The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineered

At the time of launching the site, the Legal Services Ombudsman, was appointed by the Lord Chancellor (then Lord Falconer of Thoroton), who also oversees the courts. I don't know what happened since.

In February 2004, the Legal Services Ombudsman was also appointed as the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC) in respect of the Law Society by the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor. (NB: Information at 2004/2005)

The 'Annual Report of the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales 2003/2004 ' states (page 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"

Sections

(1) The factors that prompted me to refer my complaints to the Legal Services Ombudsman
(2) Complaint against the Law Society re. its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)
(3) Complaint against the Law Society re. its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith & Basham (PSB)
(4) My complaint against the Bar Council re. its handling of my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher
(5) The Legal Services Ombudsman = the 'rubber stamping' office of the Law Society and the Bar Council
(6) The Legal Services Ombudsman 'talks the talk, but does not walk the talk'
(7) The 'Clan'
(8) The 'Clan' has deprived me of the ability to get justice and redress
(9) If the Legal Services Ombudsman meant what she wrote in the 2003-04 annual report, what has taken place since that has led her to shift her position so drastically?
(10) And finally, at the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

(1) The factors that prompted me to refer my complaints to the Legal Services Ombudsman

Two factors led me to initially have a little bit of hope that the Legal Services Ombudsman would assist me in getting redress from my then solicitors, Piper Smith Basham and barrister, Mr Stan Gallagher , as well as Mr Andrew Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , as their respective professional body - the Law Society and the Bar Council - opted to dismiss / practically dismiss my complaint/s.

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

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 (2.2MB), the Ombudsman wrote :

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

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

In the same report (page 24), the Ombudsman also states:

"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"

and that 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." (page 25)

My comprehensive first-hand experience with the Legal Services Ombudsman has led me to conclude that...

...this Ombudsman 'talks the talk', but does not 'walk the talk'

(See the end of this section for further detail)

In total, I have referred three complaints to this Ombudsman:

• two against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against my then solicitors, Piper Smith Basham, as well as Mr Ladsky's solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) ;

• the other against the Bar Council for its handling of my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers.

Based on correspondence received from the Legal Services Ombudsman, I conclude that her Office's process for handling complaints comprises of two stages:

• Stage 1 - an initial review of the complaint to determine whether or not it will be investigated;

• Stage 2 - investigation of the complaint.

Back to list

(2) Complaint against the Law Society re. its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)

For the purpose of referring my complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT, I replied to the Law Society's response of 8 February 2005 in a letter dated 19 February 2005 .

I copied this letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman and, as can be seen from my covering letter of 20 February 2005 , also enclosed copy of other documents, bringing the total number of enclosures to 51.

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 comments relating to actions it viewed as falling within the domain of the courts / police. I did this by relating my experiences with both.

In the case of the courts, I wrote:

"In light of the above Mrs [ ] - and in the context of Mr [ ] '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 [ ] , what chance do I get of the police taking action against CKFT? None"

Let me stress that I am fully aware that the Legal Services Ombudsman's remit does not cover the courts. This is her (then) boss, Lord Falconer of Thoroton's role. And nor, of course, does the Legal Services Ombudsman's remit cover the police.

Given the response from the Law Society, I felt it important that the Legal Services Ombudsman 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).

The reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman arrived five months later. It is dated 11 July 2005 . The sentence in the penultimate paragraph reads:

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

I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against the Law Society for dismissing my complaint against CKFT- as I believe that I have a valid complaint against this firm.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree with me that the 'black on white' evidence does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to see that.

In light of this reply, on 1 August 2005 , I just sent an acknowledgement capturing the above sentence. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, 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.

Back to list

(3) Complaint against the Law Society re. its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith & Basham (PSB)

As the Law Society's caseworker was refusing to acknowledge highly material evidence in my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham - in spite of my bringing this to her attention (see Piper Smith Basham ) - it was clear to me that there was no way out and that I was wasting my time. (A point I stated at the end of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society)

I referred my complaint against the Law Society to the Legal Services Ombudsman in a letter dated 5 December 2004 stating that I was doing this because

"The subsequent correspondence entails a total of 3 replies from Ms [ ] and 2 from me.

As you can see, in her 3 rd reply. Ms [ ] 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 9 December 2004 acknowledgement from the 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"

In its 6 January 2005 letter the Law Society states that it has sent its complete file to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

The 17 January 2005 letter from the Legal Services Ombudsman states

"We have now received 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 three months later, a caseworker from the Legal Services Ombudsman informs me in a 27 April 2005 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"

Another three weeks go by. I then receive a letter from the Ombudsman, dated 12 May 2005 , in which she wrote:

"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 May 2005 reply I asked the Ombudsman why it had taken five months for me to be informed of this - given the correspondence that had been exchanged and the fact that, in the first two pages of my complaint i.e. my covering letter of 5 December 2004 , I had clearly stated the circumstances.

