

...- and opted for the typical 'Frustrate and Discourage game' (Header 2).

My challenging Her Majesty's LSO in my (above) 02.04.05 reply,...

...led it to state in its 08.04.05 letter:

"I have today asked the General Council of the Bar for their file".

"When we have received it, we will decide whether or not the Ombudsman should investigate the allegations you have made about their handling of your complaint."  

Hence: Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, made a U-turn.

However, the LSO continued to collude with the Bar Council - that continued to run the show: its 07.07.05 letter:

"...we have now received the file from the Bar council"

= 3 months after its 8 April letter!

In fact, in its (below) 03.06.05 letter, the BC stated it was "sending the file" = 2 months+ later.

Reality, as in the case of her predecessor, Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary Ombudsman, who subsequently did the same thing, in 2009-10 (PHSO # 2) - the decision to reject my complaint had already been taken - at the time that it was received.

Another 'interesting' event took place in the following weeks.

I stated in my 22.05.05 letter to HM's LSO (relating to the Law Society: # 3, above) that I was copying Which? (UK-based consumer group), as the LSO's initial handling of my complaint against the Bar Council had prompted me to contact this organisation to add my support to its campaign for legal reforms. I did not copy the Bar Council on this letter.

Indications are that the Bar Council was informed of this by the LSO, as it sent me a 03.06.05 letter claiming that it was "in response to:"

  • ...-thereby taking 2 months to 'respond'

In its 03.06.05 letter, the Bar Council made a second U-turn - as it stated:

"Your letter of 25th March 2005 is, if I may say so, an impressive detailed analysis of how you see the issues on your complaint." (1)

It was on this letter that Miss Seidensten was seeking further advice, namely whether your complaint should be reconsidered in the light of your analysis." (2)

"Your letter of 25 March 2005 is, in essence a critique of the decision making process of the Committee and also going over the same ground covered in your substantial submissions in support of your complaint"

(1)- To which it could have added: 'We are so impressed by it...that we are, of course, continuing to ignore it'.

(2)- I repeat my above Comments. In my letter, I did not add one iota of 'new information / evidence'.

I also repeat my Comment under # 3 above in relation to public sector individuals, that If it suits them, that public sector mafia will swear to you until they are blue in the face that snow falls from the sky ' as black as coal'.

In my 22.06.05 reply to the Bar Council's above letter, among other, I drew attention to / concluded:

Its "27 January 2005 correspondence [above] stating: “Under the rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision…"

"I am hesitant as to the true objective of your letter:

1. is it an attempt to ‘bury’ - among others - the 30 March 2005 letter from your Office [above] because of an assumption that I copied it to Which?, or

2. should I take it as a hint that the LSO will return my complaint against your Office – after a ‘suitable’ period of time – under some excuse that I will not attempt to second guess?

This, in itself, is another fascinating display of twists and turns from your Office:..."

As to the Bar Council caseworker's counter-claim that he had: "seen no evidence that complaints are decided on the basis of a 'trade union' for members of the Bar, I highlighted the outcome of the Clementi Review (as I had already done in my 25.03.05 reply).

I also included extracts from an article in the Law Gazette of 1 Apr 05:

"The Bar Council has made a U-turn over its plans to challenge a High Court judge's ruling that its complaints procedure is in breach of human rights law.

The Visitors' judgment could lead to hundreds of disciplinary cases being reopened" [NB: As far as I am aware, it was another issue brushed under the carpet...joining so many others that, by now, this carpet must be flying high in the stratosphere].

As to the Bar Council caseworker's outrageous comment in the 03.06.05 letter (above) (which was made for the first time) that:

"...Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks"

I asked:

"Should I conclude from this an intention to now use this feeble and, quite frankly, laughable excuse, in defence to my complaint?"

In the light of the above events over the previous 6 months - added to the 'replies' 'from' HM's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, to my complaints against the Law Society (# 2 and # 3 above)...

... - 'her' 30.08.05 'reply' to my complaint against the Bar Council came as no surprise. The penultimate paragraph states:

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher [1], was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005" (above)

Among the 'gems':

"In his response the Sponsor Member...pointed out that Mr Gallagher's involvement in your case...concerned a time frame of some 3 weeks only..." (2)

"The outcome of the [then London LVT] determination was largely favourable for your landlord" (3)

(1)- What a mafia!

