Howard Cohen Complaint to SRA

[Mightyacorn]

I have recently complained to the SRA regarding the Professional Conduct of Howard Cohen & Co.

 

CL Finance purchase an outstanding debt and Cohen's act on their behalf. As soon as (and sometimes before) the debt is purchased Cohen's makes a claim through Northampton Bulk County Court, without even seeing the papers. This immediately puts pressure on the debtor to pay up by having the fear of a CCJ.

If the debtor defends, and asks for production of the relevant legal and enforceable documents upon which the claim has been made, Cohen's refuses stating they are not obliged to produce them. Defendant has then to make an embarrassed defence and wait for AQ. During this time Cohens/CL Finance make a couple of offers of trying to get the defendant to pay at least half of the alleged outstanding amount.

AQ is completed by defendant, and draft order for Judge to tell Cohens/CL Finance to produce relevant documents so that defendant can submit proper defence.

At this point Cohen's invariably send defendant a letter stating that they are approaching the original creditor to obtain the relevant documents. Upon sight of the relevant documents Cohen's realise that they do not have any documents which they can use to proceed with claim, so they either discontinue or fail to turn up at the hearing.

 

My complaint to the SRA is that Cohen's are misusing the Courts system by commencing proceedings without first having proper legal documentation to see the claim through, this amounts to vexatious litigation and abuse of the legal system.

 

Whilst I have sufficient documentary evidence from my own experience with Cohen's, the SRA will require to see more occasions where this has occurred before they will take action.

 

If anyone is prepared to join me in this complaint please contact me and I'll forward details of the Officer dealing wih the complaint to you so that you can forward your documentary evidence through to them.

 

We have an opportunity here to bring Cohen's to task please help me.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Mightyacorn
spelling

[DonkeyB]

Brilliant idea.

[vjohn82]

I agree... I would piggy back on that case if I thought it would not prejudice the current case I am helping with.

 

As soon as the case has been concluded I will be sure to follow you in your actions.

 

More people need to do this!

[PGH7447]

subbing - I never had the pleasure of getting all the way to court with this fool and his dodgy practices - Clueless Finance realised they did not have a leg to stand on

[Mightyacorn]

If we can get enough Caggers involved then:-

 

Court of Appeal Judgment Template

[workaholic duck]

I'm at the same stage as vjohn82. Will def join in after this.

Can't believe he gets this far and gets away with no docs. Earlier on, I did ask SRA if he was registered. Reply was yes/ok.

[Wolfy]

subbing and count me in

[creditcardmug]

Problem is your complaining about them, to them!

Solicitors Regulation Authority, am i right?

[Mightyacorn]

Problem is your complaining about them, to them!

Solicitors Regulation Authority, am i right?

 

No, complaining about Howard Cohen to SRA as explained in the very first paragraph:-

 

"I have recently complained to the SRA regarding the Professional Conduct of Howard Cohen & Co."

 

My complaint to the LSO re SRA's handling of another complaint re Howard Cohen is here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/192657-howard-cohen-oh-dear-7.html#post2787014

Edited March 17, 2010 by Mightyacorn

[diddydicky]

I have recently complained to the SRA regarding the Professional Conduct of Howard Cohen & Co.

 

CL Finance purchase an outstanding debt and Cohen's act on their behalf. As soon as (and sometimes before) the debt is purchased Cohen's makes a claim through Northampton Bulk County Court, without even seeing the papers. This immediately puts pressure on the debtor to pay up by having the fear of a CCJ.

If the debtor defends, and asks for production of the relevant legal and enforceable documents upon which the claim has been made, Cohen's refuses stating they are not obliged to produce them. Defendant has then to make an embarrassed defence and wait for AQ. During this time Cohens/CL Finance make a couple of offers of trying to get the defendant to pay at least half of the alleged outstanding amount.

AQ is completed by defendant, and draft order for Judge to tell Cohens/CL Finance to produce relevant documents so that defendant can submit proper defence.

At this point Cohen's invariably send defendant a letter stating that they are approaching the original creditor to obtain the relevant documents. Upon sight of the relevant documents Cohen's realise that they do not have any documents which they can use to proceed with claim, so they either discontinue or fail to turn up at the hearing.