In my 22 May 2005 reply, I also challenged many of the points contained in the Ombudsman's letter. For example, her comment that

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

I argued against this by drawing her attention to the remit of the Law Society - stated on its website, which, in May 2005 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"

Against her remit

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

I asked the Legal Services Ombudsman:

• "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?

• 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 the Ombudsman's comments that the caseworker

"was prepared to reconsider her conclusions if I were able to provide further relevant information or evidence" (UNBELIEVABLE!)

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?"

The 7 June 2005 reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman states

"...standard letter is intended to reflect the fact that a preliminary sift of the file has taken place. I accept that it is misleading."

(Please note that in my 22 May 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman I forgot to mention the 27 April 2005 letter (referred to above)

Consider these events in the context of what is stated in the Legal Services Ombudsman's 2003/04 Annual Report (2.2MB): e.g.

"...as LSCC I will scrutinise the Law Society's complaints-handling systems and processes." (page 25)

As to another statement in the Legal Services Ombudsman's 2003/04 Annual Report (page 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" .

Based on my experience in relation to my complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I think the answer to that one is easy :

complainants refuse to accept an assessment from the Law Society with which they disagree for the sake of being able to escalate their complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

While I have no first-hand experience of this, and cannot therefore substantiate it, given events with the Legal Services Ombudsman, my guess is that people who do this are likely to get the following answer from the Legal Services Ombudsman: "But you accepted the Law Society's decision. So, what are you complaining about?"

Back to list

(4) My complaint against the Bar Council re. its handling of my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher

Events in relation to my 25 March 2005 complaint against the Bar Council for its handling of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers are equally fascinating.

In a letter dated 27 January 2005 the Bar Council informed me that its committee had

"decided that there was no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service on the part of Mr Gallagher.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

It also states,

"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" .

To this, I replied under point 78 of my 25 March 2005 response,

"Your Office has already been provided with ample evidence and has opted to disregard it" .

In its reply, the Bar Council also stated,

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

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 ."

I stated that my 25 March 2005 letter was for the benefit of the Legal Services Ombudsman to whom I was referring my complaint.

I referred my complaint against the Bar Council to the LSO on 25 March 2005 .

This led to a 1 April 2005 reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman:

"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"

As I stated in my 2 April 2005 reply,

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

Given the evidence, I can only conclude that the Bar Council contacted the Legal Services Ombudsman with the aim of making a U-turn and evidently received a sympathetic ear.

Indeed, I received a letter dated 30 March 2005 from the Bar Council stating:

"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"

Please note that all I did in my 25 March 2005 letter was highlight points / evidence that had been ignored and, in the process, provided extensive cross-referencing to previous documents - a fact that was subsequently recognised by the Bar Council (see below)

The outcome of my challenging the Legal Services Ombudsman led to another correspondence, dated 8 April 2005 stating that it had

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

Followed by:

"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."

In other words, the Legal Services Ombudsman made a U-turn .

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

I stated in my 22 May 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman (relating to the Law Society) that I was copying Which? (U. K.-based consumer group), as the Legal Services Ombudsman'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, as it sent me a letter dated 3 June 2005 claiming that it was in response, firstly to my 25 March 2005 letter (NB: it had already replied to this letter on 30 March 2005 (!!!) ) and, secondly, to my 2 April 2005 letter (my letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman on which I had copied the Bar Council).

In this letter, the Bar Council made a second U-turn as it stated,

"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"

(Contrast this with the 30 March 2005 letter)

As I wrote back to the Bar Council on 22 June 2005 , given the two-month gap, I opted to conclude that the true objective of its letter was

"an attempt to 'bury' - among others - the 30 March 2005 letter from your Office because of an assumption that I copied it to Which? "

And also stated that I saw this letter as

"another fascinating display of twists and turns from your Office"

In reply 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 March 2005 reply).

I also included extracts from an article in the Law Gazette of 1 April 2005:

"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"

As to the caseworker's comment (which was made for the first time and was also 'dutifully' picked-up by the Legal Services Ombudsman in her 30 August 2005 reply) 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?"

Given these events (and the Legal Services Ombudsman's replies to my complaint against the Law Society) her 30 August 2005 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, was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005"

Among others, consider the following comment made by the Legal Services Ombudsman on page 3 of her 30 August 2005 reply...

