Thread: Complain about the litigation behaviour of the bank's solicitors

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...use-court.html

Similar Threads:

• Complain about litigation behaviour of the bank's solicitors
• Complain about the litigation behaviour of the bank's solicitors
• Advice needed - accepting bank's offer post litigation.
• bad behaviour
• How to Deal With a Stroppy Letter from The Bank's Solicitors

This is a must for Abbey as they are one of the worst offenders. I shall lodge a complaint immediately regarding my first claim and see what the result is.

already sent my email off

I must say that they were very prompt in replying to my complaint, however they completely missed the point and refused to look into the matter unless the court complained about the solicitors conduct. I pointed out the abuse of the court process and quoted several reports including the BBC one where it was directly related to Abbey and Ashurts solicitors in a reply. Lets see what happens but I am dissapointed that they won't even consider the matter and appear to be defending their actions with a political spin type reply that went off on a complete tangent to the nature of my complaint. If anyone request I can post the entire email thread on here.

Yes, please do noob.

To Whom it may concern

I am writing to lodge a complaint about a firm of solicitors working on behalf of the Abbey Bank PLC where I believe
they are violating their professional ethical code and more imortantly breaching their duty to court - to whom their
first duty exists.

No doubt you are aware of the highly publicised bank charges campaigns whereby consumers are being forced to
enter into litigation in order to resolve their complaints against their banks. I have recourse to complain
about Ashurts Solicitors and the conduct in which they handled my individual case.

The case in question was listed as 6QZ69704 lodged on the 3rd October 2006. By the 23rd October Abbey lodged a defence
which has now become known as their standard template sham defence. It is identical to hundreds of others that I have
evidence of and has to this date never been in a court room to test. A copy of this defence is attached. A copy of the
intimidatory letter that accompanied it is also attached offering a 50% settlement. The letter also requested that
I sign a statement that confirmed terms and conditions that would be attached to the settlement.

On the 27th October an Allocation Questionaire was issued by the courts at additional cost to myself and required
completion by 13th November 2006. As per many other cases, Ashurts filed their aq on the very last day possible
continuing the delaying process. A directions hearing was ordered by the court for the 9th January 2007.

At this point, and bearing in mind I was a litigant in person, I informed Ashursts of a change of address and sent all the
documentation that I would be relying on in court together with the relevant case law. I recevied no acknowledgement of this.

Throughout December I telephoned and emailed several times and left telephone messages in an attempt to gain acknowledgement
of my letter and attempt settlement negotiations without having to bother the courts. All were ignored and no messages returned.

Finally I wrote an email on the 5th January, 4 days before the directions hearing, to remind them of the hearing and to once
again attempt settlement negotiations. The reply I received was once again intimidatory stating that firstly due to an oversight
they will not be attending the hearing but have submitted a set of directions that will require me to submit all my documentation
and they will submit theirs proving that I would not be entitled to claim anything as they were not penalty charges. This was in fact
in direct opposition to the defence they had submitted stating they were penalty charges and were comensurate with their actual losses.

I received a copy of a letter that they submitted to court for the directions hearing which was in fact a duplicate of the draft directions
that I had submitted to them and the courts already. Once again demonstrating template litigation with no intent to defend in court.
At the directions hearing the Judge commented on the poor spelling and grammar of the draft directions submitted by a firm of solicitors
and by the 15th of January were tidied up and made into a court order. I was once again forced to submit all my documentation to
Ashursts within 14 days of the order and they had 14 days from receipt of mine to submit to the courts and myself.

I emailed Ashursts solicitor advising her of the court order and the timescales involved and confirming that I had once again
submitted the documentation via recorded delivery. The responce back via email was quite simply "Thanks". Finally on the 23rd
January I received a telephone call from the solicitor at Ashurts informing me that that would like to negotiate settlement.
The settlement was eventually agreed at the full amount I had asked for including interest and costs once again proving that they had absolutely
no intention of court representation. I requested a scanned copy of
cheque once raised and on receipt of this I would withdraw the claim from the court. This never materialised however on the 27th of
January the promised cheque duly arrived. I withdrew my case once funds were cleared in my account.

I am currently pursuing a second case of identical nature and unfortunately I am experiencing exactly the same delay tactics and court
abuse. However it would appear that this time the ignoring of correspondence has gone a stage further. I have referred to the previous
case and written several emails and letters without a single reply.The exact same template defence has been used and the exact same delay
tactics. However this time no offer of any settlement has been received and their absolute refusal to enter into any form of negotiation
clearly shows their intentions to abuse the court system once again.

