Draft letter to the SRA

LoveNorfolk

The_Deep wrote: »

I am probably wasting my time, but I am accused of having too much anyway. Any comments please?


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dear SRA[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wish to bring to your attention the names of several firms of solicitors whom I believe are acting unethically, and bringing your profession into disrepute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Their names are ([/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Here I will list the usual suspects) [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]All of these firms act for Private Parking Companies, many of whom use threatening tactics unlawful means, and deceit to obtain monies to which they have no entitlement. Indeed one, company, former clampers UKPC has admitted tampering with evidence and was suspended by the DVLA from accessing registered keeper data. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Some of these solicitors have been severely criticised by judges, one such was at S!!!!horpe (oops) County Court where a solicitor, Miss Coates, was threatened with imprisonment by the Judge, (VCS v Ibbotson, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1 SE098490) . Another solicitor. Michael Swartz has already come to your attention. It is believed he is ignoring the restrictions you placed on his licence to practice, and is still acting for a PPC.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am sure that you are aware of this these wrongdoings as you will have had many complaints from victims, but I will remind you what they get up to: [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]inappropriately quoting Beavis v Parking Eye, sending misleading information about CCJs to appellants, claiming fees for more than the Law allows, refusing to answer perfectly valid questions, delaying the sending of documents to appellants, issung non-compliant LBAs, issuing court papers then backing down at the last moment, failing to carry out due diligence, charging their clients for shoddy work.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]All of the foregoing is probably well known to you, but you appear to be turning a blind eye. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There has been a spate of claims recently against registered keepers for events which took place before POFA introduced keeper liability. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]All of this is well documented on the internet on Money Saving Expert, Peppipoo, Legal Eagles, The No to Mob, and The Parking Prankster, Consumer Action Group, and many more.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The PPCs are not acting in the public interest and often in defiance of the will of Parliament, one firm in particular appears to be targeting the disabled . They are causing severe distress to the victims, many of whom are old a vulnerable. I believe that there has been at least one suicide because of such harassment[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]At present, being a solicitor is regarded by the public as an honourable profession, but that could change unless you put your house in order.[/FONT]

Brilliant The Deep! :T

The_Deep

Good news, I have today received two very encouraging replies to my letter. Unfortunately they have also asked for further details of the hapless Miss Coates of toothbrush fame. I hope she will be alright, I am sure that she has learned her lesson.

What is needed now is a flood of complaints about SCS, Miah, WH, BWL, and Gladstones, and complaints about WHOPLA decisions. We appear to have opened a small hole in the dyke.,

I take the view that the SRA is a lot more than just an old boys' club, the manner in which they have responded leads me to believe that they are very concerned about these bad boys in their midst. nnsider

HO87

@TD

I don't think I would describe the SRA as an old boys' club either. However, much like the rest of their profession their movement in a speedy investigation is almost imperceptible.

However, all the time that you have so-called solicitors engaging in substantive crime what little resource the SRA has is likely to be fully occupied. As a consequence cases where others trip the light fantastic around or through rules to the detriment of their victims will always take second place. The point I have endeavoured to emphasise in complaints is that the latter conduct is more insidious and far more likely to cause greater damage to the public's perception of the profession than a straightforward instance of a thief with his hand in the till.

Annoyingly that point has never been picked up on.

beamerguy

As The Deep said
"I have today received two very encouraging replies"

That must suggest that the SRA is seriously looking at this.
I would imagine that with the flood of complaints, the SRA is overwhelmed especially with the fact that this "wild bunch" could damage their integrity.

The SRA must either sanction or suspend those involved as they are not in the interests of the public.

The SRA Principles are highly complex and the general public feature a lot regarding protection.

Maybe many consider the SRA is an "old boys club" and it's now up to the SRA to prove otherwise.

The outcome of this, and there must be a satisfactory answer, or the SRA will probably receive more letters than DRP send out ?

Once the wild bunch have their wings clipped, do you think other solicitors will follow behind in support of PPC's ?
I would imagine the private parking industry will be a taboo subject. Who will PPC's use to persue their scam ?
In house legal beagles or not, would they risk a DIY


The report email is report@sra.org.uk

The_Deep

The SRA have now replied. I am afraid that we are all wrong, WH are a fine upstanding firm and a credit to the profession.

beamerguy

Clearly shows that the SRA are NOT a fine upstanding organisation and are actually just "an old boys club" after all.

They might as well get rid of their so called "principals" as they are not worth the paper they are written on, maybe replace them with a "scammers charter" ..... that would be more suitable

SRA credibility now out of the window

pappa_golf

The_Deep wrote: »

The SRA have now replied. I am afraid that we are all wrong, WH are a fine upstanding firm and a credit to the profession.

reminds me of the twitter page that was posted online , the one where WH had just been awarded the POPLa contract

BPA spokesperson:

WH are NOT debt collectors , they are solicitors .

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

reminds me of the twitter page that was posted online , the one where WH had just been awarded the POPLa contract

BPA spokesperson:

WH are NOT debt collectors , they are solicitors .

We all know that the BPA fabricate and tell porkies, right time of the year for "pigs in blankets"

Solicitors ?????? Soliciting is much more appropriate

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

The SRA have now replied. I am afraid that we are all wrong, WH are a fine upstanding firm and a credit to the profession.

Oh I see...quelle surprise.

The_Deep

I have now received a reply from the SRA about my complaint against the Miah Solicitors.

An almost clean bill of health. A mild slap on the wrist for misrepresenting Beavis, but their licence to scam is intact. Not a mention of their excessive charges, why do I bother.