"The outcome of the (LVT) determination was largely favourable for your landlord"

...against the fact that the outcome of the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. contingency fund). In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable.

I had very clearly detailed this outcome in my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council, under points 7, 22, 23, 51, 82 and 86.

I again repeated this in my 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint - very specifically - under point 48, as well as emphasised it under points 32 - 37, 39, 49, 50, 52, etc.

And yet again, for the third time, I captured this in my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, under points 16, 36, 38, 42, 43, 49 (For detail, see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal).

Mrs Manzoor WAS SUPPLIED with these documents, as well as supporting evidence. And she is of the view that a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) is an outcome that it is "largely favourable for your landlord" !!!

Not only is it abundantly clear that Mrs Manzoor did not read / care to note any of the content of my correspondence, it is equally obvious that she did not read / care to note Mr Gallagher's replies to my complaint either. Had she done so, she would have seen the following:

• Under point 21 of his 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint, Mr Gallagher stated that he regarded the LVT determination as "a mix bag".

• As a result my challenging his comment in my 29 August 2004 reply (points 72 and 73), in his second reply of 11 October 2004, under point 8, Mr Gallagher wrote, "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants"

I give this as an example of undeniable 'black on white' evidence that this Ombudsman has opted to ignore my 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.

I believe that, considering the 'black on white' evidence contained in this section - as well as in the section on Mr Gallagher - any fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site will have no difficulty understanding why I now hold the view that the Bar Council - and the Legal Services Ombudsman - act as a fertiliser for malpractice in the sector

Judging from the Legal Services Ombudsman's Annual Report 2003/04 (2.2MB) (page 30), it suggests that she has 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 loud message to complainants:

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

Contrasting the Legal Services Ombudsman's Annual Report 2003/04 (2.2MB) with the outcome of my complaints, including, among others, her letter of 12 May 2005 has led me to the conclusion that this report is to a large extent a work of fiction .

Back to list

(5) The Legal Services Ombudsman = the 'rubber stamping' office of the Law Society and the Bar Council

Aside from my one-line reply in relation to the Law Society-CKFT, I have not replied to the Ombudsman's decisions, as...

...I saw no point wasting any more of my time with an Office which, in light of my comprehensive first-hand experience, I now view as...

...simply 'rubber-stamping' the decisions of the Law Society and Bar Council.

Back to list

(6) The Legal Services Ombudsman 'talks the talk, but does not walk the talk'

Here are two other examples:

Quote from this Ombudsman in the 2003/04 Annual Report (2.2MB) (page 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" (NB !!!)

In her 12 May 2005 reply to my complaint against the Law Society, the Legal Services Ombudsman wrote:

"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"

In the case of the Law Society's handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham , the Legal Services Ombudsman cannot be in any doubt whatsoever that it has handled it appallingly.

It is abundantly clear from the protracted exchange of correspondence that the Law Society's intention was to keep me going round 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted its ludicrous assessment.

Had I caved in, for the purpose of escalating my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman (given that I am meant to have a "final decision" before doing this), I can guarantee (although cannot substantiate) that I would then have received the following reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman: "But you accepted their decision. So, what are you complaining about?" . Moreover, this reply would have been most strongly put to the fore by the Law Society.

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

Another quote from the Legal Services Ombudsman in the 2003/04 Annual Report (2.2MB) (page 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"

In her 12 May 2005 reply to my complaint against the Law Society the Legal Services Ombudsman wrote:

"...the Law Society are not a judicial body.

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

And the Law Society is called a 'regulatory body'!?

As a result of my comprehensive experience with the Law Society, I hold the view that, contrary to its claimed remit (as detailed on its website) the Law Society does not control malpractice - it acts as a fertiliser for it.

The Legal Services Ombudsman endorsed the Law Society's dismissal of my complaint against CKFT. While I am not a lawyer, I nonetheless believe that I powerfully demonstrated that I have a valid complaint against CKFT . (See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor for detail)

I believe that, likewise, I very strongly substantiated my complaint against Mr Gallagher. (See Mr Gallagher for detail)

How does the Legal Services Ombudsman reconcile her endorsement of the Law Society and Bar Council rejection of my complaints with her statement in the Annual Report - among others (page 8)

"It is relatively straightforward to detect. failure to act in the client's best interest" ?

On page 10 of the 2003/04 Annual Report (2.2MB) the Legal Services Ombudsman wrote

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

Because of my very comprehensive first-hand experience, to this I will add: 'including with the Legal Services Ombudsman' .

