C L Finance - Awaiting Court Action. **WON**

[Mightyacorn]

You've already got the link, but just incase anyone else is in the same boat :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/192657-howard-cohen-oh-dear-4.html#post2199074

[Mightyacorn]

Link #83 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/192657-howard-cohen-oh-dear-5.html#post2313049

 

 

REPORT OF GORDON'S LLP THE INVESTIGATORY AGENCY

 

Our ref:

Your ref:

Private and Confidential

By e-mail:

16 July 2009

Dear

Professional conduct

Re: Cohen Cramer

Thank you for your email dated 5 April 2009 received by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As you will be aware from our letter of 20 May 2009, your report was passed to Gordons LLP.

We have now completed the investigation following your report to us on 5 April 2009.

As you knowthe issue(s) you reported were raised with Mr Goodwin a partner at the firm. A response has now been provided to us by Mr McDonnell who is responsible for supervision of the debt recovery department.

Firstly the firm have acknowledged the fact that you received an inaccurate letter from them suggesting that the court had entered judgment against you. They have apologised for this and explained that this arose as a result of human error.

They have explained that they correspond with the Northampton County Court Bulk Issue Centre in relation to a large number of debt recovery cases. Digital requests for judgment are submitted to the court in respect of approximately 2500 cases at one time. The court then processes these requests and in cases where default judgment is not obtained, the firm is notified by list of the applications which have been rejected and the reasons for that rejection. A member of staff at Cohen Cramer then manually checks the list and makes a note on their IT system that a judgment has been rejected.

This is where the human error has arisen, as on receiving the lists of rejected judgments from the court, an appropriate entry was not made against your file on the firm’s IT records. This resulted in the offending letter being sent out to you in error.

As a result of your report, the firm have now added an extra step in their processes to ensure that this error should not reoccur in future. They have explained that in future no such letters explaining that judgment has been entered will be sent out by their offices unless they have received a verified judgment from the court. This will result in each individual file being verified before any such letters are sent out.

We are satisfied that there is insufficient evidence of professional misconduct arising from your concerns. We do not consider that the firm’s supervision procedures were inherently flawed. We consider that there is evidence of regrettable human error, but human error is not evidence of professional misconduct. We are unable to conclude that this human error arose as a result of inadequate supervision procedures being put in place by the firm. There is no evidence at all to show that the letters were sent to you maliciously or with dishonest intent.

We are pleased that the firm have taken your report to us seriously and have explained that as a direct result of this they have tightened up their procedures to avoid future instances of such a mistake being made again. For that we thank you for drawing your concerns to our attention because it is as a result of this that the firm’s procedures have been improved.

Having carefully considered the evidence, however, since there is inadequate evidence of professional misconduct for the reasons explained above, we have decided to take no further action in relation to your concerns and our file is closed.

If you have a complaint about our service, we have an internal complaints procedure to deal with your concerns. If you would like more details of this procedure, I will forward them to you.

You may also request the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) to complete an independent review of our file. The Ombudsman is appointed by the Lord Chancellor to review how we work. If the Ombudsman finds that we have not dealt with this matter properly she can ask us to take further action. There is a three month time limit, which starts from the date of this letter, and ends on 16 October 2009, in which to make your referral. The Ombudsman’s address is:-

The Legal Services Ombudsman

3rd Floor, Sunlight House

Quay Street

Manchester M3 3JZ

Telephone: 0161 839 7262

Telephone: 0845 601 0794 (lo-call number)

Fax: 0161 832 5446

Email:[email protected]

Website: Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales (OLSO)

Please note that we are unable to store our files indefinitely. It is our policy to destroy files after six years unless there is a particular reason not to do so. If you would like us to return any of your personal papers please let us know.

Thank you for reporting this to us.

Yours sincerely

Will O’Meara

Head of Conduct & Regulatory Investigations

Enc LSO Leaflet

[Mightyacorn]

Hi GhostDebt,

 

While you're now well into B & Q Accounts, could you have a look at this and tell me what you think, cheers mate:-

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/BandQ/Image0001.jpg

 

 

I am now going to write my reply to the Legal Ombudsman. I find the whole thing diabolical.

[Mightyacorn]

There is mention of Section 11 of the agreement where it says, "please read this before you sign", that would seem to indicate that there is more.

 

Also what right do they have to say that cancellation rights do not apply if signed 'in store'?

 

 

Opinions please, enforceable or not?

[Mightyacorn]

Hi Maddie,

 

p.s whats TA stand for?

 

Regards

 

 

I think it "trading as" - but i could be wrong

 

I have reported Howard Cohen to FOS, and they have come back having investigated Cohen Cramer. If you look on the bottom of any of their letters it does state Comer Cramer trading as Howard Cohen

[Mightyacorn]

p.s MA will discuss it with the other person as well I think.

 

 

I think you should GD, I am also putting a letter together, as you suggested, to Anne Widdicombe.

[Mightyacorn]

Update - Letter from LSO, not happy with SRA:-

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/Legal%20Services%20Ombudsman/LSO.jpg

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/Legal%20Services%20Ombudsman/LSO0001.jpg

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/Legal%20Services%20Ombudsman/LSO0002.jpg

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/Legal%20Services%20Ombudsman/LSO0003.jpg

 

We wait with baited breath to see final outcome......

[Mightyacorn]

Anyone who has received one of these letters from Cohen's should make a complaint to the SRA immediately, and see what response they get. If they get a standard reply, compalin to the LSO.

 

Likewise anyone who has previously reported Cohen's to SRA should complain to the LSO, even if it is out of the 3 months limit.

 

I pushed the snowball down the hill, it would be nice to see it gather more snow.

[Mightyacorn]

I pushed mine as well, as you know but it was a bit later on.

 

Thanks GD,

 

A few more and it'll be one hell of a snow ball.....

[Mightyacorn]

Anyone who has received one of these letters from Cohen's should make a complaint to the SRA immediately, and see what response they get. If they get a standard reply, compalin to the LSO.

 

Likewise anyone who has previously reported Cohen's to SRA should complain to the LSO, even if it is out of the 3 months limit.

 

I pushed the snowball down the hill, it would be nice to see it gather more snow.

 

Here you go:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/251876-howard-cohen-complaint-sra-4.html#