sgtbush and ill-mannered springs to mind.

Seems we still have a few grumpy types around.

Here is the response I received from the SRA: "I can confirm that the SRA does not hold the information that you have requested. Having checked with the relevant business areas I can confirm that we use the natural meaning of those words, as set out in a dictionary. We do not have any document which elaborates on that definition."

I certainly didn't mean to be unfair to him. I may get back to him if I feel he can offer a reasonable opinion. He didn't mention his success rate. I know he has been hit by a costs order to the tune of 7k so it's clearly not been all plain sailing. I also know discrimination cases are very hard to prove as I've fought many myself. I've had some success and some cases where the Judge wouldn't attach any weight to my evidence/submissions etc. purely because he knew I had brought other cases (a bit like someone on this thread).

It seems you certainly like to bicker. Yes, and you are never wrong too and never treat people unfairly? It must be a gift to the righteous...

Well, he is not a solicitor so he's hardly in a position to advise on such matters and I think it would be unfair to press him on it. Seems a cop out to me. I'm not that emotionally invested. I am all for reasonable argument but you do seem to be approaching this matter with a considerable degree of bias. I think it's fair to say you have even admitted to that.

Firstly, I don't think it's courteous e-mailing people out of the blue with requests for legal assistance. Secondly, I suspect he knows little about public law as he is a disability activist. How about you sum it up as I'm afraid I'm struggling to see it in all the various attacks you've sent my way.

Why would he take on cases on my behalf? If you going to accuse my behaviour on this thread as being unreasonable then please go ahead and substantiate that? I can only presume, as before, you turn your nose up at people who raise various issues and then don't boast about their successes.

So it's all a numbers game for you? I don't see any mileage to be gained by discussing this with you. By not necessarily agreeing to your future predictions about how the SRA may respond to requests for information, deal with a review request and, subsequently, how a qualified and experienced solicitor may consider the merits of a Judicial Review if I feel compelled to explore that?

And you know enough about all my past issues, in all your infinite wisdom, to come to the conclusion that I my concerns were not substantiated? You are also of course aware of the fact that just because something isn't proven in terms of judicial or quasi-judicial processes it doesn't automatically follow that the allegation never occurred as alleged.

With respect to you, you know very little about those matters. So, to propose that because I've raised other issues therefore the problem must lie with me is arguably offensive, whether intended to be that way or not. Further to my last past, I was discussing issues with a disabled person who has brought around 100 disability discrimination claims in a County Court. According to your reasoning, he can't have been successful in the last few claims because that would make him "one of the unluckiest people alive". However, he has been successful in his recent claims and the Supreme Court have recently upheld an appeal in relation to one of his cases.

Another comment that is hardly fair and constructive.

You have really taken a disliking to me haven't you? You can't really expect me to take your comments too seriously when you overtly admitted to trying to discredit or undermine my concerns simply because I have raised issues in regards to other organisations. It is plain that, right from the outset, you weren't going to approach and comment on the matter at hand fairly.

Seems you a not too impressed by something. Sorry you feel that way.

I'll post the response(s) I get from the SRA in case anyone is interested.

Yes, indeed. I am only prepared to waste a limited amount of time and energy.

I wasn't expecting or asking for detailed advice. If they were busy etc. then all they had to do was say that. Yes, I consider their conduct very discourteous and unprofessional, which is why I feel so aggrieved.

You mean comprehensible? These things are open to interpretation, I am just giving you my subjective interpretation. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with my interpretation and with me altogether, as seems to be the case. Yeah, it all comes down to how a "client" is defined. If I did meet the definition then they have a duty to provide me with a proper standard of service (as per the SRA code of conduct), which includes assessing my request for assistance.

Yep, thanks.

Yep, they ignored the complaint too. I have to wait 8 weeks before I can complaint to the LO. I complained on 11 October 2017 (less than 8 weeks ago). The LO may also argue I was not a client of theirs, and therefore their actions were acceptable, which is another reason I want clarity on that issue.

Yes, to a degree. The SRA has already dismissed my complaint regarding the second matter (when the firm just ignored me and my complaint) on the grounds it felt I did not meet the definition of a "client". They may shed some light on how a "client" is defined, in particular a "prospective client". It seems there may be a process or procedure in place to ask them to review their decision though and they may agree they got it wrong in their initial decision. I'd certainly like some clarity if nothing else. I've not complained about the second matter to the LO yet. I have about the first matter.

In that case, she is still an individual (i.e. not an organisation). Whose decisions can be challenged by judicial review? Decisions made by public bodies in a public law capacity may be challenged by judicial review. If a public body is not exercising a public function, for instance where it is acting as an employer, or in a contractual relationship with a supplier, or if it acts negligently, its actions are governed by private, not public law. Increasingly public functions are contracted out to private companies. If a private company is deemed to be exercising a public function, its acts and omissions are governed by public law. For example a private company that runs a prison is deemed to be exercising a public function and so its actions in the running of the prison are governed by public law. Who can bring a judicial review? You have to have an interest in the decision you are challenging to bring a judicial review, or what is called “standing”. That means you have to have sufficient connection to the subject matter of the claim. If the remedies the court can offer might make a practical difference to you, then the test is likely to be met.

He is still an individual and it's a case brought against a non-government body. That's what you asked for or are you backtracking now? So, you are still suggesting a member of the public cannot challenge a regulator's decision by way of JR? Yes, thanks for the impartial 'advice'.

Sorry but your grammar isn't the best so I am struggling to understand what you are positing.

What on earth are you on about? https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/dogged-and-obstinate-bacp-prevented-from-proceeding-to-adjudicate-on-a-complaint-already-disposed-of-by-the-ukcp