Zihida Manzoor & Co Working for the Protection of Lawyers
"Latest News" Go to>Page 2
Click Here to see 'Links' to other discontented websites
June '03 I receive a letter from the Ombudsman's office which says all my complaints have been dealt with but this simply is not true and at this point this 'Website' was born.
5 June '03 I sent an e-mail to the Editor of 'The Lawyer' asking her to publish the 'Rules Enforcer's', Mr Kevin Martin, Chair of the Compliance Board, opinion on the 'Client Care' agreement. Helen Power just ignored my e-mail. What direction "The Lawyer" now?
10 June 2003 I wrote to the Ombudsman's office explaining I was not happy with their investigation into my complaints and ask that they show exactly where the 'Client Care' agreement was dealt with I also ask why she is denying in the face of indisputable evidence that any collusion took place between the solicitors and the OSS. At this point it shows the Ombudsman has now sunk to lying in her attempts to 'protect' the solicitors and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
13 June '03 I receive a letter from the Ombudsman's office trying to tell me that the OSS had dealt with my complaints adequately. Well some 'half baked' Caseworker at the OSS who could not 'tell her arse from her elbow' first failed to address most of my complaints, got as confused with addresses as my solicitors, Thos Boyd Whyte, had, referred to the Defendants "slipping back" to addresses that they had not even left and found only four months of 'delays' when the consensus of opinions of a District Judge, a Barrister and a Solicitor showed there were six years of delays. Complaints Procedure or Protection Racket?
17 June '03 I have today sent a letter to the Ombudsman's office, it possibly won't be the last for the Ombudsman's 'little blue book' states "If you are not happy with the service you received from the Legal Services Ombudsman, you should write to the Service Manager", I would not want to be accused of not following my complaint through to the end, not that I have any faith in the system but it could be said by the Ombudsman I didn't follow the complaints procedure to the end.
3 August '03 I have today written to the Legal Ombudsman's office 'Service Manager' to show my dissatisfaction at the way my complaint has been dealt with by Zahida Manzoor. If you read my letter you will see that although clients' affairs and their business are supposed to be, under the "Client's Charter", kept 'confidential', it appears it is 'common practice' for Lawyers and the complaints departments to 'blather mouth' your affairs between themselves. I don't believe this is ethically correct and brings into question whether the Law Society should be investigating their own members. I ask about the free consultation and advice they give if you consider your solicitors have been 'negligent', I ask why was I not informed of this service, but Zahida Manzoor will continue to be evasive.
4 August '03 As after 2 months there has been no response from Helen Power (City Editor of the 'Lawyer' website) it is obvious I am being ignored and she is hoping I will eventually disappear into the 'abyss'. Well "if Mohammed won't come to the mountain, the mountain will have to go to Mohammed". I have today written direct to Kevin Martin the 'Rules Enforcer' on how 'solicitors clients' can get their solicitors to comply with the 'Client Care Agreement' when the solicitors refuse to honour it, the 'Office for the Supervision of Solicitors' refuse to enforce it, and Zahida Manzoor, the Legal Ombudsman, deliberately lied that this part of my complaint had been "dealt with" when she knew it had not.
7 August '03 A prompt reply from Kevin Martin said he will give a copy of my letter to his 'successor' "requesting an appropriate response" (Kevin Martin is now Deputy Vice President of the Law Society and on his way to being President in 2005-6 via Vice President).
14 August '03 A reply to my letter dated 3 August from the Ombudsman's office by Simon D C Entwisle, who was the 'Service Manager' but is now the 'Operations Director' said the 'Service Manager' (if he exists) no longer deals with complaints, it is now the "Finance and Administration Manager is the person who deals with such complaints" but then goes to say "She has no authority...". It sounds to me to become a 'member' of the Law Society you have to know how to play 'musical chairs' with a 'Cavalier' attitude and the motto of "All for One and One for All".
September'03 Mr Kevin Martin's 'Successor', Chair of the Compliance Board, appears to have switched on to 'Run Silent Run Deep' (to the young ones out there, a reference to W.W.II submarine 'warfare' black & white 1950's film).
1 September '03 I have sent a second letter to Kevin Martin, 'Deputy Vice President of the Law Society, suggesting he should offer advice to the 'new man' in his old job 'Chair of the Compliance Board'. This letter has enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to Zahida Manzoor (Legal Ombudsman) dated 21 May 2003 that I don't believe she even bothered to read lets hope Kevin Martin does.
3 September A very, very prompt reply from Kevin Martin telling me "The new Chair of the Compliance Board has certainly not disappeared", 'Silly Me' I thought he had been sunk in his 'Submarine'. From Mr Martin's abrupt and prompt reply I get the feeling, just as I got with Mr Higgins QC, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, The General Council of the Bar and the Legal Ombudsman that if you criticise a member or part of the Law Society all Members of the Law Society will unite in their defense of each other. A question I have been asking for a long time and may be Mr Martin or his 'successor' could tell us how does the general public get a, to quote the Ombudsman's 'Little Blue Book',"detailed, unbiased investigation" into their 'complaints' when such attitudes exist?
bit of Mr Kevin Martin's, Deputy Vice President of the Law Society,
13 September I received a letter from Mike Tyson 'SORRY' I meant the Chair of the Compliance Board, Richard Hegarty of Hegarty & CO Solicitors, 48 Broadway, Peterborough and he his ducking and diving so much I don't think 'poor old Mikey' is in his class. The bottom line is Richard Hegarty has no regards for the 'rules' and total disregard of clients and 'Client Care Agreements' (probable the reasons I mixed him up with 'Mikey'), may be Hegarty & CO Solicitors of Peterborough is a firm of solicitors that should be avoided at all costs and Richard Hegarty should use the title of "Chair of the Non-Compliance Board".
