Blackballed by the legal profession and it's destroying my life

[marcone]

I can't get legal advice. This is an issue of human rights and a matter of public interest and concern. How can a member of the public not get legal help wherever he goes?

I really need help! I am at the end of my tether. Exhausted and at breaking point. I have no energy left. What I have experienced has been horrendous. Every agency which claims to uphold the public interest, has let me down. It shouldn't be happening; not to anyone.

 

I am fighting wars on several fronts, involving the former Bradford & Bingley building society, the legal profession, the Community Legal Service, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Citizens Advice Bureau and NatWest bank. On top of this I am trying to get an inquest reopened into my father's death in 1970, because the original inquest was a complete sham and new evidence suggests a criminal element attributed to the death. At the same time two evil solicitors conspired against my family and robbed my mother of a house, insurance money and savings, leaving her homeless and broke with three children after my father's death. It is the most ruthless and incalculable act of wickedness I have ever encountered of people held in such a trusted and respected professional position.

 

My life is mired in so many problems now that, without the appropriate help and support, I am just sinking deeper and deeper into the abyss. I have been struggling for four years with one problem after another. I have been passed from pillar to post, up and down, all around and there and back again. Nothing gets resolved. I am met with disappointment at every turn. It has not been a case of not helping myself. Helping myself is all I have done. I have used up all available resources to get matters resolved, but I have been badly let down by the system.

 

I am unable in the first instance to obtain legal help. I have approached a significant many solicitors but none will assist. The reason is unknown to me, other than the fact I am pursuing two solicitors for fraud, and for that reason it appears I have been blackballed by the legal profession. I took the fraud case to the Law Society, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the former Legal Services Ombudsman, but all they did was obstruct my complaint and attempt to shut it down. Matters were never resolved by the regulators, and my complaint became so mired in needless complexity that it turned into a complaint about a complaint about a complaint about a complaint. The regulators just wanted to grind me down until I gave up. I believe my name is now on a central database 'blacklist', as no solicitor in any part of the UK will assist me in any way shape or form, regardless of the problem. I have contacted up to 300 firms. How can so many apparently unconnected legal firms behave like this? It's all highly suspect. If the blacklist exists, it's an outrage of injustice and needs to be exposed! My trust in the legal profession is now dead.

 

I took my case to the Citizens Advice Bureau. I explained to them that I couldn't get legal advice and therefore needed their intervention. I was astonished when they, too, turned me down. I went through their complaints process arguing that, as matter of human rights and of public interest and concern, the bureau should ascertain why a member of the public cannot get legal help no matter where he goes. The bureau failed in its procedural policy to put me in touch with a solicitor. They closed down my complaint and matters still remain unresolved.

 

I took both my cases against Bradford & Bingley and NatWest to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Both were rejected. The ombudsman let them off the hook, even after I provided overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing, which NatWest have admitted. NatWest have destroyed my business and left me £20,500 in debt, yet I cannot legally hold them to account or have them pay damages, because I can't get legal advice in the first instance. The ombudsman simply ignored the obvious facts before him. The Financial Ombudsman Service has exposed itself as a dysfunctional body that serves the interests of the banks, not the public.

 

I have completely lost trust and confidence in the legal profession, the Citizens Advice Bureau, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Community Legal Service and practically every conceivable public body you care to mention. There is a systemic and malevolent culture of protectionism operating at every turn and in every organisation it seems - corruption everywhere! Does anyone have a moral conscience anymore?

[assisted blonde]

Have you thought that the solicitors may not take your case because there is no case? same for CAB, the result from the financial ombudsman may not be what you wanted but someone is always going to be dissappointed in any situation. If you have the money I am sure an unscrupulos solicitor somewhere will take it off you for a case that they see as a total non starter but it wont get the result that you want.

[Consumer dude]

As you say corruption everywhere.

There is no justice and they continue to take your money in order to control your everyday life..

[Consumer dude]

Double posted..

[andydd]

To be honest your post comes close to the rantings of a madman.

 

BUT if you believe you have a case perhaps you could explain what the original claim is/was and who it is against ?

 

Its not clear what you want from us, apart from using the site to let off steam.

 

Andy

[Consumer dude]

To be honest your post comes close to the rantings of a madman.

 

BUT if you believe you have a case perhaps you could explain what the original claim is/was and who it is against ?

 

Its not clear what you want from us, apart from using the site to let off steam.

 

Andy

 

I guess he doesn't have a case, well not legally anyway but if the choice is have a rant or descend into madness what would you choose ?

[steampowered]

It sounds like you are unhappy about events that occured in 1970, 42 years ago. Unfortunately most claims are barred after 6years. There is nothing anyone can do to get around that.

[Consumer dude]

It sounds like you are unhappy about events that occured in 1970, 42 years ago. Unfortunately most claims are barred after 6years. There is nothing anyone can do to get around that.

 

Unless we can build a time machine..

