The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors - OSS *
New! Latest letter to CCS - What's the point I hear you say!
* Now the CCS - Consumer Complains Service - as of 19/04/2004
Also the Office for the Legal Services Ombudsman (OLSO) See below
Note: 30/12/04 - I have simplified the detailed chronology... enough has been written on the failings of the OSS/CCS to last a lifetime. Having endured it I'm inclined to agree with countless others on most points.
In Brief
September 2003 - I complained to OSS about Wayman / FDC Law. OSS's "investigation" didn't start until late December 2003
In January 2004 OSS agreed FDC Law should have provided billing information and ASKED them to provide it. FDC Law refused the OSS's requests for this.
Also in January we turned up evidence that suggested criminal double-charging. Again FDC Law refused an explanation to the OSS though (I heard) "they admitted it was confusing"
In February 2004 - OSS confirmed in writing (see this letter) that Principle 17.03 of the Law Society Rules applied.
Also in February we turned up a "hidden" document that suggested FDC Law's deceit dated back even further. These last two points are of course the "nub" of the problem. OSS was happy to do it's half-hearted "investigation" as long as this didn't look like a SERIOUS matter. It was at this point, when evidence suggested that there was something SERIOUSLY WRONG with Wayman's conduct and "billing", that things ground to a complete halt.
March 2004 I tried the OSS's own complaints procedure - their web site stated that they would respond in a given time frame. Surprise! Surprise! - they didn't. I also tried raising a complaint with the Quality & Service Standards (Q&SS) Department of the OSS - no joy!
April 2004 I consulted my MP. He wrote to them and finally in June 2004 I had "nice" letter from Q&SS offering me £250 in compensation for their previous "poor service" and a promise that matters would be dealt with swiftly by the Parliamentary Casework Team. What a joke! The PCT were even worse. Eventually they "closed the case" having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
This of course left me open to complain to the OLSO
Remember, the OSS had agreed in writing (twice) that billing information was due to me. They had stated that "Professional Misconduct" was defined as a breach of their rules and that Principle 17.03 applied.
In September 2004 the OLSO, having reviewed the OSS "file", stated that their own investigation into the way the Law Society handled the complaint was necessary.
During the course of the OSS/CCS "investigation", two things had happened...
The most repeated excuse for lack of progress was that "someone else had the file". It seems that in these days of networks and computer records they still shove bits of paper into a folder and pass it around. Such efficiency! I already have one letter from them about a "misfiled" document in this case. Just how easy would it be for CCS to (accidentally or otherwise) send an incomplete "file" to the OLSO?
OSS / CCS always tried to confuse matters with "twisted logic" and the "ignore rule". To stop them doing this I eventually narrowed things down to a single question. I also asked my MP to put this question to the Parliamentary Casework Team (PCT)...
"What steps will the CCS take to ensure that it's member complies, however belatedly, with principle 17.03 of Law Society Rules?"
I challenged CCS to either answer this question or to (now) state that Principle 17.03 did NOT apply. Faced with an impossible situation they simply closed the case. I protested which resulted in a largely unintelligible "answer" and a statement that the case would remain closed.
Strangely? The Ombudsman's report seems to have totally missed the point - this ONE point. Why? OSS agreed the reasonable course of action for FDC Law, asked them for the information and then did NOTHING when they refused to comply with the requests of their Governing Body.
The report claims that I first contacted the OSS on 3rd October and yet the date I have is 25th September. If the "file" is incomplete then maybe other things are missing too?
The report states "..the Law Society explained virtually from the outset, if you believed that you were entitled to further information as to how the costs in question had been arrived at, then the appropriate course to take was to raise your concerns with the court" This is manifestly untrue. "From the Outset" the Law Society AGREED that more information was due to me, AGREED that my request was reasonable and ASKED FDC Law to provide the information due - they EVEN cited Principle 17.03 of their own rules.
In fact, the ONLY suggestion I do have, that can even remotely be said to suggest a return to the Courts, is an email from Greg Clark in which he says ... "You may wish to take independent legal advice on this point and/or refer it to the police" - umm, I wonder WHAT the LSO (or her staff) have been reading? Even the DATE of the report suggests collusion, though I accept that this may simply be coincidence.
Well, the report by the LSO concluded with a suggestion that "... it is open to you to refer back to the Law Society and invite them to consider whether any significant issues remain outstanding"
By my own experiences ... the Law Society's Rules for Professional Conduct are not worth the paper they are written upon. Unscrupulous solicitors can quite safely ignore them because the Law Society won't lift a finger to enforce them.
Still, I would not wish to leave any stone unturned. The legal Services Ombudsman herself has LONG been critical of the lack of openness in "investigations". I, myself, am fed up with "closed books" and "secret files"... so here is my latest OPEN COMPLAINT against FDC Law - NB: It's 5 boring pages. This update 6th January 2005
I remain undecided about the OLSO - did the Law Society pull the wool over their eyes by sending in an "incomplete" or misleading file, or are they simply too busy to be bothered? Are the suggestions (by others) that collusion and lying goes beyond the OSS/CCS and extends to the OLSO? I DON'T KNOW!
I will say this... outside the Courts, there is almost NO REGULATION of these so called professionals - some of whom are CRIMINALS. How do you tell which are criminals and which are ok? I suggest that you do NOT use FDC Law.
>>> Update 20th May 2005 - No Changes yet! See here and here. <<<