17 September I have today written a letter to Mike Tyson the 'Enforcer' 'WHOOPS' I meant to say, the Chair of the Compliance Board, Richard Hegarty telling him he is a waste of time and I will be writing to the President of the Law Society. I have further suggested to him, if he has not got the 'Balls' to do the job of the 'Rules Enforcer' he should step down. You would think Mikey 'WHOOPS' 'Dickie' would do his job and investigate to see if there had been any "non-compliance" of the rules before ignoring people and then referring to them as "disgruntled complainants".
The Law Society publish on their website a 'Client's Charter' and under 'Solicitors will:' it states what you should expect from your solicitors, in my case they failed on every point, what did the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and the Legal Ombudsman do? They shut their ears and eyes in their efforts to protect my solicitors. "http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/dcs/pdf/CCG_charter_english.pdf"
One question that needs asking is, why do members of the Law Society stick together? I believe we all know the answer to that one. They also say you only need 'one bad apple in a barrel...', well we will see if the saying is true after I write to the President of the Law Society.
At this point it it might be helpful to read this web site page in case you believe the English law system is all 'Buttercups and Daisies' the reality is more like 'Ring-a-ring of Roses we all Fall Down': - http://www.unjustis.co.uk/Alerts/Lawyers_for_your_business.htm
5 October 2003 I have today sent a letter to Peter Williamson, President of the Law Society for as can be seen 'Dickie' "The Society's Law Enforcer", who is new to the job, does not yet understand what his job is and only believes the 'rules' that he should 'enforce' are the ones that protect members of the Law Society. I have enclosed with my letter to Peter Williamson various quotes, taken from the Law Society's web pages, made by himself and other senior members of the Law Society, however I do suggest these were all made 'with tongue in cheek'. I have also pointed out, with good reasons, that their 'Complaints Procedures' is nothing short of a 'Lawyers Protection Racket'.
25 October 2003 I have not received any reply from Peter Williamson, President of the Law Society, very discourteous, I think you would agree. However it just goes to prove how tight knit the 'legal professions' are and the lengths they go to keep their 'Lawyers Protection Racket' in tact.
25 October 2003 Also today I have written to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as you might or might not know the Lord Chancellor 'appointed' Zahida Manzoor to the Legal Ombudsman's position in March this year ('03) and also, in the face of some opposition, Lord Falconer is going to put her at the head of 'Oflaw' the new 'Miracle Drug' that will be replacing the 'Wonder Drug' (Office for the Supervision of Solicitors) that in turn superseded the 'Aspirin' (The Solicitors Complaints Bureau) in March 1996, the 'Aspirin' being 'Cloned' by the Law Society themselves. As we all know, it doesn't matter how many times the 'Dealer' shuffles the cards an Ace will always be an Ace, a King will stay a King and the 'Deuce' will always be the lowest card in the 'Pack'. If you read the letter I have written to Lord Falconer you will see Zahida Manzoor has described a complaint, identical to a part of my complaint, as 'ludicrous' in the way the Complainant's solicitors handled it and goes on to say "This kind of thing has just got to change". 'Oh she who talks with forked tongue'. As I said some time ago, this woman lives in "Wacko Jacko's" 'Neverland' . God Help any solicitor's client who dares to try this Miracle Drug 'Oflaw' that will be administered by Zahida Manzoor.
See parts of an article taken from the "Consumers' Association"
6 November '03 'Dickie' the Law Society's Chair of the Compliance Board rang me at home during the evening, to me it sounded like a touch of 'intimidation'. However, if you would like to know what he said and why you should be wary if you are a client of, or are considering using Hegarty & CO Solicitors who have offices in Peterborough and Stamford click here.
14 November '03 Today I received a letter from Janet Paraskeva, the Law Society's Chief Executive, in reply to the letter I sent to Peter Williamson. If you read this letter she sent to me it would be found it bears no relevance whatever to the 'Client Care Agreement' and the avoidance of the rules, it is very clear that the Law Society's favourite 'Ignore Rule' is being applied. Somewhere along the line I suggested Zahida Manzoor and Janet Paraskeva were floating around somewhere in 'Wacko Jacko's Neverland'. It is more likely Janet Paraskeva has moved off to 'Disneyland' to talk to Minnie and Micky for I'm sure they will understand her better than anyone I know.
17 November '03 I have today replied to Janet Paraskeva's letter but as above I might as well write to Minnie and Mickey for I'm sure they would at least listen and even they would give a more sensible reply that bore some resemblance to the questions that was asked of them.
24 November '03 After over 4 weeks I have received a reply from Lord Falconer's Advocate, James Shutlar, he must be aware that I am trying to establish the validity of the 'Client Care Agreement' and noncompliance of the rules. He tells me the Law Society makes the rules and "This lays down clear guidance on client care issues" also if I'm not satisfied I should complain to the 'Protection Society' sorry I meant to say 'The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors'. Any idiot would by now know 'I have been there, done that and got the Tee shirt with the motifs on it'. Let us assume Lord Falconer's 'Advocate is no idiot' so what is this letter saying? Well I believe it boils down to clear 'intimidation', just as Dickie the 'Rules Enforcer' tried, If you look at Lord Falconer's letter it is saying 'if you don't like the way we apply, or in our case 'don't apply' our own rules, hard luck, take us to the High Court'. It doesn't matter which way you look at it but Lord Falconer is saying you will have to go to the High Court amongst his 'cronies', plus it would mean great expense, to get the Law Society to comply with it's own 'rule book', this is sheer 'intimidation'.
5 December '03 Today I decided that I should send a complaint concerning a 'Breach of my Confidentiality' by Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, to the OSS. As the OSS state 'in-house procedures' should be tried first, I have written to Dickie.
14 December '03 I have replied to Lord Falconers letter of the 24 Nov last suggesting he is using the famous 'Ignore Rule' which is adding strength to the Law Society's 'Protection Racket' and he knows it. What else does he know, well he is aware that a number of members of the Law Society are guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' but it suits him to stay quiet and he is using 'intimidation' to shut me up. If you read the 'Consumer Association' report you will see 'intimidation' is a favourite ploy of the Law Society to stop solicitors' clients from complaining.