In conclusion it is blatantly obvious that Ashurts Solicitors and in particular, Inga Kirkman are abusing the court process in order to delay
settlement of cases that are simple in law but cost litigants in person considerable stress and cost to instigate. They have no
intention of defending any of these cases in court and use stock template letters and defences in all of their cases. As you yourselves
have already stated, this is a very serious violation of their ethical code and breach of their duty to the courts. It is a blatant misuse
of the court system to frustrate justice and intimidate litigants such as myself.

Kindest regards

The reply

Thank you for your enquiry.
We hope that it will be helpful if we briefly outline the powers of the Law Society. As the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, we can investigate complaints about solicitors conduct no matter who raises a complaint. The Customer Complaints Service can also consider the service which solicitors provide to their clients if such a complaint is raised by the client in question.
If a finding of professional misconduct is made, we can consider applying disciplinary sanctions against the solicitor in question, and in the most serious cases can refer the matter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. A finding of professional misconduct does not in itself give rise to an award of compensation.
Whilst we can consider complaints about the overall service provided, we are not able to consider complaints about the advice given by a solicitor. Nor are we able to question the way that a solicitor chose to represent a client, or whether a certain course of action was in the client s best interests. Offering an opinion on such matters would in effect amount to legal advice as to how the case should have been conducted, which is not our function.
I understand that the firm acts for another party in this matter. I can confirm that solicitors are obliged to act in the best interests of their own clients and to follow their instructions. If the firm does not do so, it is open to the client to complain. A solicitor is entitled to rely on the instructions that they are given by their client and, as long as they do not know that they are false or untrue, they have no obligation to apply a pre-trial screen to establish the truthfulness of any instructions.
It therefore follows that we are unable to consider the way in which the firm chooses to represent their client. If the matter does go to Court and the Court makes any criticisms of the solicitor s conduct in conducting the matter before it, please contact this office again and the matter can be reconsidered in the light of any criticism that has been made.
If you have any further queries, you may wish to contact the Legal Complaints Helpline on 0845 6086565 and speak with one of our helpline agents. Our lines are open between 8 am and 6 pm Monday to Friday. Please note calls may be monitored/recorded for training purposes.

My Reply

Thank you for the prompt response and I do understand the points you have raised and the reasons for drawing them to my attention. However, the unprofessionalism of Ashurts and the blatant abuse of the court system was the nature of my complaint. If their client has instructed them to act in this manner then perhaps there is a point to be made. The abuse of the court process with no intent to defend has been clearly publicised and criticised by a number of Judges. Please see this particular report on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6701231.stm that outlines Ashurts policy and the result. Many more Judges are sharing the same opinion and I did detail the fact that the Judge in my own directions hearing criticised the professionalism of Ashurts and the fact that they were unlikely to attend any court hearing or trial. The times reported on Sunday that these firms of solicitors are causing serious issues with the Judicial system and even the online court service has gone into meltdown. Solicitors have a duty to the courts first and foremost. They are blatantly ignoring this duty as they have never ever stepped inside a court to defend a single one of these cases and they have absolutely no intention opf doing so. They are simply using the court process to intimidate people into dropping their claims and dragging out the length of time it takes to reach full settlement.

I am dissappointed that you have missed the point I was raising particularly as you have clearly stated that you will not tolerate abuse of the court process. I am now convinced that this sham will continue and no action to advise your members will be taken to dissuade this abuse.


Their Reply

Thank you for your enquiry
If you have evidence to show that the court have criticised the way in which the solicitors have been dealing with this matter then this may amount to professional misconduct which we could consider further. An assertion alone is not enough.
You should write to us at the address given below providing us with evidence to support your complaint
The Solicitors Regulation Authority
Victoria Court
8 Dormer Place
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 5AE
Yours sincerely
Email Enquiries Team
My reply

Once again thank you for a very prompt reply. Unfortunately the criticism from the judge in my individual case was merely a conversation between myself and the Judge and as it was only a directions hearing where the solicitors failed to attend, therefore no notes were taken and no written evidence is available, conveniently.

It would appear then that the written evidence from Judge
David Mackie who publicly criticised the actions as an abuse of process is insufficient and the individual case quoted and reported on the BBC site is also irrelevent. Dissappointing that one public case showing Ashurts involved in this abuse and public comments from a Judge describing identical behaviour from other solicitors together with my own experiences will not amount to a complaint.


No further replies received

Despite this kind of reply, do not stop.

I am forwarding them to a press contact who is looking at the conduct of solicitors and how they are treated by their regulators.

SRA fob-offs are to be expected - despite their new "independence". They have not she their old culture yet.
The merely need a little help.

Have just emailed them, will let you know when I receive a response.