 

My complaint to the SRA is that Cohen's are misusing the Courts system by commencing proceedings without first having proper legal documentation to see the claim through, this amounts to vexatious litigation and abuse of the legal system.

 

Whilst I have sufficient documentary evidence from my own experience with Cohen's, the SRA will require to see more occasions where this has occurred before they will take action.

 

If anyone is prepared to join me in this complaint please contact me and I'll forward details of the Officer dealing wih the complaint to you so that you can forward your documentary evidence through to them.

 

We have an opportunity here to bring Cohen's to task please help me.

 

i think the complaint would be also, if not better made to the director of court services as it is a clear abuse of the bulk system which was not intended to be part of a debt collection strategy

[creditcardmug]

No, complaining about Howard Cohen to SRA as explained in the very first paragraph:-

 

"I have recently complained to the SRA regarding the Professional Conduct of Howard Cohen & Co."

 

My complaint to the LSO re SRA's handlin of another complaint re Howard Cohen is here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/192657-howard-cohen-oh-dear-7.html#post2787014

 

Yes great, complain to everyone, i couldn't agree more, but the SRA are the solicitors!.....are they going to castigate their members?, i leave it to you to judge

[Mightyacorn]

Yes great, complain to everyone, i couldn't agree more, but the SRA are the solicitors!.....are they going to castigate their members?, i leave it to you to judge

 

I understand what you're saying CCM, that's why, on my other complaint about the SRA to the LSO, I made reference to the ridiculous situation where not only do Solicitors 'investigate' other Solicitors, but they even give the investigation to neighbouring Solicitors in the same town.

 

The thing is here that someone has to start the ball rolling, and there are stages to be gone through, and I am doing just that.

[creditcardmug]

I understand what you're saying CCM, that's why, on my other complaint about the SRA to the LSO, I made reference to the ridiculous situation where not only do Solicitors 'investigate' other Solicitors, but they even give the investigation to neighbouring Solicitors in the same town.

 

The thing is here that someone has to start the ball rolling, and there are stages to be gone through, and I am doing just that.

 

Point taken, thanks, wish you well

CCM

[vjohn82]

Yes great, complain to everyone, i couldn't agree more, but the SRA are the solicitors!.....are they going to castigate their members?, i leave it to you to judge

 

The SRA do impose themselves on solicitors when the case is strong enough:

 

BBC NEWS | England | Coal miners' solicitor struck off

 

Norwich solicitor struck off - Norfolk News - EDP24

 

Former BLP partner Veneik is struck off | News | The Lawyer

[harrassed senior]

Just a heads up I assume you have seen the thread below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/206593-howard-cohen-discussion-thread.html

[dizzyblonde1966]

Great idea,count me in

I have currently got a complaint in about Cohens to the SRA, and the OFT,its been with them about 7 weeks now, will be more than happy to disclose the outcome once i have it .

 

Me,im like a dog with a bone if the SRA turn a blind eye to Cohens blatant abuse and in my case misleading "recreated "documents in a sworn witness statement ,namely a dn notice i will also take the case to my local MP, i have already been to him once re a complaint against citibank, and he contacted the head of the OFT,and i got a direct response,

Didnt really get anywhere as only a cca request issue which is open to lots of get out clauses for the creditor on what they can produce etc

 

But surely the pre court protocols are a bit more clear cut,and Cohens shouldnt be allowed to get away with such underhand tactics, and their non compliance with CPR is legendary, but they only get away with it as the courts allow it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[cosalt]

count me in too !

[Guest HeftyHippo]

good idea. esp to bring the courts into it, after all, it is the courts time and resources being wasted

[Mightyacorn]

The SRA do impose themselves on solicitors when the case is strong enough:

 

BBC NEWS | England | Coal miners' solicitor struck off

 

Norwich solicitor struck off - Norfolk News - EDP24

 

Former BLP partner Veneik is struck off | News | The Lawyer

 

 

Thanks VJ, the crucial thing here is "when the case is strong enough", I have found when dealing with SRA, that if you make just one complaint about a Solicitor, they are quite likely to write it off as a 'one off clerical mistake' etc., if, however, you have sufficient complaints regarding the same Solicitor, then it will prove systemic breach of Solicitor's Discipline or whatever, and they are obliged to take action.