23 December '03 Having received no reply from Richard Hegarty to my letter of the 5 Dec last I have decided to send a complaint to the OSS. With their 'Rules Enforcer' on the line it will be interesting to watch the 'Protection team' in action. See: - 'Xmas Pressie for Dickie' click here.
Someone should ask the question now that 'Dickie The Rules Enforcer' has in his own interests thrown the 'rule book out the window should such a person be in charge of 'Enforcing' the rules? The second point is he has now created a 'precedence' that other members of the Law Society will expect to be applied to them. Will this 'Protection Racket' stop at anything?
5 January '04 I have again written to Lord 'Tony's Crony' Charlie Falconer pointing out my human rights have been violated and the Law Society are in 'Breach of the Data Protection Act' also as they are using the 'Client Data Files' as if it is a 'Criminal Data Bank' for the benefit of Lawyers this 'Violation of the Data Protection Act' has Probably been going on for years. If you have a past or current complaint with the Office for the Protection, oh sorry I meant to say 'Supervision', of Solicitors (OSS) look or keep a close eye on your 'Data Files' that are held by the Law Society. The 'Data Protection Act' rules state "You should expect a reasonable response within 40 working days" lets say the 5th March.
27 January '04 I received a reply from Lord 'Charlie's' advocate, James Shultar, still trying to pass the buck, concerning the 'Client Care Agreement and noncompliance of their rules he states "This is a matter for the Law Society and you should pursue your concern with that body" What kind of moron is he? If he paid attention to what I've been saying he would understand you can't get through to them. However he said I should write to The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas about the OSS and Thos Boyd Whyte's violation of the Data Protection Act, no mention of my rights being violated so I will write to him again.
4 February '04 Wrote to James Shultar pointing out who I have already written to at the Law Society and asked him who else I should try. On page 2 I made some quotes from Lord 'Charlie's' impressive speeches, if you are like me they will give you a good laugh, click Here to read the letter.
18February '04 putting together a data file to send to The Information Commissioner's Office that will show the extremes the Law Society go to protect their own. Noncompliance of the rules, conspiracy and violation of the Data Protection Act they do it all. Then you get Lord 'Charlie' Falconer blathering his mouth off saying things like "...ensuring that the people of this country know what are their rights, how they can obtain them, and how they may enforce them" but when it comes to the 'crunch' he's like the rest of them, he 'ducks and dives' quicker than 'Mikie' (Tyson).
18 February '04 I have today sent the above file to Mr Richard Thomas, The Information Commissioner, who deals with any violations of the Data Protection Acts. Click Here to read the letter. I will report progress as we go.
20 February '04 I have today sent a copy of the above 'data file' to Sir Stephen Lander, The Independent Commissioner, click Here for his job profile. (Data file sent by 'recorded delivery' on Sat 20 Feb). You would think that after a year this 'Independent Commissioner' would have acknowledge receipt of the 'data file' I sent him, especially as I did ask for an acknowledgement that he received it, I suppose that old 'Ignore' rule, that is part of the Law Society's 'Protection Racket', came into play.
19 February '04 I received a letter from the OSS and because 'Dickie' is a member of the Council of the Law Society there are for him "special procedures" so the Law Society are instructing an 'independent' solicitor to investigate my complaint. A solicitor investigating a more senior member of his profession! 'Brother watching out for brother' so to speak. This has to be 'a game for a laugh' especially as 'Dickie' is the Law Society;s 'Rules Enforcer' who has undoubtfully violated the Data Protection Acts.
19 February '04 I received a letter from Lord 'Charlie' Falconer's office suggesting I get "independent legal advice...". If there is a honest Barrister out there who is not tied to the 'apron strings' of the Law Society, give me an e-mail but I won't hold my breath.
3 March '04 sent a letter to the data controller asking for information, he must give a reasonable reply within 40 working days.
3 March '04 received a reasonably prompt reply from the Information Commissioner's office with a 'Request for Assessment' form to fill in. See my return letter dated 10 March that lists the people/departments of the Law Society that I have contacted as there is not enough room on the 'Assessment' form.
4 March '04 I reply to Charlie Falconer's letter that states "You now suggest I go back to another member of this bent and twisted 'Protection Racket' for an 'opinion' that will be nothing short of a defense..."
25 March '04 I have today received a letter from Lord 'Charlie' Falconer's office that states, "I have looked through your file and although I sympathise with your concerns the Department is prevented from commenting and intervening in individual cases". I believe that is a clear indication ("...sympathise with your concerns...") that 'Charlie' agrees with me that the Law Society are 'Self Protecting, Self First and the only rules that apply are the ones they stuff down 'Complainants' throats to protect themselves. Click Here to read my reply dated 8/4/04 and read how 'Charlie' talks of a "set of enforceable rules" and despite the crap he blathers on about peoples 'rights' he could not care less, in fact click Here to read why I suggested he "...probably wears girls knickers..."
1 April '04 I received a reply from the OSS's Data Controller (Bob Stanley, Information Manager) to my letter dated 3/3/04 and although, according to the rules, he should have acknowledged my request within 14 days, it took him 28 days while he looked for a way out. Well it appears, despite the Law Society's Data Protection Notice and the "set of enforceable rules" that the Data Controller is bound by, the Complainants' complaint files don't come under the Data Protection Acts which is surprising for according to the Data Protection Acts a violation of the Data Protection Notice and the "set of enforceable rules" is an automatic violation of the Data Protection Acts. 'Confused?' Let me quote Lord Falconer "a complainant is somebody who doesn't quite understand the procedures, and therefore must be wrong", I believe that says it all. It appears members of the Law Society can 'Blather Mouth' client information to anybody they like with complete impunity but they don't have to tell a Complainant anything. Click Here to read my reply and see how corruption within the Law Society is alive and well established. Click Here to read a letter I sent (17/4/04) to the Information Commissioners Office (Data Protection Acts), maybe I can get his comments on his powers over Data Files that the Law Society keep on solicitors clients.
