Adam Sampson, Chief Legal Ombudsman (ex)
|Adam the Ant caught with his hand in the Till and got sacked.|
Original - Solicitors from Hell .com
Sampson, Chief Ombudsman
Re;.A complaint concerning Desmond Hudson, L S Chief Exec.
the 9th January I sent a complaint to you concerning Desmond Hudson, Law
Society Chief Executive: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c32-to-adam-sampson.html
which by 'phone your office advised it should be sent to Chancery Lane for
it to be dealt with. At this point let me quote from your website which
states how you differ from the LCS: - http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/practicesupport/regulation/complaints/leo.page
How does it differ from the LCS?.
Practitioners may feel that the new approach does not appear to be very different from the Legal Complaints Service's (LCS) current approach. However, there are some differences:
1. the new scheme will deal with all public
complaints across the entire legal sector - so not only solicitors.
scheme will deal with all public complaints across the entire legal
sector - so not only solicitors".
After taking your 'advice' I filled in
"The Law Society - Contact us" online form: -
9 Mar '03 "I had one ludicrous example recently where a woman wanted to make a complaint against a law firm. She was told by the Law Society that she would have to take it up with the firm concerned first. She did and found that the solicitor who was to investigate her complaint was the solicitor she was complaining against! This kind of thing has just got to change."
would you call the 'outcome' of your advice to send my complaint to Chancery
Lane?? Zahida Manzoor made the above statement over nine years ago and it
seems nothing as changed.
Oh yes, 'maladministration', I will come back to that later.
the 1st Feb I received a letter from Becky West saying "As
the Chief Executives also states, Law Society correspondence in regards
to this matter is now closed". Did I hear you say 'ludicrus'??
the 8th Feb I wrote to Becky West questioning her 'Complaints Handling
The same day (8th Feb) I wrote to the LS President, John Wotton, concerning how my complaint was handled and showing my annoyance: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/john-wotton-ls-president.html
The same day my letter was received at Chancery Lane (9th Feb) a reply was posted back to me from Rebecca Bramble the Presidents PA saying "The Law Society has nothing further to add to previous correspondence from Desmond Hudson and Becky West, and will not be entering into any further correspondence with you on this matter" http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/handler1.html I did reply to John Wotton's PA's letter http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c36-john-wotton.html but true to her word no "further correspondence" was received. That must be some kind of record a 'One day Complaint Resolution', can you match that? Did I say 'Resolution', Oh dear, I believe I got that wrong!
Concerning my website 'solicitorsfromhell.com' which was registered in 2002 did not list law firms as was portrayed, caused by Desmond Hudson's email to a Journalist, by the news media and published on the www. Furthermore, if you read paragraphs 5 & 6 of my complaint which I referred to Chancery Lane, on your advice, you will see I had previously stated to my ex-solicitors "If you would like to write a 'review' of your thoughts concerning my website its rights and wrongs or whatever I will waive all rights to the Solicitors Confidential rule, allow you to use any document(s) from my file, ..." and also gave Desmond Hudson the opportunity that "if he convinces me there are 'derogatory' comments I will remove them without the need of Court Proceedings" which both declined. http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/desmond-hudson.html#des
"Defamation law in England and Wales states that an action for libel may arise when a.statement is published that allegedly defames an identifiable individual, resulting in loss of trade, profession or reputation. A defendant can refute a claim for libel by successfully pleading a defence of justification, for example that the statement is true."
if we revert back to the basics of defamation law; a true statement is.not
deemed to be defamatory.
to my question above "... am I missing something?"
Clearly I am a member of the "public" Desmond Hudson
is the Law Society Chief Executive and the question, is he not part of
the "legal sector" if he is, why did you tell me you
only deal with complaints of poor service by Solicitors?
You may not approve of my website (SfH.com) but let me quote Desmond Hudson from the email in question he sent to a Journalist for the contents to be published; "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important", I believe my website (SfH.com) comes under that umbrella. Let me further quote your website; "Key facts - we will not take sides."
