Original - Solicitors from Hell .com Est. Feb 2003
"The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors"
The Kremlin, 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 5AE

With a name like that of the: - "Office for the Supervision of Solicitors" you could get the impression this body has some power over Solicitors, not at all, in fact it should probably be called “The Office for the Protection of Solicitors”.

The OSS is now the CCS (Consumers Complaints Service), different name same old 'S--t', see what honest Solicitor John Wilson's opinion is.

See 'Rocky' the Rottwielier (OSS) has been renamed 'Fido' (CCS)

On the 29 April '99 I 'phoned the OSS to complain that Gordon Luckhurst, the Senior Partner, as stated in the 'Client Care Agreement' letter, as was my right, was refusing to see me and discuss my complaints on the way my case had and was being conducted. The OSS said Gordon Luckhurst cannot refuse to see me, however he still refused. I again rang the OSS who advised me to send them an official complaint. I sent a complaint to them on 13 May '99, I rang them a fortnight later and a letter I later received stated my complaint would be addressed within 6-8 weeks, although I again rang and wrote letters it would be 18 months before I again heard from them and two years before my complaint came under an investigation and during this period my new raw Assistant Solicitor requested from the OSS on the 7 June 2000 during a 15 minute 'phone call information concerning my complaint. A Mr Fise "recalled" my complaint folder from the 'complaints awaiting investigation' files where all knowledge of its existence at that time should not have been disclosed. The same day (7 June 2000) Tula Fitzpatrick, my new raw Assistant Solicitor wrote an 'Attendance Note' that said "Engaged on the matter of Gray in perusal and consideration of the allegation of negligence made about the firm (35 minutes)" then continues with "Discussing the matter with Geoff Smith and Gordon Luckhurst (20 minutes)" and it shows she made two 'phone calls to the OSS the same day. I did not make an "allegation of negligence" to Tula Fitzpatrick, Assistant Solicitor, the only time I spoke to her was the day previous, 6 June, the suggestion of 'negligence' by TBW was made by her as she stated in her Attendance Note that day, at no time did I speak to Geoff Smith or Gordon Luckhurst and there is no record of me making any such "allegation". So where did this "allegation of negligence" come from!

Tula Fitzpatrick a young inexperienced Assistant Solicitor and a new recruit with no litigation skills at all with less than 2yrs in Family affairs had my litigation dropped in her lap and on the 7 June 2000, the day before I was sacked, entered a meeting with two Wyle Ol' Foxes, Geoff Smith the Senior Litigation Officer and Gordon Luckhurst the Senior partner with overall responsibility of my affairs. Attendant Notes written by my previous Solicitor, Sandra Durant, dated 7 January 1999, 10 February 1999, and the 27 April 1999 shows both Geoff Smith and Gordon Luckhurst knew I had contacted the OSS for advice on Gordon Luckhurst's failure to honour the Client Care Agreement and on the 29 April 1999 Gordon Luckhurst had offered me his help in placing a complaint with the OSS. At that meeting (7 June) my Assistant Solicitor, Tula Fitzpatrick, 'Lo and Behold' states "Engaged on the matter of Gray in perusal and consideration of the allegation of negligence made about the firm", there is no evidence I made any such "allegation". Tula Fitzpatrick was supposed to represent me but she allowed herself to be coerced by two of Thos Boyd Whytes 'Wyle Ol' Foxes' in making false allegations against me. The next day 8 June 2000 I'm sack as a 'Conflict of Interests' now exists which was over two years after I had asked the OSS for help.

Why would two 'Wyle Ol' Foxes' give 'conduct' of a 7 year old case close to the trial that had been handle so disastrously by them, up to that point, to a 'young, inexperienced, new recruit Assistant Solicitor who, it appears, had no knowledge of 'litigation' just having a short experience in: - . Areas of Law: Tula deals with all aspect of family law including divorce, ancillary relief, private law children and disputes between co-habitees in respect of property ownership, as well as pre-nuptial contracts and co-habitee contracts. She also advises on will disputes and contentious probate. May be TBW's 'Wyle Ol' Foxes' thought I only had some 'family' issues that need their attention. Thos Boyd Whyte had eleven accredited litigation solicitors at this time so why did two 'Wyle Ol' Foxes' coerce a novice assistant solicitor to take over my litigation?

On the 6 June 2000 my new raw Assistant Solicitor spent 45 minutes 'perusing' my very large 7 year old files and at our meeting that same day had no answers just assumptions and opinions. My new raw Assistant Solicitor Attendance Note that day shows I am very annoyed and angry how TBW had handled my affairs which she then comments "I explained to Mr Gray that he was entitled, if he so wished, to commence proceedings against this firm for negligence, if that was his opinion..." her later personal opinion is "I have no doubt that Mr Gray will sue this firm in relation to the conduct of the proceedings so far." See Mr Higgins QC's opinion.

The duty of your Solicitor is to put your interest foremost. The next day there is no hint of my litigation and/or my concerns being discussed at the meeting my Assistant Solicitor, Tlua Fiztpatrick had with the Senior Partner, Gordon Luckhurst and Geoff Smith, Senior Litigation Office, it's all about finding a way of if a "Conflict of Interests" can be a established as her Attendance Note shows; "Engaged on the matter of Gray in perusal and consideration of the allegation of negligence made about the firm" which included numerous 'phone calls to the Law Society, Ethics Committee and the Solicitors Indemnity Fund to enlist their help

It might help to look at what Mr Higgins QC opinion was; In a letter he wrote, on four occasions he used the word 'negligent' including "...they were not following his instructions and their failure to prosecute his claim with reasonable vigour was negligent", also "The fact is they had, in my opinion, been negligent". If I had made an "allegation of negligence" it looks like I would have had good reason.