20 April '04 this time it took only seven working days for Bob Stanley to reply to my letter, he tells me that Complainants' complaint files do not "qualify as a relevant filing system" and therefore is not covered by the Data Protection Acts 1998. It would now appear despite the Law Society's Data Protection Notice and the "set of enforceable rules" that the data controllers must comply with the OSS/Data Controller can 'Blather Mouth' information from Complainants' files to any 'unsecured' source they like without the data subjects permission with complete impunity. Read my reply that shows the Law Society operate a 'double standards system' to keep their 'Protection Racket' intact.
Concerning the paragraph above, Bob Stanley, Information Compliance Manager at the OSS, states Complainants' complaints files do not "qualify as a relevant filing system" so data/information cannot be extracted from these files when a Complainant asks. If you read what Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Service Standards at the OSS who stated to me on the '7 May '04' (see below) any data/information (personal, unrelated or otherwise) in a complainant's file can be extracted for the use (even for their personal use) by any member of the Law Society when requested and according to her they don't need to comply with any of the 'Set of Enforceable Rules' that according to Lord 'Charlie' Falconer's advocate, James Shutlar at The Department of Constitutional Affairs, must be complied with. 'Lawyer's PROTECTION RACKET' or what? In 1996 when the OSS came into being the Law Society said; "The Office's declared aim is 'excellence and fairness in enforcing standards'" what 'idiots' we must be to believe a load of 'crap' put out by this 'Fine Upstanding Profession', why would we ever sink so low as to 'complain' about anything they would or might do?
7 May '04 I received a letter from the OSS, from no less than the 'Manager, Quality & Service Standards' Aman Virk and it appears she can give out data from Complainants' complaints files to anyone who 'phones her up saying they are a member of the Law Society. What Aman Virk states is that data in Complainants' complaint files is "Law Society business" and as long as this information is not "passing outside of the Law Society" it can be taken from complaint files and given to any unsecured source, but when the subject of that data uses the correct procedures to collect data from their files the OSS tell you the files are not of "sufficient sophistication to provide the same or similar ready accessibility as a computerised filling system" in short the only people who cannot retrieve information from their file is the Complainants'. These people could teach the 'Mafiosi' how to run 'Protection Rackets'. Read my reply to Aman Virk dated 15 May ,04.
20 May '04 regarding the letter above that I received from Aman Virk and my subsequent reply, I have also sent a letter to Lord 'Charlie' Falconer, The Lord Chancellor, on the subject of the OSS, in the form of Aman Virk, ignoring and bending the rules to protect a member of the Law Society, Richard 'Dickie' Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, also of Hegarty & Co Solicitors I have also written to The Information Commissioner's Office.
21 May '04 'Dickie' has instructed Willoughby & Partners to contact my Hosting Company to try and shut me down. Thos Boyd Whyte have done likewise. Click Here
2 June '04I received a letter from the Information Commissioner's Office that in essence states 'Dickie' while he is Chair of the Compliance Board can 'phone the OSS and any Lawyer's office that hold Complainants/Client records, and freely plunder their personal information for his own personal use. Mr Thomas's Advocate, Jonathan Gray, states that any complainant's file held by the OSS is open, over the 'phone (Security, security, security. What Security?), to anyone who states they are the 'butt' of that complaint long before it is allotted to a Caseworker so that solicitors can use the information to their advantage before the complaint comes under investigation. He believes collusion between the OSS and the Complainants' solicitors to use information from complaints files for 'unrelated' purposes to the detriment of the Complainant he states "would also appear to be in compliance with the Act". Lord 'Charlie' Falconer's advocate, James Shutlar, tells me 'Security' and 'Processed for limited purposes' (the term "processed" covers the obtaining, holding, use and disclosure of data) are part of the 'set of enforceable rules' known as the 'eight principles'. I have asked 'Charlie's' advocate, James Shutlar, how the Complainant can get these 'set of enforceable rules' enforced, but he doesn't know that (I wonder who does?).
15 June '04 (my birthday, happy birthday to ......) I received a letter from Lord 'Charlie's' lot this time Nalini Deen, Legal Services Development Division, she states the OSS who we remember came into being in 1996 after ousting the 'Solicitors Complaints Bureau, saying . "The Office's declared aim is 'excellence and fairness in enforcing standards'...'a new emphasis on conciliation' and 'major initiatives in client care'", has recently changed its name. "The Law Society has created a new Consumer Complaints Service (CCS), launched on 19 April, to focus exclusively on rapid resolution of complaints about poor service and which replaces the OSS in that roll". Nalini, Nalini, Nalini, like 'Charlie' you have your head up your arse you can't see or smell the shit all around you, you can't hear what people are saying and when you open your mouth all that comes out is a load of crap.
16 June '04 I have replied to The Information Commissioner's letter but as is common knowledge this 'Lawyer's Protection Racket' is impenetrable. Click Here
21 June '04 received a reply from the Information Commissioner's office, 5 days, 'WOOPEE' somebody has got their 'Flying Boots' on. The IC is deliberately ignoring the fact that 'Dickie the Chair' collected my personal information from, possibly Thos Boyd Whyte (my ex-solicitors) which they must then be guilty of a violation of 'Confidentiality' rule and 'Dickie the Chair' would, I believe, be guilty of 'Professional Misconduct' for collecting this information, over the 'phone from my ex-solicitors, on me for his personal use. The IC also wishes to ignore the fact that over the 'phone is not part of the rules for the collection of data. On the other hand the IC probably believes 'Dickie', being the 'Rules Enforcer' has the 'rights' to 'phone complainants' at home during the evening and 'intimidate' them, then again Aman Virk at the OSS seems to beleive 'Dickie' regularly 'phones "disgruntled complainants" during the evening to discuss their grievances. Was that an elephant that just flew past my window? Yeah, it must have been old 'Dumbo' flying straight out of the kids comic's. Replied to 'King Richard's' letter on the 1st July. Click Here
23 June '04 I wrote to Aman Virk at the OSS, 'Whoops' sorry the CCS, as I have had no reply to my letter dated 15 May, her reply was dated 24 May she said it was 'incorrectly addressed' and I received it a month later on 24 June, 'Yeah right' my solicitors had the same trouble 'addressing letters'.