(7) The 'Clan'

This, combined with the events with West London County Court , Wandsworth County Court and Lord Falconer's Court Service's reply to my complaint is what led me to choose this visual for the section on Lawyers, Courts and Legal Services Ombudsman.

IT IS A CLAN.

And I view it as an arrogant, all-powerful clan that 'gangs-up' to deprive consumers such as I from getting fair and just treatment - and abuses its power (as it controls all the available means of redress)

I am far from being in a minority holding this view:

Quote from a Member of Parliament in 2001 - which, I really, really wish I had seen at the time:

"...the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is falling and needs to be abolished.

He said the the Lord Chancellor's department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society"

Re. the use of the term 'mafia' to refer to the legal sector: a Reader of The Times newspaper wrote: "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 April 2007))

• 'Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers' (SACL) (http://www.sacl.info) (Also provides links to other sites e.g. Dunblane Unburied (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk) - referred to in My Diary 3 March 2007)

• Legal Bullies - http://www.legalbullies.co.uk

• Unjustis - http://www.unjustis.co.uk

• Crooked Lawyers - http://www.crookedlawyers.com (Ireland)

Back to list

(8) The 'Clan' has deprived me of the ability to get justice and redress

I hold the view that the 'Clan' has deprived me of the ability to get justice and redress:

• By ignoring the evidence I supplied in support of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham and Mr Stan Gallagher

• By taking months to reply to my complaints / correspondence in relation to Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher - thereby, very substantially 'eating' into my three-year deadline for 'potentially' issuing proceedings against them :

• Mr Gallagher took five months to reply to my complaint; the Bar Council took three months, and the Legal Services Ombudsman took five months to reply to my complaint against the Bar Council - hence, a total of 17 months from beginning to end (as can be seen in the Document library )

• The Law Society's 'game' in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham (see Piper Smith Basham) meant that it took six months for the Law Society's reply; it then took five months for the Legal Services Ombudsman to come back to me with the message that the referral of my complaint to her department was "premature" - consequently suggesting I go back to the Law Society (as can be seen in the Document library the time span was from 2 December 2003 to 7 June 2005 )

• By considering the actions of the aforementioned - combined with my extensive first-hand experience with the courts (see West London County Court and Lord Falconer of Thoroton) - it led me to the conclusion that...

...there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island

Back to list

(9) If the Legal Services Ombudsman meant what she wrote in the 2003-04 annual report, what has taken place since that has led her to shift her position so drastically?

The government propaganda led me to believe that Ombudsmen were an avenue for getting redress.

My experience with the Legal Services Ombudsman, added to my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman has led me to lose confidence in the Ombudsmen system.

Against this, I should add that, in the process of 'knocking on many doors', I also contacted the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Although I did not approach her through my Member of Parliament (a requirement, in my view, intended to block access and, hence, deny the opportunity to get redress), rightly or wrongly, I suspect that this Ombudsman has been of assistance to me 'behind the scene'. (See Parliamentary Ombudsman for further detail)

Hence, there is 'some good' in the Ombudsmen system. However...

...what is the issue? How do I, as a consumer, make sense of my experience with the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman?

No doubt, there are very strong lobbies with hidden agendas affecting the Ombudsmen's power.

These events lead me to fully endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)

"The current regulatory system is flawed.

It has insufficient regard to the interests of consumers. .

I am not satisfied that the main frontline bodies have always put consumer interests ahead of their own interests."

They also lead me to conclude that any form of complaint handling system run solely by government will not provide redress to the consumer.

There needs to be a mechanism for accountability that is outside government control and, of course, outside of the professions.

What would it look like in practice? I don't know. Given that claimants have so far been left out of the equation, having this key constituency also involved in the reform of the legal system - and the Ombudsmen system - would be a good start to devising a consumer-oriented model i.e. a model that ensures that consumers get just and fair treatment.

Note at end July 2006 - I wrote the above several months ago and have now come across two articles in The Times discussing the Legal Services Bill that proposes setting-up a Legal Services Board with, it 'seems', some 'teeth'.

As can be seen in The Times article of 25 July 2006 , the head of the Law Society is strongly opposed to this calling it "truly scary" (I bet!) and that "if a regulator is given a power, it will use it" (Heuh...yes, that's' the idea!)

She is also concerned about the proposed "extensive powers for the lay-dominated board" . She had been given reassurances by the clan's big chief, Lord Falconer, " that it was intended to be light-touch regulation but instead we have Model A (the most heavy) by the backdoor"

Reading this means that I am not holding my breath as I fear that we are going to end-up with a re-sprayed version of the existing system.

Back to list

(10) And finally, at the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE .

(This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.

In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)