Howard Cohen Complaint to SRA

[vjohn82]

Well quite simply you need to contact the Attorney General's Office... I have done so in a case of mine and I have had no response whatsoever... waste of time in all honesty.

 

Get as many people with similar dodgy cases and compile a comprehensive complaint outlining each complaint, their similarities, their faults etc.

[Mightyacorn]

Well quite simply you need to contact the Attorney General's Office... I have done so in a case of mine and I have had no response whatsoever... waste of time in all honesty.

 

Get as many people with similar dodgy cases and compile a comprehensive complaint outlining each complaint, their similarities, their faults etc.

 

Thanks VJ,

I am prepared to do whatever I can to take this to it's limit. I complained to SRA regarding HC once before and they fobbed me off, so I complained to LSO and they are investigating SRA, telling them to reinvestigate HC as well. I will not accept fobbing off, I appreciate CCM's thoughts on the "Who Polices the Police" attitude, but there are stages to go through, and I will go through them no matter how labourious and tedious this may become. HC and their like have been allowed to get away with it for too long.

[vjohn82]

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.

 

The only thing you have to ask yourself is whether their application is "without merit".

 

A wily Judge will simply state that you borrowed the money and the creditor or DCA) is attempting to recover monies owed. That would be "meritous". The fact we are using technicalities to stick one on the noses of these barstewards is besides the point. Just because a case is lost does not mean the original application was without merit.

 

If you can find a way around that argument then you might have some success.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Im more than happy to go whichever route needed,

if anyone wants to contact me directly via pm ,please feel free

 

Cohens get away with this bully boy behaviour cause the courts allow it and until they have their hands seriously slapped they will continue to abuse court process,

 

How many of us here have had court proceedings started against us as by Cohens as soon as their clients are assigned the alledged debt, no letter before action etc as required under CPR, surely thats a clear abuse,and then when you make a cpr request the say they are getting the documents from the original creditor, so why the hell were they starting court action without all the documents in front of them already to assess the case?

they are just churning out court cases blindly,

 

We might not get anywhere but its got to be worth a try,nothing ventured nothing gained as they say,

 

I know most people think their mp"s are pretty useless,but if enough of us take our cases to them too, surely this could add a bit of clout to the attorney general to act,

Edited March 18, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[Mightyacorn]

The only thing you have to ask yourself is whether their application is "without merit".

 

A wily Judge will simply state that you borrowed the money and the creditor or DCA) is attempting to recover monies owed. That would be "meritous". The fact we are using technicalities to stick one on the noses of these barstewards is besides the point. Just because a case is lost does not mean the original application was without merit.

 

If you can find a way around that argument then you might have some success.

 

if something is "without merit" it is without backing or substantiated support, or without proof. If someone files a lawsuit against another person, and there is no evidence to substantiate the claim, then usually the action is dismissed "without merit".

 

I would suggest that not having the relevant documentation prior to making a claim is "without merit", one would surely need to prove that the case has sufficient grounds to give it a run, regardless of whether the documents existed or not. However opinions are more than welcome.

[batman1956]

If a company has started proceedings without first ensuring that they at least have the neccessary paperwork then this is at least an abuse of process. If we can prove that this company issues proceedings without ensuring that they have followed process twice then they are starting those proceedings with little or no chance of success and it follows that they are in breach of section 2.1 of Civil Restraint Order and if that continues then they would be in breach of Section 3.1.

Maybe a simplistic way of looking at things but court proceedings should only be issued when every other means have been tried, and not only this there should be documentary proof that all other ways have been tried.

Edited March 18, 2010 by batman1956
typo

[ncf355]

Now THAT sounds like the way forward!

 

"We, the undersigned...."

 

?

[Guest HeftyHippo]

As a slightly different tactic, I think if they frequently start proceedings, and then discontinue when a defence is submitted, and in many cases the case is dropped altogether, that is grounds of abuse is it not, because they didn't intend to pursue action through the court. Obviously you would need to show that happening frequently, but it avoids the argument of whether the case had merit or not, and you don't have to show if they had all the docs when they started proceedings.

 

I think the court route is the way because once you start that, even if the court doesn't pursue it for whatever reason, once they start looking at it, the SRA may feel obliged to also investigate, with or without a complaint to them simply to show they're doing their job. after all, if the courts issue a restriction, and the SRA doesn't do anything voluntarily, it leads them open to the allegation that they don't protect the public unless they have to.