28 June '04 I received a letter from Harvinder Kang (Miss) "we have re-sent you another copy of Miss Virk's letter to your address on 22 June 2004. If you have not received Miss Virk's letter of the 24 May 2004', please contact me on 01926 823123, and I will be happy to provide you with another copy". Well we know what makes these people happy 'getting addresses wrong so they can write more letters' then again 'Dickie the Chair' couldn't be more happier than when he sympathetically 'phones "disgruntled complainants" at home during the evenings.
2 July '04 Aman Virk refuses to investigate my complaint against 'Dickie the Chair' so today I referred my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman. Oh dear who's that? Well the OSS might now be the the CCS but the LSO is still the same Leopard with the same old 'spots' ZM.
7 July '04 received an acknowledgement from the LSO's office no chance that 'leopard' could have changed its spots! Click Here for ZM's passed 'achievement'.
12 August '04. I e-mailed a complaint to ZM on 2 July about the CCS's refusal to investigate my complaint and their failure to follow the Law Society's laid down procedures when complaints are made against such people as 'Dickie the Chair' (members of the LS Board). On the 27 July J A Vallance (Mrs) from the CCS tells me (by letter addressed correctly) my file has been forwarded to the LSO's office, three weeks after it was requested. Today the 12 August the LSO Support Team tell me they received it
19 August '04 King Richard the Information Commissioner has re-worded the rule book in his part of the Protection Racket. One example, he has changed the word 'reveal' (to tell or to inform somebody) to 'request' (for somebody to ask for information) which now means that all complaints sent to the CCS, and before the complaint comes under investigation, the solicitors have the right to collect information from that file to use for 'unrelated' purposes that include the solicitors own personal gain. Click Here to read how King Richard has given solicitors free access to complainants 'unopened' complaint files and click Here to see how he has given access to any independent law firm's clients files to Members of the Law Society Board. King Richard's own rules states "If someone wants to use your information for another purpose you should be told about it and given a choice" but he does not believe this applies to the Law Society.
8 September '04 replied to King Richard's letter today but it doesn't matter how many times you point out the rules are being violated, as its the Law Society who are ignoring the rules, he just won't listen. All part of the Protection Racket I suppose, click Here to read the letter.
16 September '04 The 'lawsociety.org.uk' and 'parliament.uk' logged onto my web site today and accessed over 150 pages between them, a week after I wrote to King Richard.
24 September '04 I received a letter from King Richard's office, a week after my site was visited by the Law Society and Parliament. King Richard has always given the impression that there has never been any contact outside of his office in connection with my complaint. Yeah Right, I wonder why he enclosed the Parliamentary Ombudsman's contact 'phone number. Read my reply dated 13 October to Mrs M E Manwaring Compliance Manager under King Richard's reign then ask yourself if it is believable that King Richard has not conspired with the Law Society and Parliamentary Ombudsman.
4 November '04 I have received a reply to my letter from King Richard's 'Compliance Manager' (nice 'title' nice job, but you have to wonder if these people have all their 'Marbles'). After nine months since I sent King Richard an in-depth file (see '18 February above or click Here to see letter) Mrs M E Manwaring (the 'Compliance Manager' no less) states "I am not sure what you mean...". It has taken King Richard nine months they have wrote to me numerous times and are now saying to me they are "not sure what you mean...", that is commonly known as 'Taking the Piss'. After Jonathan Gray, Compliance Officer (my my we do have lots of 'nice titles') stated Dickie the Chair 'phoned me during the evening to discuss with me an "issue" which I had "raised" Mrs M E Manwaring is saying that Jonathan Gray not being a party to that "conversation" would not know why Dickie rang me. It would appear Jonathan Gray lied, no doubt under instructions, to protect Dickie the Chair click Here to see 'Old Boys' Network' a quote by a 'High Ranking Lawyer'
15 November '04 Click Here to read my reply to King Richard's Compliance Manager and at the end of this letter you will see they are telling me I have cause to sue the Law Society, although I suppose I should at this point quote 'Lord Charlie' The Lord Chancellor: - "a complainant is somebody who doesn't quite understand the process, therefore must be wrong".
23 November '04 I received a very prompt short reply from 'King Richard' stating he "noted" that I "intend to contact the Parliamentary Ombudsman" there was no reply to anything that I had said, the 'Ignore' rule came into play that is all part of the Law society's 'Protection Racket'.
7 January 2005 I have put together a very large file that contains clear evidence that the Law Society violate the rules so as to protect their members. These 'rules' described by 'Lord Charlie', the Lord Chancellor, as a "set of enforceable rules" and are "enforceable" by 'King Richard', Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner, who first of all doesn't know the difference between BT and the GPO which any school kid will tell you, one is information given/received verbally (over the 'telephone') the other is information given/received by correspondence ('letter'), may be 'King Richard' missed out on 'junior school'. Back to my 'very large file', on Friday evening 7th January I gave it to Dr Howard Stoate MP for my Constituency for referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Click Here has the Parliamentary Ombudsman been 'knobbled'? Click Here is somebody 'lying' and if you read this letter in its entirety it shows the extreme lengths 'King Richard' is going to, to 'Protect' the Law Society.