[unclebulgaria67]

limitations act does not apply to criminal acts, some of which the OP is suggesting. Otherwise those pervy TV personalities of the 60's & 70's could not be arrested over 40 years later for the alleged acts they carried out.

 

If I were in the OP's position, I think I would contact activist groups that deal with each of the concerns raised. There are loads of these online and I am sure the OP will find these.

[Consumer dude]

limitations act does not apply to criminal acts, some of which the OP is suggesting. Otherwise those pervy TV personalities of the 60's & 70's could not be arrested over 40 years later for the alleged acts they carried out.

 

If I were in the OP's position, I think I would contact activist groups that deal with each of the concerns raised. There are loads of these online and I am sure the OP will find these.

 

That's a stunning reply..

[marcone]

Have you thought that the solicitors may not take your case because there is no case? same for CAB, the result from the financial ombudsman may not be what you wanted but someone is always going to be dissappointed in any situation. If you have the money I am sure an unscrupulos solicitor somewhere will take it off you for a case that they see as a total non starter but it wont get the result that you want.

 

No solicitor can make a judgement about whether or not I have a case without seeing me and looking at my evidence in the first instance. They don't know if I have a case or not. As I said, I am blackballed. No solicitor is going to con me either. I am savvy about the law, but I'm not an expert and don't have the confidence, nor the funds, to take matters to court myself. Court procedure is something I'm only just learning about however. I wouldn't struggle on for four years if I didn't have a case. I know enough about the law and have enough evidence to know I have a case. I just need legal counsel to help deal with the practicalities of taking legal action, and someone sufficiently skilled to fight my case on my behalf in court. The organisations I turned to for help have failed me. If they have failed me then I assume they are failing on a much bigger scale against the public at large. Dysfunctional institutions! And the legal profession? Ha! It's nothing more than a protection racket for solicitors.

[marcone]

limitations act does not apply to criminal acts, some of which the OP is suggesting. Otherwise those pervy TV personalities of the 60's & 70's could not be arrested over 40 years later for the alleged acts they carried out.

 

If I were in the OP's position, I think I would contact activist groups that deal with each of the concerns raised. There are loads of these online and I am sure the OP will find these.

 

You're quite right. And a new inquest can be brought under S13 of the 1988 Coroner's Act. There is no time limit.

[Clynite]

For what its worth, try discussing with your MP. I was in a similar situation as yourself. I involved my MP and things began to move. Worth a try.

 

Good luck

[marcone]

For what its worth, try discussing with your MP. I was in a similar situation as yourself. I involved my MP and things began to move. Worth a try.

 

Good luck

 

Thanks for the info. I did go to my MP, but again I just came up against a brick wall.

 

I was trying to resolve a matter with the Treasury concerning the ownership of the Bradford & Bingley archive since the firm went into public ownership. Naturally I assumed the Treasury had control. Representing my family, we have a right to personal data as former customers and Bradford & Bingley have an obligation to supply it. Bradford & Bingley however claim they don't have an archive of records, I nevertheless have evidence showing this to be a complete lie.

 

As I wasn't getting satisfactory answers both from Bradford & Bingley and the Treasury I decided to go to my MP. I asked my MP to resolve the matter directly with the Treasury, specifically on who has the statutory authority in respect of ownership of the Bradford & Bingley archive, sufficient to compel the firm to hand over documents when the firm refuses to do so.

 

Also, the Financial Ombudsman Service concluded that they too "cannot compel Bradford & Bingley to hand over documents if the firm refuses to do so".

 

Finally the Treasury responded to my MPs inquiry. It was the same response they had previously given to me. The response came from Conservative MP Mark Hoban - then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now Minister of State for Work and Pensions. Mr Hoban said "it's not appropriate for the Government to compel Bradford & Bingley to disclose any of it's records...such decisions need to be taken by the firm directly". Not satisfied with this response I wrote back to my MP to press the matter with Mr Hoban. My MP refused this request. I then asked for the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. This request, too, was refused. The Parliamentary Ombudsman informed me that only an MP can refer complaints to them, not members of the public. So, as my own MP wasn't being helpful, I decided to contact many other MPs. Some of them wrote back saying that "parliamentary protocol" forbids them to act for others outside of their constituency. However, when I checked this I discovered that "parliamentary protocol" is a convention that is not strictly enforced, and that decisions to act for others outside of their constituency remain at the discretion of the MP concerned. The MPs themselves chose not to help me, and their decision had nothing whatsoever to do with parliamentary protocol.

I was very disappointed that my own MP chose not to take the more responsible role of adopting a proactive position to resolve matters with the Treasury. Particularly, I am not satisfied that the Treasury is not responsible for holding Bradford & Bingley to account for its behaviour and actions. Bradford & Bingley have no right to withhold personal data.

 

Does the government own and control Bradford & Bingley or not? Is Bradford & Bingley held under statutory regulation or not? Why didn't the Treasury intervene?

My MP wants me to be satisfied with the following position:

...that the Treasury is not responsible for holding Bradford & Bingley to account for its behaviour and actions.

