1 July 2004

Mr Jonathan Gray Compliance Officer
The Information Commissioner Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane

Your ref: RFA0029621

Dear Sir

Re: Data Protection Act

Thank you for your letter dated 21 June 2004. It appears to me that instead of, to quote the LSO rule book; "…should carry out a detailed, unbiased investigation" you are surmising the reasons and giving excuses why the OSS, Thos Boyd Whyte and Richard Hegarty did the things in the way they did and ignoring the fact that they never complied with the rules whatsoever yet in my case the rules are strictly and excessively applied so as to protect the members of the Law Society.

First please visit; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/tbw.htm to see what a District Judge, a Barrister and one of Thos Boyd Whyte's own Solicitors had to say about Thos Boyd Whyte. I was sacked by my solicitors in June 2000 after collusion between the OSS and Thos Boyd Whyte when the contents of my complaints file was used to sack me. Let me remind you of what I said in my last letter; "Data Protection Notice "We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent". Let me make a quote from your own website "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose…you should be told about it and given a choice"". Irrespective of why Thos Boyd Whyte thought they had a right to use data from my file the OSS broke the rules in releasing information departing from the normal course of events in revealing data to them, not complying with the rules on supplying and the collection of data which most definitely should not have been done over the telephone. Remember the rules clearly state the information I supplied to the OSS would only be used in connection with my complaint and you have no right in saying the OSS and Thos Boyd Whyte can use it for an "unconnected purpose".

Let me refer you back to the second paragraph of my last letter (16 June) and please remember the Law Society's rules on the collection of data: -
6 OSS and OSS complaint files
The Code applies to the OSS as part of the Law Society, but complaint files will not be disclosable except to the data subject and to the extent permissible under the Act. However, as stated in paragraph B.3.2, findings of OSS adjudications
will be disclosable, in so far as this is permissible under the Act.
G.1 All requests for information in accordance with this Code shall be in writing,
addressed to the Chief Executive, and shall be signed by the person making
the request.
A request may be for a specific item of information, or for information within
a specific category, or for information related to a specific subject or topic, or
a combination of these.
H. Handling of requests for information
H.1 A request for information shall be acknowledged by or on behalf of the Chief
Executive within 14 days of its receipt.
What you are saying is that the above rules don't apply and the "set of enforceable rules" that the Lord Chancellor states must be complied with are just 'window dressing' and you say members of the Law Society can over the telephone exchange/collect information/data, personal or otherwise, concerning solicitors' clients not knowing if the person they are talking to are who they say they are.

In your letter concerning Richard Hegarty you state; "In addition to this it would again appear from the correspondence which you have provided that the Chair of the Compliance Board contacted you in response to a complaint you had made to him concerning The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. It would appear reasonable to assume that you would be contacted concerning this". I have already sent you the letter where, after two attempts, he "contacted" me "concerning" the OSS that referred to me as a "disgruntled complainant" and clearly shows he would not be giving any assistance. Aman Virk (see her letter dated 7 May a copy of which I sent you) states "I have seen no evidence that Mr Hegarty's call was anything more than an attempt to address with you an issue which you raised" sentiments I believe you agree with. Richard Hegarty's call concerned the content on my website that referred to Hegarty & Co which had no relation at all to my complaint, so you "appear" to know why he rang me instead of writing so please tell me, as Aman Virk doesn't want to tell me, what the issue is that he wished to address with me over the 'phone that could not be put in a letter especially as previously he had refused to be of any 'assistance'?

Let me once more quote the "Protection Notice "We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent" you are saying the OSS and members of the Law Society Board "are all part of a single data controller" and in that sense Richard Hegarty can collect personal information for his personal use (my website is 'unconnected' and was not part of my complaint). However as Richard Hegarty collected my personal data (telephone number and business name) from closed files in the hands of some other Law firm(s) (see Aman Virk's letter dated 7 May), possibly Thos Boyd Whyte or Mr A Higgins QC which on this point the OSS refuse to investigate my complaint, it is obvious files in the hands of members of the Law Society are not being held in a safe and secure environment and I must have the right to know who is passing on information from files they hold that relate to me.

Let us get back to that 'phone call that you are implying is an every day occurrence where the 'Data Controller', as you have referred to Richard Hegarty, 'phones complainants' during the evening "in response to a complaint" they have made. First of all I am 66 suffer with extreme hypertension and on the evening of the 6 November last I was shocked, taken aback, unprepared, lost for words and ended up being disturbed for the rest of the evening and days after. If you look at a copy of a letter I received from David Smallwood at the OSS dated 20 November 2000 that I sent you on 18 Feb last it will be seen I was asked to contact him by telephone or to provide him with a number he could contact me on, so please tell me, as you know the reason Richard Hegarty 'phoned me during the evening, why he acted differently and why he went to all the bother of contacting Thos Boyd Whyte or Mr A Higgins QC for my telephone number and other personal information, remember he already had my address?