11 January 2005 I was surprised how many people there were at Dr Stoate MP for Dartford surgery Friday evening, which I notice he has two every month. However I was very surprised to receive a letter from the House of Commons on Wednesday morning 12th January (2 working days) confirming that he had forwarded all my correspondence to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
18 January 2005 I received a letter from the Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor. Even though the OSS is now the CCS this letter shows the system is still geared-up to 'Protect' members of the Law Society. This letter shows Aman Virk, 'Manager, Quality & Service Standards' at the 'Protection Society's Head Quarters' (CCS) ignored/altered/violated the rules in their normal process of an investigation, in this case to 'Protect' "Dickie the Chair" (Richard Hegarty of Hegarty & Co in Peterborough and Stamford). Also in this letter Zahida Manzoor considers two months of "inactivity" to be a 'delay' and awards me £100. Although when a Judge a Barrister and a Solicitor's joint opinions showed Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors in Bexleyheath, Kent had six years of 'delays' she didn't consider there had been any "inactivity". When the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors advised me to send them an official complaint because the Senior Partner had refused to see me and discuss my grievances, which in its self was a violation of the Client Care Agreement (Professional Misconduct), and despite my 'phone calls also letters took over two years to allot my complaints file to a Caseworker, Zahida Manzoor didn't think there had been any "inactivity". Oh yes and even though my complaint was about the Senior Partners "Professional Misconduct" the 'Protection Team' and Zahida Manzoor refused to investigate it. Yeah Right. You have to wonder if these people have all their 'Conkers'.
20 January 2005 received a second second letter from Dr Stoate MP containing a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office acknowledging receipt of my referral.
28 January 2005 I have sent a further file to my MP Dr Howard Stoate to be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. More later.
February 2005 one year ago I sent a 'data file' to Sir Stephen Lander, the Independent Commission, I did ask that he acknowledge that he received it, but as I should have expected he played the 'Ignore' rule. Click Here
9 February 2005 I have received the Parliamentary Ombudsman's result to my referral and has can be expected the 'Old Boy Network' came into play. Although I gave documentary proof that information was collected from my complaints file that was used for 'unrelated' purposes to my complain and despite that 'King Richard' stated that "That there is no such provision in the Data Protection Acts" that allows solicitors to collect information from complaint files the Parliamentary Ombudsman couldn't see the trees for the wood, on the other hand I don't suppose she looked. I will shortly reply which as we know will be a further waste of time.
28 February 2005 I have replied to the Parliamentary Ombudsman's letter in it I refer to the Data Protection Acts as a 'Toothless Beached Alligator' let me quote King Richard; "Failure to comply with the data protection principles is not a criminal offence", "The Information Commissioner has no powers to punish a data controller for a failure to comply with the data protection principles" and "The only action we would been able to take would have been to require the Law Society to take steps to prevent similar future contraventions". Would someone like to tell me just what use the Data Protection Acts are?
28 February 2005 I have send a letter to Zahida Manzoor (LSO) that relates to the above letter to the PO. Bearing in mind the CCS say they "help you if you have a problem with your solicitor" this letter shows the OSS/CCS set me up with reasons for my solicitors to sack me. Zahida Manzoor chose to 'Ignore' this letter.
31 March 2005 I received a letter from Frances Evans, Team Manager Client Relations Office (CCS) in the two months they have been carrying out their investigation into 'Dickie the Chair' behaviour they did not keep me informed or give any information on Dickie's response. What they are doing is the CCS, Chair of the Compliance Board (Dickie) and the LSO (Zahida Manzoor) are putting their heads together behind closed doors to determine the outcome in the best interests of Dickie no doubt.
5 April 2005 I have written to Zahida Manzoor (LSO) for it appears if you do your sums ie, CCS x Dickie the Chair + LSO = LSSSPL. (Law Society Secret Services for the Protection of Lawyers).
18 April 2005 I received a letter from the LSO office telling me once again that my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte is closed and I believe I am now going to be shipped of to Auschwitz-Birkenau to have my brain experimented on by Dr Melinger.
28 April 2005 I receive a 2nd letter from Frances Evans, Team Manager Client Relations Office (CCS) telling me ZM is still 'sitting' on my complaint against 'Dickie the Chair', I wonder what she will 'hatch' out this time.
30 April 2005 I have written to the LSO's office to explain that I will refer to Rocky the Rottweiler (OSS) as Fido (CCS) as Zahida Manzoor told me to do on the 18 Jan '05. If you read this letter you will see what a load of 'crap' that comes out of the mouths of ZM and Charlie Falconer and neither can tell their arses from their elbows.
27 May 2005 I received a letter from the LSO office telling me ZM will not 'revisit' my complaint against my ex-solicitors, Thos Boyd Whyte in Bexleyheath Kent. It appears to me that as ZM is a "members of the Race Equality Advisory Panel" she is free to 'Discriminate' against anyone she likes.
31 May 2005 I have received a third letter from the CCS this time I have gone from a Team Manager to Jacqueline Street Customer Complaints Executive, my my, I am being 'looked after'. It appears ZM is still sitting on my complaint against 'Dickie the Chair' which is now two months.
29 June 2005 Sent a 'Questionnaire' to ZM relating to her 'Sexual Discrimination' against me.
1 July 2005 I have received a fourth letter dated 31 May 2005 which is "Further to our letter to you dated 31 may 2005" from Laura Pagan, Team manager, Complaints Centre 2 of the CCS. I'm not sure if there were 2 letter sent to me on the 31 May and one took a month to get to to me, whatever, ZM is still 'sitting on' my complaint against 'Dickie the Chair' or maybe she is asking 'Charlie' for advise.
12 July 2005 today I wrote to Mr Soley MP to ask him about questions he asked Zahida Manzoor, Legal Services Ombudsman, in Parliament in May 2004 that concerned 'Solicitors Practice Rule 15'.