Indeed, if you just look at the Summary of events on Gallagher's page - it does NOT require being a lawyer, or a genius, to see that I have a legitimate complaint against Gallagher.

(2) = The lapdog also dutifully endorsing her master's outrageous comment (above)

(3)- This is absolutely unbelievable and outrageous!

When I read that, it made my blood boil - and still does as I am reviewing this page, many years later.

The outcome of the tribunal hearings (LVT # 4) was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3m) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. the contingency fund).

I had very clearly detailed this outcome on several occasions, in each of the following:

  • my 05.04.04 complaint to the Bar Council, under paras 7, 22, 23, 51, 82 and 86;
  • I again repeated this in my 29.08.04 response to Gallagher's 09.06.04 reply to my complaint - very specifically - under para 48, as well as emphasised it under paras 32 - 37, 39, 49, 50, 52, etc;
  • for the 3rd time, I yet again captured this in my 25.03.05 reply to the Bar Council, under paras 16, 36, 38, 42, 43 and 49.

With my 25.03.05 complaint to HM's Zahida Manzoor CBE, I supplied her with ALL the documents, as well as supporting evidence.

Further, I had previously repeated this endlessly in the context of my complaints against the Law Society re: CKFT (# 2, above), and Piper Smith Watton (# 3, above).

And Her Majesty's Zahida Manzoor CBE was of the view that a £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction (LVT # 4) "is an outcome that it is largely favourable for your landlord" !!!

How much more evidence of collusion and conspiring is required of the morally depraved and repugnant attempts at covering-up the evidence i.e. the criminal aiding and abetting of theft (Overview Note 2)?

(You can see why Zahida Manzoor CBE has ended up in the "House of Fraud"!)

Not only had Zahida Manzoor CBE turned a - deliberate - blind eye to the content of ALL my correspondence, she had, likewise, turned a - deliberate - blind eye to Stan Gallagher's replies to my complaint - among others:

  • As a result my challenging his comment in my 29.08.04 reply (paras 72 and 73), in his second reply of 11.10.04, under para. 8, Gallagher wrote, "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants"

(More 'gems' under Summary of events).

  • = NOT an outcome that can be described as "largely favourable for your landlord"

Of note, even "[my] landlord" i.e. Andrew David Ladsky who had been pulling the strings behind the scene - had admitted - to the police - that:

This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly

In the light of events, I hold the view that Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE breached the laws detailed under # A, above.

Statistics

3 documents; my complaint supported by a 350-page bundle of 35 documents; = c.30 hours of my time; c.£110 in costs; 5 months from the start of my complaint.

It was a continuation (# 2 and # 3 above) of her suffering from extreme blindness to the evidence in my case - by opting to totally disregard my legitimate complaints against the so-called 'regulators' she was meant to "oversee".

BUT: her conduct was in line with that endorsed by her then boss Lord Falconer of Thoroton who also approved of the courts and HMCS 'Customer Service' department doing the same thing.

As in the case of my other, above complaints, I opted to not reply to this letter, preferring to use my precious little spare time on continuing to develop my website.

What would have been the point of repeating what I had already said? As it had been ignored the first time round, it would, likewise, be ignored the second time round.

In fact, in her 2003/04 Annual Report (pg 30), Zahida Manzoor CBE had confirmed her high regard for the Bar Council:

"...my Office can find no serious failing in the Bar Council's handling of complaints..."

"...research is needed to establish why so many complainants appear to be dissatisfied with the Bar Council's handling of their complaint when, in fact, they appear to follow due process, complete investigations in a timely manner and arrive at well-justified conclusions" (NB !!!)

I read this as a very loud message to complainants:

"Don't waste your time complaining to the Legal Services Ombudsman about the Bar Council...

...and nor, indeed, about the Law Society (# 2, above) "

(It ought to have gained her a strong recommendation from the Bar Council for her peerage (Intro, above).

What a mafia!