 

A complaint to the SRA will prob not get far, as excuses will be made such as clerical error and they expected to have the docs in their possession but the client didn't forward them etc

 

All that needs to be done is decide on the best way forward, and then coordinate complaints

[diddydicky]

exactly

[DonkeyB]

Let's play devil's advocate - would Howard Cohen merely state it was acting on the instructions of its client, CL Finance? Remember, Howard Cohen is not the claimant.

[vjohn82]

Which is my point exactly DB... we know how Cohens do it but the vexatious litigant is in fact CL Finance regardless of which solicitor they use.

[Mightyacorn]

But surely the Solicitor should ensure that the 'evidence' is there before making a claim. I think we need some serious advice here. Having said that there is no reason to stop HC being reported to the AG, SRA, etc.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Just had an update about my complaint in january to the OFT re cohens and their antics

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239785-howard-cohen-backtrack-admit-3.html#post2832575

[url=http://http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239785-howard-cohen-backtrack-admit-3.html#post2832575][/url]

 

From the conversation ive just had Its looking very promising,

 

DB

Edited March 18, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[vjohn82]

But surely the Solicitor should ensure that the 'evidence' is there before making a claim. I think we need some serious advice here. Having said that there is no reason to stop HC being reported to the AG, SRA, etc.

 

Preaching to the converted springs to mind...

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Let's play devil's advocate - would Howard Cohen merely state it was acting on the instructions of its client, CL Finance? Remember, Howard Cohen is not the claimant.

 

a solicitor is an officer of the court and should respect the rules thereof regardless of what the client wants

 

a solicitor cannot do anything illegal and use his clients instructions as an excuse. he knows its wrong.

 

same with abuse of process. if he does not at the least inform his client that he is at risk of abusing the process, then he would have to explain why he didn't think it was abuse. so, he either has to admit he did abuse the process, or come up with justification for it. saying he didnt know, or that he did know but the client insisted won't work

[diddydicky]

he is also not allowed to advance arguments that he knows to be of no merit

 

he also has an obligation when dealing with a LIP not to try to confuse him with legal mumbo jumbo nor to mislead the LIP by promoting false or misleading propositions

[dizzyblonde1966]

Oh,they say it comes in 3"s dont they first the OFT and now the SRA on the same day

just opened mail, got a letter from the SRA in it , they too have launched an investigation too into my compaint and have appointed a firm of solicitors to investigate(i know solicitors investigating solicitors ) but fingers crossed,

 

Do the OFT and the SFA work hand in hand on any complaints, just seems a very bizzare coincidence that i get confirmation from both of them launching investigations on the same day for the complaint i submitted to both independantly over 7 weeks ago ?

DB

Edited March 18, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[DonkeyB]

Thanks HH, just the kind of informed answer we needed.

[Mightyacorn]

Oh,they say it comes in 3"s dont they first the OFT and now the SRA on the same day

just opened mail, got a letter from the SRA in it , they too have launched an investigation too into my compaint and have appointed a firm of solicitors to investigate(i know solicitors investigating solicitors ) but fingers crossed,

 

Do the OFT and the SFA work hand in hand on any complaints, just seems a very bizzare coincidence that i get confirmation from both of them launching investigations on the same day for the complaint i submitted to both independantly over 7 weeks ago ?

DB

 

 

Wouldn't be Gordons by any chance would it?

[dizzyblonde1966]

Wouldn't be Gordons by any chance would it?

 

 

It is, Gordons lpp of bradford,

The letter says if i am unhappy or have any objections on the matter being passed to Gordons i have 5 days to let the sfa know,

[DonkeyB]

I asked exactly the same question elsewhere MA - spooky!

 

Gordons will just roll over and say 'admin error', as usual...

[Mightyacorn]

It is, Gordons lpp of bradford,

The letter says if i am unhappy or have any objections on the matter being passed to Gordons i have 5 days to let the sfa know,

 

 

Gordons is the firm they always use, and they are the one's used when I complained to LSO about SRA's handling of my complaint re HC, ask them to change them and see what happens.

[Mightyacorn]

I bet if we each put up our letters from Gordon's they would be identical !!!

[Guest HeftyHippo]

5 days isn't much is it? even a DCA usually gives you 7 to come up with the whole balance! lol

 

bit of a cheek really. how long did it take the SRA to get to this stage? months?

[diddydicky]

well if it were me- i would write a letter of objection and point out that it was within my knowledge that this company has on at least one previous occassion investigated complaints against cohens and found in their favour and in order that justice is seen to be done i would think that another solicitor who has NOT previously investigated Cohens should be instructed