12 July 2005 I sent a letter to my local MP, Dr Stoate, that included the contents of Mr Soley MP's letter (above).
Sat 22 July '05 I received a letter from ZM's solicitors in reply to a Questionnaire I sent her on the 29 June in relation to her Sexual Discrimination against me, Click Here. I will publish their response which they tell me will be by the 5 August.
22 July '05 I received a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, via my MP Dr Stoate.
27 July '05 the LSO returns my referal about 'Dickie' to the CCS this took her over five months and it is now seventeen months since I made the complaint on 23 December 2003.
5 August '05 letter from ZM's solicitors they cannot "identify" the 'Sexual Discrimination' problem.
19 August '05 I received a second letter directly from the Parliamentary Ombudsman stating "your case is still awaiting substantive consideration by the Ombudsman".
18 August '05 sent a reply to ZM's solicitors to show her 'Sexual Discrimination' against men.
25 August '05 I have received a letter from the CCS (Lara Pagan, Team Manager, Complaints Centre 2) telling me that they are "still considering the LSO's response". You will remember in my complaint against Dickie the Chair' the LSO and the CCS put their heads together then ZM sat on it for a few months before returning it to the CCS and now the CCS are spending a few months "considering the LSO's response". You have to remember all this conniving was and is being done behind closed doors, I wonder what happened to that 'Transparency' the Law Society talk about. See a letter I wrote to ZM almost 5 months ago.
27 August '05 I have written a reply to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, via Dr Stoate MP, with reference to Zahida Manzoor LSO. Acknowledgement received on 6 Sept '05.
26 September '05 I received a letter from Ann Abraham, Parliamentary Ombudsman, in this letter (highlighted in yellow) she states, concerning the Law Society and the Legal Services Ombudsman, "the actions of these bodies fall outside of my jurisdiction". Click Here and see it appears Ann Abraham's 'Remit' according to what her website is saying is different to what she said in her letter.
27 October '05 I received a letter from the CCS's Laura Pagan, Team Manager, telling me she is waiting to hear from Ol' ZM about my complaint against Dickie the Chair which I made on the 23 December 2003. The Law Society talk about 'transparency', well Dickie the CCS and Ol' ZM are carrying out an 'investigation' behind closed doors so where does this 'transparency' come in?
8 November '05 After spending sometime considering Ann Abraham's letter I decided to write once more to my MP and ask him to contact the Master of the Rolls who is involved in making the Law Society rules so therefore must be responsible for seeing they are enforced. Click Here to read the letter.
25 November '05 I received a further letter from Laura Pagan again telling me the CCS are waiting for a response from Ol' ZM concerning 'Dickie'. I made a complaint about 'Dickie' almost 2 years ago to the CCS and referred it to Ol' ZM on 4 July '04 (17 months ago). I stated in my 'Questionnaire' concerning her 'Sexual Discrimination' against me that I was suffering from 'Victimisation' I think this gives credence to that claim.
13 December '05 I received a letter from ZM's solicitors, Mace & Jones that states "Your allegations of sexual discrimination ...". I haven't made any 'allegations I have only, at present, sent a 'Questionnaire' which is my right also M&J are trying, I believe, to intimidate me by saying I'm out-of-time, I have a 'weak' case and put the 'scarers' on me by saying they will claim cost against me. Ol' ZM is only supposed to answer the questions in the 'Questionnaire' not make threats, if I do decide to start court proceedings she will probably send round Dickie the Chair to sort me out. M&J tell me in thier letter I don't have a case, that sound right for we all know where the Law Society members are concerned they are 'Judge and Jury'.
30 December '05 I reply to Mace & Jones letter telling them they have still not given an answer to why a man was not treat equal to a woman, also I have pointed out 'Examples of maladministration by Sir William Reid' suggesting she is probably guilty of 'maladministration'.
13 January '06 Click Here to read a letter I have sent to my Member for Parliament, Dr Howard Stoate, that included the above letter that I sent to ZM's solicitors.
18 January '06 I received the response from the CCS to my complaint against Dickie the Chair and although the Ombudsman said they should produce evidence and answer my question the nearest Alison Crawley, Director of Regulation Compliance, got was to say that Dickie "indicated" and "this information did not raise any issues for us to be concerned with". Now that is what the Law Society call a transparent, completely unbiased investigation that took over two years and was carried out behind 'closed doors' by ZM the CCS and Dickie. It as taken the CCS 12 months (18 Jan '05) to concider the LSO's report on my referral to ZM.
25 January '06 I replied to the CCS's Alison Crawley, Director of Regulation Compliance, letter hoping to get more information than that Dickie "indicated".
25 January '06 Click Here to read a letter from Ol' ZM's solicitors Mace & Jones. ZM stated that in an identical scenario to me what happened to a woman she described it as 'ludicrous', 'unacceptable' and 'things have got to change'. In my case she "vehemently denied" it is 'unacceptable', how can something be 'ludicrous', 'unacceptable' and 'things have got to change' for women but in the case of a men it becomes 'acceptable'. Answer, the Legal Services Ombudsman is a woman who doesn't believe men should be treated equal to that of women. Zahida Manzoor who is the Legal Services Ombudsman is clearly guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination' and for refusing to implement the Law Society rules is guilty of 'Maladministration' also for what she said in Parliament when being questioned she is clearly a 'liar' and 'hypocrite'. Click Here it appears Ol' ZM is not popular with her workforce and it looks like she is 'incompetent' of running the office of Legal Services Ombudsman, never mind she has her head so far up 'Charlie Falconer's arsehole she has become 'Teflon Coated'. Yuck!! On the 4 May 2004 ZM answered questions in Parliament and what a load of 'Crap' she came out with. Did ZM get her job on the "merit criteria have been relaxed to meet quotas" also click Here and Here also Here.Well done 'Charlie' soon we will be able to play 'Spot the White Man'.
today I received a letter
from the CCS refusing to give me any information concerning what
Dickie the Chair gave to the
CCS in relation to my complaint. It appears the Law Society are
exempt from the 'Freedom of Information
Act' and don't have to tell a complainant anything.