I repeat my conclusions under CKFT (# 2, above)

Back to list

 

(5)- Typically - Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, 'talked the talk, but did not walk the talk'...

...- as she was merely the lapdog and rubber stamping office of the Law Society and Bar Council.

Hence, part of the mafia clan that gangs-up to deprive glaringly obvious victims of crime such as I from getting justice and redress.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 6 , # 7 and # 8)

As stated in the above sections, aside from my one-liner reply in relation to my complaint against the Law Society re. its failure to address my legitimate complaint against CKFT - I did NOT reply to Her Majesty's Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE outrageous 'decisions'...

...or, more accurately: the pre-determined decisions BY the Law Society (# 2 and # 3 above) and the Bar Council (# 4 above), as...

...I saw no point wasting any more of my time, and money, with an Office which, in light of my comprehensive first-hand experience - in the face of my 2 legitimate complaints against the Law Society (# 2 and # 3 above), and my legitimate complaint against the Bar Council (# 4 above) - I came to view as...

...simply rubber-stamping the decisions of the Law Society and Bar Council - while concurrently colluding and conspiring with them = like ALL the rest - including other ombudsmen - who collude and connive with those complained against.

My experience proved that (as e.g. in the case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman) the claims made by HM's LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE, in her documents were a con (other examples under # 1, above) e.g.

 

 

 

(1)- in the 2003/04 Annual Report (pg 7):

Pg 7 - "I am astounded at the complexity of the existing multi-step and multi-layered complaints handling model and I feel strongly that it imposes an unacceptable and disproportionate burden (in terms of time and effort) on complainants.

In my view, the degree of patience, tenacity and endurance that complainants need to show in order to negotiate this system is quite unreasonable"

Pg 8 - "It is relatively straightforward to detect the recurrent failings in service delivery that present themselves within these complaints, most notably, excessive delays, excessive costs, poor responsiveness to communications, failure to follow instructions, failure to act in the client's best interest and failure to clarify the implications of proposed actions"

Pg 10 - "I believe that the very notion of complaints handling by the professions has now lost all legitimacy among consumers."

(2)- In her 12.05.05 reply to my complaint against the Law Society (# 3, above):

"My primary role is to oversee the manner in which professional bodies like the Law Society deal with complaints about lawyers with a view to ensuring that they follow proper procedures and that they reach decisions that fall within the bounds of reasonableness"

I cannot begin to express the suffering that these corrupt individuals and institutions (added to everything else) put me through.

 

I repeat my conclusions under CKFT (# 2, above).

My experience with Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, added to my horrendous experience with:

lead me to view ALL of them as a mafia clan...

...which (like the police) arrogantly perceives itself to be above the law of the land - it is paid by taxpayers to represent - and at the service of 'certain criminals' - thereby depriving glaringly obvious of crime such as I of justice and redress.

I view ALL as extremely sick individuals, in fact, (based on my religious beliefs) - monsters - who have caused me - and continue to cause me horrendous suffering since 2002 (Case Summary).

Time and time again, these cut-throat monsters grossly abuse their power by putting 'the little people' like me through the most horrendous suffering for years-on-end.

That is the norm under which they operate: other examples on the media page: e.g. 'the Establishment and Hillsborough'.

If we, 'the little people', did to them what they consider themselves to be at liberty to do us: taking a very large part of their money (taxation) under false pretences (not delivering the services paid for); inflicting extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, perverse, bullying, lynching and persecution treatment, etc. on them...

...- they would not have one second of hesitation in sending us to the gallows - using the laws from which they consider themselves to be 'exempt' e.g. Theft Act ; Fraud Act ; Malicious Communications Act ; Protection from Harassment Act ; Defamation Act, etc...

...while claiming to be 'so traumatised' by the victimization treatment - that it is e.g.:

...leading them to e.g.

v. for 'the little people'? NOTHING!

Back to list

(6) (Moved to # 5, above)

(7) (Moved to # 5, above)

(8) (Moved to # 5, above)

(9) (Removed)

 

WHO was 'pulling the strings' behind the scene?

Answer: 'the Brotherhood'.

 

THE THEN LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE BAR COUNCIL CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top