Rule: - 18.02 Breach and misconduct
A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct. Consequently, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will expect its implementation as a matter of conduct.

The Legal Ombudsman’s ‘little blue book’ states, “They should carry out a detailed, unbiased investigation, within a reasonable time”, the Legal Ombudsman only states “They should” so that obviously means ‘they don’t have to’.

The second point the Ombudsman’s ‘little blue book’ states is, “What the ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed and that this was done within a reasonable time”. Through giving the Legal Ombudsman no rest I have managed to get an investigation into my complaints against my solicitors (Thos Boyd Whyte of Bexleyheath, Kent) and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS). There are numerous points the OSS refused to even comment on by deliberately ignoring them, my solicitors’ dishonesty, deceit and lies, Gordon Luckhurst’s refusal to see me and although solicitors refer to the ‘Client Care' letter as an ‘agreement’ and ask you to sign it the OSS would not discuss it’s validity at all.

Don't let us forget the bit; “this was done within a reasonable time”. The OSS took over 2 years to allot my file to a Caseworker and 3 years 3 months to reach a conclusion, I certainly don’t call that “within a reasonable time”.

At one point the OSS’s ‘Adjudicator’ in an attempt to put forward a defense for TBW, invented evidence in the form of letters that were, supposedly sent to me, to explaining the reasons for the ‘delays’. When I asked for copies of these letters it appeared ‘they didn’t exist’, prior to this the Caseworker only found 4 months of ‘delays’ that she referred to “as some delay”. The point is the OSS say there were no ‘delays’ but then say these ‘delays that didn’t occur’ were explained to me in letters ‘that didn’t exist’. The Ombudsman’s ‘little blue book’ in relation to the OSS and the public use the word “unbiassed” possible the OSS thought the spelling was wrong and should have been spelt ‘corrupt’.
My main complaint was about delays that caused my case to last seven years. Two months into my case documented evidence shows I gave urgent instructions to start proceedings and within a fortnight we had contact with the Defendants and their solicitors, it would now take three years and a ‘recorded delivery’ letter to get my Solicitor to apply for a summons and seven years to get the Defendants to Court. Despite the fact a District Judge’s opinion showed there were at least five years of delays, a Barrister identified three and a half years which Ann Abraham, at the time the Legal Ombudsman, agreed with. Margaret Dunton, a Senior Solicitor at TBW’s, apologised on 15 December 1995 for a two year delay (just 2 years into my litigation) and Gordon Luckhurst admitted to the OSS that an application for Legal Aid which I had been advised to make (as a 'time-wasting' tactic) but didn't get, had laid in his office for at least twelve months. The OSS only identified a four month period that they referred to "as some delay". If this alone doesn't show this 'self supervising' complaints procedure is not corrupt, I don't know what would.
GordonLuckhurst, the Senior Partner responsible for the overseeing of my case, was very aware how bad I had been treated by Thos Boyd Whyte’s Solicitors. First he wouldn’t see me to discuss my dissatisfaction as he had no excuses, second he offered me £7,500 of my expenses back, plus £1,500 compensation in trying to persuade me not to continue my complain with the OSS. What did the OSS do, this ‘Solicitors Protection Society’ cut the £7,500 back to £1,297.50 and kept the £1,500 only because it had been ‘offered’. Just how ‘corrupt’ can this ‘self appointed’ complaints body be? Oh yes, the OSS still would not address Gordon Luckhurst's professional misconduct.

The Legal Ombudsman is Zahida Manzoor CBE who 'Chuckling Charlie', being on an 'ethnic minority' drive gave her a second hat to ware that of 'Legal Services Complaints Director'. What do we know about 'ZM'? She was born in Pakistan and immigrated to this country (UK) with her parents in the 50's and "Daddy" told her to get on you need an education which she got in this country, she was a Mid-wife, worked in the NHS and represented women in ethnic minorities and became the Legal Services Ombudsman in 2003. The PCS claimed there has been a 40% turnover in case workers since Manzoor took up her position and that morale of employees had hit rock bottom, the union is worried about it and 'Chuckling Charlie's' lot (DCA) are concerned.
When Zahida Manzoor came to power as the current 'Legal Ombudsman' she spouted off how she was going to clean up the 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors', I'm not sure what she meant, but whatever it was the 'complaining public' were going to be the losers. Secondly, on the "www.lawzone.co.uk" website an article written by Law Society chief executive, Janet Paraskeva, said "a clear message to solicitors that if they provide poor service to clients they will face stiff penalties". Well that's a load of 'crap' also Zahida Manzoor will not even apply any of the rules in her own 'little blue book', if you don't believe me, read my story based on 'indisputable facts'.
A further quote from the Law Society's chief executive Janet Paraskeva: - "We are already scrutinising every aspect of the complaints handling process. If a process does not help us to provide our customers with excellence, it is either being changed or scrapped". I believe Janet Paraskeva and Zahida Manoor should go and play in "Wacko Jacko's" 'Neverland' for that is obviously the world they live in.

A quote from Peter Williamson, the 'new' President of the Law Society: - "It is also time for the profession to look at the way it works with consumers. We must strive to reduce the number of complaints and ensure that the public is confident that the the Law Society is dealing properly and swiftly with solicitors who fail to provide a professional service". That is 'big talk' from the 'new man on the block' I just might in the next few weeks write to Peter Williamson and ask a bit more about this "dealing properly and swiftly".

On the 5 October '03 I wrote to Peter Williamson but he applied the 'Ignore Rule' (didn't reply).

Top