February 2006 two years ago I sent a 'data file' to Sir Stephen Lander, the Independent Commission, I did ask that he acknowledge that he received it, but as I should have expected he played the 'Ignore' rule. Click Here
20 February '06 I have written to ZM again about the CCS's investigation into my complaint concerning Dickie the Chair to see if she lives upto her promises of 'fairness and transparency' within the complaints procedures.
14 March '06 I received a 'Customer feedback form' from the CCS that asks what I think they 'did well', these people are 'comedians'. This letter was from Victoria Anthony, Customer Complaints Executive, I was once told never to trust anybody with two 'first names' ('Victoria' 'Anthony') 'Blair' is a 'first name' as well isn't it???
17 May '06 A letter from ZM who knows the CCS in their investigation into my complaint have ignored the Law Society's own rules as well as misusing these rules and have also gone to the extreme of breaking the law but has decided that this is normal procedure for the Law Society and its members.
30 May '06 Today I wrote to ZM pointing to where the rules were ignored and misused also where the CCS has violated the law which clearly shows how the CCS and the Legal Services are colluding in a cover-up to protect Dickie the Chair.
9 June '06 ZM the Legal Services Ombudsman I suppose it could be said that today she has 'sacked me' for accusing her of 'collusion' with the Consumers Complaints Services of what the outcome of my complaint would be which evidence clearly shows to be the case.
16 June '06 I reply to ZM's letter and point out she is using the fact that I commented she had been 'colluding' with CCS on the outcome of my complaint as a guise to refuse to carry out her duty in a transparent and unbiased fashion. She has allowed the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Service to ignore and misuse their own rules also to break the law to protect 'Dickie the Chair', although I made three indepth references at the time she was 'colluding' with the CCS (20/2/06, 5/4/06 and 30/4/06) in her replies she made no reference to these clearly accepting the fact. When I made a reference to her 'colluding' on 30 May 2006 this time it is so serious that she personally withdraws her services as Ombudsman which is her 'final solution' for protecting Dickie the Chair.
30 June '06 Zm's 'Mouth Piece' Rob Bartram, Legal Adviser, replies to my above letter he gives no answers to any of my concerns just accuses me of making an attack on ZM's 'integrity'. What 'integrity'! The woman is a hypocrite, guilty of maladministration, sexual discrimination, intimidation, she lies, she condones the avoidance and misuse of the Law Society's rules by the CCS and allows them to violated the law, conspires with the Law Society to protect 'Dickie the Chair' and other members of the 'Legal Mafia'. If there is anyone out there that can show me that there is an ounce of honesty in this woman send me an e-mail.
12 July '06 Zm's 'Mouth Piece' Rob Bartram, Legal Adviser, letter above states in relation to my allegation that ZM conspired with the Law Society to protect Dickie the Chair "...amounts to an attack... ...upon the Ombudsman's integrity. For the avoidance of any doubt, the allegation totally is refuted". The LSO, Zahida Manzoor, has used this 'allegation to 'personally' remove my rights to the services of an Ombudsman, I have put together a file that I have today sent to Zahida Manzoor which clearly shows she and her office 'colluded' between 18 Jan '05 and 18 Jan '06 on the outcome of my complaint. I will wait 14 days for any response from ZM, if any, then I will put this file on this website at: - www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Zmanzoor.htm. Oh yes, I wonder when she was educated in this country if she ever learnt the meaning of 'integrity', 'honesty', 'unbiased' and 'transparency'??
July '06 no
reply from Zm so I have written to her again,
I will just quote the 2nd to last paragraph of that letter;
31 July '06 I receive a letter from Zm's 'Mouth Piece' Rob Bartram, Legal Adviser, he talks of the "reasonableness" of Ol' ZM's 'Report', this man should be on the 'Fruit & Veg' stall along with ZM and Janet Paraskeva. There is no mention of 'Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990' that the CCS failed to comply with, you have to wonder why she (ZM) said they (CCS) must comply with this Act!
9 August '06 again ZM's 'Mouth Piece' Rob Bartram writes to me now telling me the Ombudsman will not reply to my letters. Clearly as ZM doesn't want to answer questions that old 'Ignore' rule swings into action a favourite method to 'Protect' the Law Society.
17 August '06 as I never 'walk away' from a dispute I again write to ZM this time I tell her is a 'liar', a 'hypocrite', guilty of 'maladministration', 'sexual discrimination and 'collusion' with the Law Society also guilty of trying to 'intimidate' me. I final suggest, if she's 'got the balls, to take me to the High Court for 'defamatory' and/or 'defamation of character' (I wonder what odds I could get on that bet).
21 August '06 After sending an enonamois e-mail to 'Chuckling Charlie's' (DCA) office from a fictious e-mail address I receive a reply that begins "Dear Mr Gray", there is no fooling Ol' 'Chuckling Charlie'.
4 October '06 What did 'Chuckling Charlie' have to say, "...the Legal Services Ombudsman's office was set up to be independant of both the legal profession and the Goverment. This is so complainants can be assured that their case will be investigated by a person who is completely independant" and then finishes off with a touch of 'intimidation' i.e. if you don't like it, take us to the "High Court". Well we all know ZM (LSO) as her 'Head & Shoulders' so far up 'Chuckling Charlie's' areshole she is now 'Teflon Coated' "Yuck". I love that bit "completely independant", how can that woman be independant when to defend members of the Law Society she tells lies, withholds evidence, breaks the law and the LS rules also allows the LS to do the same, will not give answers when she is them
October '06 to July 2005 I have sent e-mails to many people and bodies like the
I will update as things 'progress and develop'.Top