Original - Solicitors from Hell .com Est. Feb 2003
Joyce & Roger Phipps expeirence with Law Society's Complaints Procedure.
We have read your web pages with interest (and amusement - It's a wonder you still have your humour with all that you have gone through / are going through) and can see that you have more than enough to deal with - However
Everything you are saying is true and has happened / is happening to us - The Protection Racket is a joke and a complete waste of time, money and a persons life and they do not care that they will ruin people who are not as strong as you and ourselves through their sheer bloody-mindedness and ignorance. There is no way that the Law Society are Consumer Complaints as you say they should be renamed Solicitor Protection - The same as the BMA??
We have been having / are having exactly the problems, lies, contradictions, incompetence etc., etc. from solicitors - Law Society and Ombudsman being pushed from pillar to post - We have said / are saying exactly the same as you and once you stand up to them they pull rank - ignore you - intimidate you and, using your words, treat you like a piece of shit with absolutely no respect instead of a consumer (member of the public) with genuine complaints against rouge solicitors.
Solicitors know that they can get away with their wrongdoings and will not be brought to task.
As agreed with a solicitor (number two) who had been advising us re our complaints against solicitor number one, the Law Society completely mishandled our complaint completely getting their facts wrong with their misinterpretations, assumptions, opinions and contradictions etc., ignoring our response drafted and supported by solicitor number two, facts and evidence submitted and even solicitor number one's own written admissions, in order to side and agree with solicitor number one despite we had solicitor number two saying that solicitor number one was completely out of order under the Law Society's own rules?? And as you said the Law Society was using using what solicitor number one did, against us??
Like you, according to solicitor number two, solicitor number one broke all the rules under the Law Society's "Poor Service", which solicitor number two built our complaints on??
But where did that / does that leave solicitor number two who had been advising us that solicitor number one was / is out of order and that quote "The Law Society will through the book at him (number one) and he (number two) would not be surprised if his (number one) name did not appear in the Gazette" HOW CONVINCING WAS / IS THAT - WE COULDN'T LOSE????
Upon receiving the Law Society's response, solicitor number two said it was clear that the Law Society have completely misunderstood OUR (his and ours) complaints and have ignored our response. facts and evidence.
He therefore himself sent our complaint to the Ombudsman (ZM) telling us that she will look at our complaint more effectively than the Law Society and that she will contact him for his response and further information??
What solicitor number two did not tell us was, as you know, that the Ombudsman does not look at complaints but at the way the Law Society handles complaints. So we have been led up the garden path by solicitor number two??
Therefore in our case despite the Law Society having all their facts wrong - Like you, ZM completely got her facts wrong and agreed that the Law Society (despite we can prove with facts and evidence got their facts and response wrong) agreed that the Law Society did not mishandle our complaint which was based upon solicitor number two's advice??? We can prove that the Law Society mishandled our complaint so how can ZM say that they handled it correctly.
I forwarded a 130 page complaint to the Ombudsman and Law Society clearly highlighting where they both have / had their facts wrong, which is conveniently being ignored by both of them??
And what about solicitor number two - In view of all this the Law Society and Ombudsman, although they will not say have obviously disagreed with solicitor number tow and his advise??
We are no further forward than we were before we met him and took his advice and we are approximately £15,000 lighter.Solicitor number two failed to follow up representations that he made to us and the Complaints Partner is ignoring our complaints - So, in affect, he is now doing almost the same as solicitor number one who he said was out of order??
Solicitor number two knows that the Law Society will do nothing if we complain - Therefore it is pointless in us complaining to the Law Society in order to get back onto this bent Merry-Go-Round. Reading your article makes us think that solicitor number two may have been knobbled by the Law Society??
We are still being a thorn in the Law Society's and Ombudsman side by writing to them making them look stupid, because their comments are so stupid, contradictory and bloody minded and, as you know, they never answer or give you direct answers your questions.
We are not as conversant with procedures like yourself - However we believe in justice.
We note that there are other sites that we have to look at - How many people do you you receive replies from who are in the same boat?? Have you any idea how many people (different ones) write to the other sites?? Can we get them all together??
We notice that Which Magazine are doing a campaign against the legal profession is there any way we can contact them??
We note that you say that the internet is a powerful tool and we agree - Is there anyway that we can all get together (perhaps pool the sites etc. to have one official site - apologies if you have already gone down that route) to warn the public and expose these practices and firms where the public does not have a leg to stand on when they come up against solicitors who - Take your money - Foul up - Then try to blame you - and then come off record leaving you to pick up the pieces and the bill?? Getting away with what they have done to you??
We are with you but don't know what to do I.E to get a National - International - Worldwide campaign going.
We find it quite amazing that the Law Society are telling you to sue them - What a disgrace and a joke?? Talk about as you would say "covering their arse" - They are supposed to be protecting you - AREN'T THEY???
Joyce & Roger Phipps,
|Meet the 'Present-Day' Chancery Lane 'Pit-Bulls' and give your opinion|