You say the reason Thos Boyd Whyte requested and was allowed access to my 'unopened' complaints file was because there was a 'conflict of interests'. If Thos Boyd Whyte considered there was a 'conflict of interests' then the Senior Partner, Gordon Luckhurst, should have seen me when I requested instead of refusing at three attempts and when I rang the OSS for assistance they should have contacted the solicitors to enquire why they were refusing to comply with the 'Client Care Agreement' rules. If they still considered there was a 'conflict of interests' and my complaints file held the key the rules clearly state: -
"All requests for information in accordance with this Code shall be in writing, addressed to the Chief Executive, and shall be signed by the person making the request".
This request should have stated the 'purpose' that the information would be used for and the rules state, concerning the information in my complaints file: - "We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent". As my 'sacking' clearly had no 'connection' with my complaint, which was instigated by the Senior Partner's refusal to discuss my dissatisfaction at the way my litigation had and was being handled, the OSS should have refused disclosure at that time (prior to my case coming under investigation) and most definitely not over the 'phone. If they thought there was a 'conflict of interests' they should have put forward a case on their own merits. The point here is data in my file held by the OSS has been misused and the rules ignored and you are refusing to accept the rules have been violated to the extent of, without any investigation, stating the reasons and giving excuses why Thos Boyd Whyte/OSS ignored the rules, in my case you are not ignoring the rules which shows your decision is not 'unbiased'. Let me again quote your own rule: - "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose…you should be told about it and given a choice". In my previous letter I asked how is it my ex-solicitors can extract data from my 'unopened' file, illegally over the 'phone, and when I use the legal route my file suddenly becomes "not part of a relevant filing system". It appears very clear to me that in a complaint against a member(s) of the Law Society the game is not played on a level playing field and the referees all play for the Lawyers team.

I take note you have several times told me you cannot award 'compensation', if you look at any letter I have written I have never mentioned or asked for 'compensation'. If you access www.solicitorsfromhell.com/oss.htm#Compensation you will see Gordon Luckhurst made 'compensation' offers before my complaint was investigated by the OSS which I refused because he was guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' which the OSS refused to investigate and if you access www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ombudsman3.htm#zahida read and then click the link 'ludicrous' you will see that Zahida Manzoor most certainly needs an 'English' dictionary when she uses the word 'unbiased'.

They say that in every dispute there is 'middle ground' but where you and the Law Society are concerned that is where the complainants are trampled into submission. Well you must do what you must do and I must make the whole world, through the Internet, see how 'watertight' the 'Lawyer Protection Racket' in this country is and when they see there is no protection from the British Law Society against negligent and incompetent Lawyers (Mr A Higgins opinion of Thos Boyd Whyte) maybe they will think twice before bring their custom over here. To show I already have 'worldwide' coverage I have put in a few top Search Engine key word results.

Let us look at your own 'expert' opinion. Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors were (see www.solicitorsfromhell.com/tbw.htm for other 'expert' opinions) negligent, incompetent, guilty (by the Law Society's own rules) of 'professional misconduct', took six years longer than they should have (it took three years to apply for summonses), evidence shows they lied and were dishonest, after the Senior Partner refused to comply with the 'Client Care Agreement' and the OSS advised I should send them an 'official complaint', part of your opinion is, the OSS were correct in passing information for 'unrelated' purposes from this 'unopened' complaints file (which should only have been 'revealed' by the normal events of the investigation) to my solicitors for them to discuss the contents of hearsay from my complaints file, now second-hand and my solicitors version, with the Law Society's Ethics Committee, so they can agree with the Ethics Committee there is an 'inherent conflict of interests'. This was all done in a 'non-secure' fashion (over the telephone) on 7/8 June 2000, where there was no collaboration between the OSS and the Ethics Committee to investigate my solicitors claim of a 'conflict of interests' which amounted to a client's dissatisfaction and the Senior Partner's refusal to see him.

Let me again quote Lord Falconer as I've now done so many, many, many times; "a complainant is someone who doesn't quite understand the process, and therefore must be wrong" let me also quote Lord Falconers Advocate, James Shutlar concerning the Data Controller; "he has to make sure that all data processed complies with an enforceable set of good information handling rules… They require the data controller to ensure that data is"
Let me quote 4 of the 8 rules he stated: -
" Fairly and lawfully processed:
" Processed for limited purposes (The term "processing" covers the obtaining, holding, use and disclosure of data.)
" Processed in line with your rights;
" Secure;
I don't believe the word "secure" means that data can be 'blather mouthed' over the telephone to all and sundry especially to people where there is no proof of their identity. As I obviously don't understand the "process" would you explain your interpretation of "fair and lawful processing" of data for it doesn't seem to comply with the Law Society rules? Also may be you can explain to me why any member of the Law Society can pick up the 'phone and the OSS/Data Controller will retrieve, 'leaf' through and freely give in-depth information from complainants' files yet the subject of that data is not allowed to know the contents of their files?

Yours sincerely

X X Xxxx

Ps As I said earlier I have enclosed some 'worldwide' search engine results of a few 'keywords' give me a month or so and you will be there with them.