 

The other point is, of course, that if you don't use the system how an you prove to anyone it's faulty.

 

 

With regards to reporting it to the Courts, has anyone any idea who is the best person/office to write to and where exactly does it mention abuse of Court Procedure.

[Mightyacorn]

Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981

Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings

 

42.––(l) If, on an application made by the Attorney General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground––

 

(a) instituted vexatious civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or

 

(b) made vexatious applications in any civil proceedings, whether in the High Court or any inferior court, and whether instituted by him or another; or

 

© instituted vexatious prosecutions (whether against the same person or different persons),

the court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make a civil proceedings order, a criminal proceedings order or an all proceedings order.

 

(1A) In this section––

 

"civil proceedings order" means an order that––

 

(a) no civil proceedings shall without the leave of the High Court be instituted in any court by the person against whom the order is made;

 

(b) any civil proceedings instituted by him in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the High Court; and

 

© no application (other than one for leave under this section) shall be made by him, in any civil proceedings instituted in any court by any person, without the leave of the High Court;

"criminal proceedings order" means an order that––

 

(a) no information shall be laid before a justice of the peace by the person against whom the order is made without the leave of the High Court; and

 

(b) no application for leave to prefer a bill of indictment shall be made by him without the leave of the High Court; and

"all proceedings order" means an order which has the combined effect of the two other orders.

 

(2) An order under subsection (1) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.

 

(3) Leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, any civil proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection

 

(1) shall not be given unless the High Court is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of the process of the court in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.

 

(3A) Leave for the laying of an information or for an application for leave to prefer a bill of indictment by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (1) shall not be given unless the High Court is satisfied that the institution of the prosecution is not an abuse of the criminal process and that there are reasonable grounds for the institution of the prosecution by the applicant.

 

(4) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the High Court refusing leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in legal proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (1).

 

(5) A copy of any order made under subsection (1) shall be published in the London Gazette.

Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

 

 

Anyone any comment please?

[Mightyacorn]

Ha ha, Attorney General's Office:-

 

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/AboutUs/Pages/VexatiousLitigants.aspx

 

How is the Attorney informed about potential vexatious litigants?

 

Members of the public write to the AGO and to the Treasury Solicitor's Department to ask the Attorney to apply for an order. There is no formal procedure for such complaints. The Treasury Solicitor's Department then undertakes an investigation into the conduct of the individual concerned on behalf of the AGO. If it is thought appropriate, the opinion of Counsel will be obtained before seeking the authorisation of the Law Officers to bring proceedings.

 

Attorney General's Office

20 Victoria Street

London

SW1H 0NF

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mightyacorn

[dizzyblonde1966]

I quiet like this section

 

Under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 33 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the Attorney General may apply for an order against a person who has litigated "habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground". The precise number of proceedings required to meet the test is not specified in the legislation, but normal cases involve at least five or six vexatious actions. The court will take into account all the surrounding circumstances including the general character of the litigation, the degree of hardship suffered by defendants and the likelihood of the conduct continuing if an order is not obtained.

 

Think i can feel a letter coming on;)

 

Hers a list of those already forbidden to issue civil proceedings without permission

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm

DB

Edited March 18, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[Mightyacorn]

 

Think i can feel a letter coming on;)

DB

 

 

Cheers DB,

 

The more the merrier........Come on people now's your chance

 

 

MA

[batman1956]

Posted this before but I feel this is another avenue to explore

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS - Ministry of Justice

 

Section 3 deals with people who make numerous claims which have no chance of success

[Mightyacorn]

Posted this before but I feel this is another avenue to explore

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS - Ministry of Justice

 

Section 3 deals with people who make numerous claims which have no chance of success

 

 

Limited civil restraint orders

 

2.1

 

A limited civil restraint order may be made by a judge of any court where a party has made 2 or more applications which are totally without merit.

 

 

Sounds good, I'm up for one, we only need one more, though if we had a lot more we could go for Section 3. Question is which Court, Northampton CCBC or a local Court?

 

I'm still going to contact and complain to Attorney General though.