Howard Cohen, oh dear

[Mightyacorn]

An update, FSO have looked at my complaint and have sent it back to SRA to re-investigate, with a recommendation that action be taken. The FSO is not happy with SRA.....

[DonkeyB]

Great news. That's the second incidence we know of now where the Gordons assessment has been rebuked by the SRA.

 

The old boys' solicitors-looking-after-their-mates-round-the-corner network still needs a lot more kicking, though.

[Mightyacorn]

I did write prior to the hearing , but after the date the documents should have been served on myself and the Court, asking for it to thrown out, but I got a letter back stating the Judge would make a decision on the hearing date. The documents were actually sent the day before the Court (to myself) and presumably sent by fax to the Court. The Judge just said case set aside.

 

 

Apologies, just checking thro' the paperwork, case was actually struck out by the Judge.......

[lickthewallfatboy]

even better!!

[Mightyacorn]

An update, FSO have looked at my complaint and have sent it back to SRA to re-investigate, with a recommendation that action be taken. The FSO is not happy with SRA.....

 

 

Can't say much but :grin:

 

Please, please, please, if you've had a suspect letter from Cohen's complain to SRA

[cactuskid]

Those solicitors have commited an offense under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

 

Want to prosecute them? Message me

[42man]

I thought the administration of justice act 1970 had now been replaced by CPUTR2008 ?

[cactuskid]

I hope not because it defines the 'Corporate Body' which is my defense against any statutory obligations lol

[Mightyacorn]

Those solicitors have commited an offense under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

 

Want to prosecute them? Message me

 

 

As I have complained to SRA, FOS, Legal Ombudsman, etc. had they committed such an offence I am sure they would have followed it up.

[cactuskid]

unfortunately the ombudsman have failed to enact their duties in every way imaginable. The ombudsman facility does not replace ones rights to seek legal remedy or prosecution via other means thankfully