Why am I directing you to 'web-pages'? First of all this letter can stand alone the links are only to show support for all of my comment etc. However, I have to date corresponded with the PCC Reviewer, Lt Gen Sir Michael Wilcocks, sent a comprehensive file to the PHSO, on the 21 Oct '11 a letter and numerous documents to Desmond Hudson then, after more correspondence, a large complaints file to yourself (Legal Ombudsman) which you took copies of and, on your advice, I sent a letter of complaint, dated 17 Jan, and numerous supporting documents to Chancery Lane including a fair amount of other correspondence with Joaco Cutto, Information Compliance Officer, Becky West, Head of Private Office, this was followed with a further letter of complaint and enclosures to the President, John Wotton, dated 8 Feb then Rebecca Bramble PA to the President. I'm sure you will be aware paper takes energy and vast amounts of water to produce, I believe, and I'm sure you would agree, we need to reduce our 'carbon foot print' where possible to save our dwindling natural resources. If you do require hard copies it is only a click or two of your PC mouse. Today we live in an 'electronic' world where the humble chequebook is all but extinct and I'm sure you will remember when the Postman made two deliveries a day, now only one and a few more years down the road the humble 'Postie' will become another extinct species in this modern electronic communications world we live in. The complete correspondence with Chancery Lane can be found at: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/#lsWhere do I go from here, well it looks like an Internet 'brawl' played out on the world stage. I have registered a new complaints website to take Rick Kordowski's 'innovation' to a new level. Checkout http://legal-complaints.com where space will be available for the public to place their own mini websites, for instance http://jonesandsmith-solicitors.legal-complaints.com followed by a 'Traffic-light' system of /red - /amber or /green for a rating purpose. There will be a Forum for general discussion on all complaints procedures a Journalist section and even a section for law firms to advertise i.e. http://lawfirms..... Let me quote from the lawgazette.co.uk;
"The Legal Ombudsman is to publish the total number of complaints processed against law firms - but not the details of what they have done wrong."
I will look at the possibility of http://legal-ombudsman..... for aggrieved complainant(s), if they wish, to fill-in what you intend to exclude.
At this point it might be appropriate to quote from a letter sent to Desmond Hudson by the Information Commissioner after he had sort the backing of the IC;
"There is still a considerable lack of certainty concerning the extent to which website operators are legal
If Desmond Hudson drags me into the High Court the question that would be asked, why he and others didn't take the opportunity to seek a resolution when it was offered not try shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Rick Kordowski took Desmond Hudson to the High Court in a £1m action for allegedly calling him a 'criminal' the Defaming and Derogatory comments about my website, SfH.com, caused by Desmond Hudson's email were there to be seen and I have copies of; maybe my claim would be greater. Let me quote Mr Justice Tugendhat who said in the High Court to Rick Kordowski, he "should take reasonable care in relation to the publication", also Mr Vassall-Adams QC said "...that Mr Kordowski appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy". If you read the letter I wrote to John Wotton on the 20th Feb, that he never answered, I believe it clearly shows he and others are guilty of 'maladministration', remember you advised me to send my complaint to Chancery Lane which I then assumed it would be acted on in the correct manor.Let me quote from my above said letter;
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 9 Feb '12 and note your comment"...and will not be entering into any further correspondence with you on this matter" that's your decision. Your failure to investigate my complaint correctly and follow your own procedures, Desmond Hudson's failure to give answers to my questions and concerns which, I believe would come under "failure to reply" along with "Incorrect action or failure to take any action", "Failure to follow procedures...", "Failure to investigate" and referring to the email Desmond Hudson sent to the Journalist "Misleading or inaccurate statements", makes Chancery Lane guilty of 'maladministration'."
|I believe wrong, bad or inaccurate advice comes under the same heading so I must question why you advised me to send my complaint to Chancery Lane.|
be in this instance you would advise me who is the 'Ombudsman' responsible
for investigating 'maladministration'? http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c36-john-wotton.html#mal
What Desmond Hudson said in his email to Journalist Jon Robins was "...what this website is about is simply a blanket characterisation of all legal professionals as corrupt, and providing a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas. It also asks solicitors to pay to have their entry taken down". As his email cause my website to be named he needs to substantiate his comments also that my SfH.com website was asking for a payment to remove 'entries' which some news media websites had accused my .com website of 'extortion'. Desmond Hudson in his own "vendetta" committed the same 'crime' that he accused others of; "a blanket characterisation of all" protest websites, if a 'John Smith' commits some horrendous crime is it right the finger is pointed at some other innocent 'John Smith's' because they were in the vicinity at the same time??
To see a chronological sequence of my efforts to get a resolution to the problem where first of all I only asked for a correction to an 'inaccurate' publication and an apology on 30 March 2011, twelve of my emails were ignored which allowed the web exposure to spiral out of control then the 'self preservation order' kicked in and now over a year down-the-line I have been forced into actions I would rather have avoided; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/
you access http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/#tbw
you can see where TBW thought they had entered heaven and jumped onto
Desmond Hudson's 'Merry-go-round' and sent me two threatening letters,
it appears Des forgot to tell them just what website he was intending
to drag into the High Court, 'pathetic'. Which brings me to today, Nick
Clegg recently called the PCC a "Busted Flush run by the newspapers
for the newspapers", at this point-in-time you would need to
work hard to convince me the Law Society aren't on the same path.
PS This page can be accessed at; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c37-adam-sampson.html with all 'links' live it will not be visible to others for a few weeks allowing time for some compromise or 'arbitration' if not, Oh well, you can't say I didn't try.
PSS I will possibly cc this letter to the Law Society's Vice President, Lucy Scott-Moncrief, and Deputy Vice President, Nick Fluck, which like yourself and c 'if are not part of the solution then you are all part of the problem'.