...that the government does not own Bradford & Bingley.

...that Bradford & Bingley is not held under statutory regulation.

...that being held at 'arms length' from government control means the government have no control.

...that, because the Treasury will not intervene in my case, this means they can't intervene.

 

[marcone]

To be honest your post comes close to the rantings of a madman.

 

That doesn't mean that what I am saying isn't true. I am just sharing what I have learned.

[steampowered]

There is no solicitor's "blacklist" and there is no conspiracy. Without knowing the details, it sounds like you probably don't have a case. Civil fraud claims are barred after six years of the time at which you should reasonably have discovered the fraud. You may be better off just moving on with your life.

 

B&B's consumer business (including savings) and branches were sold to Santander back in 2008. Santander owns the rights to the B&B brand. They are not under government control.

 

Your MP is entirely correct. It is not appropriate for an MP or for the government to be getting involved in a private dispute between you and the banks. The Treasury is not there to be used as a go-between you and the banks. This is what the legal process is for - if you want B&B to provide documents, then you need to make a SAR or apply for pre-action disclosure and go from there.

Edited February 17, 2013 by steampowered

[marcone]

There is no solicitor's "blacklist" and there is no conspiracy. Without knowing the details, it sounds like you probably don't have a case. Civil fraud claims are barred after six years of the time at which you should reasonably have discovered the fraud. You may be better off just moving on with your life.

 

B&B's consumer business (including savings) and branches were sold to Santander back in 2008. Santander owns the rights to the B&B brand. They are not under government control.

 

Your MP is entirely correct. It is not appropriate for an MP or for the government to be getting involved in a private dispute between you and the banks. The Treasury is not there to be used as a go-between you and the banks. This is what the legal process is for - if you want B&B to provide documents, then you need to make a SAR or apply for pre-action disclosure and go from there.

 

That's right, you don't know the details. This is a matter of criminal fraud; it is therefore not subject to being statute barred. The Limitation Act makes this clear. The police have agreed that criminal fraud has in fact taken place after I provided them with extensive details following years of evidence gathering. Unfortunately, the Law Society appears to have cottoned on to what I am doing and have blacklisted me, ensuring that I get no legal assistance whatsoever. I have contacted up to 300 legal firms. If I go to a solicitor in Dorset, Glasgow, Manchester or Newcastle, or anywhere in the UK, I am turned away, let down or ignored. No solicitor can make a judgement about whether or not I have a case without looking at my evidence in the first instance. How can so many apparently unconnected legal firms behave like this if there is no central database 'blacklist'? You haven't provided me with an explanation for this based on the facts I have presented. The fraud case is now in the hands of the police. But that doesn't stop the Law Society from obstructing me when it comes to getting legal advice. NatWest destroyed my business in 2012 and left me with £20,500 of debt. They have admitted wrong-doing. I want to sue them for damages but cannot get legal redress for the reasons already stated.

What you say about Bradford & Bingley is correct. Except only the retail deposit book and branch network were transferred to Santander; all other assets were taken into public ownership. This was confirmed in the letter Mr Hoban sent to my MP. He said: "Bradford & Bingley is managed at arm's length from Government, on commercial principles. The Government's interest in the firm is managed by UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI)". UKFI manages the Treasury’s 100% shareholding in UK Asset Resolution Ltd (UKAR), which is the holding company for the Government-owned Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock.

I did make a SAR to Bradford & Bingley. As I have already made clear, Bradford & Bingley claim they don't have an archive of records. Nevertheless, I have uncovered evidence showing this to be a complete lie. The archive is based at the firms headquarters in Bingley, and also significant documents are stored and managed by Capita-TDS - as many as 65 million archived records stored on microfilm no less. As 100% shareholder of Bradford & Bingley, the Treasury has ultimate authority over the firm. The Treasury is subject to investigation by the parliamentary ombudsman for failing to ensure that Bradford & Bingley meets and fulfills its commercial obligations and responsibilities, including my SAR request. No MP would give me the opportunity to pursue this avenue of inquiry. The system let me down.

There is no conspiracy. I am only concerned with what is true. I invite you to do the same based on the facts here presented.

 

[BazzaS]

If you maintain that not all the records of your personal data have been disclosed in response to a SAR, then a complaint to the Information Commisioner's Office might be in order.

 

I, too, doubt there is a 'blacklist' : if there was, so many people would need access to it that its existence (like it did with the building trades one) would 'leak'.

The more people who have access to any such information, the more likely there would be a 'whistleblower'

 

I don't know your situation, but if you heard about the same happening to someone else, would you not think to yourself "Wow, they must be one of the unluckiest people alive and / or paranoid".

 

If your case is shaky / appears statute barred / difficult to prove, and your story engenders such a response : Perhaps that might be why firms won't take on your case rather than a "blacklist"?

 

Of course, there may be a covert 'blacklist', and it could be that I recognise your details and my response is in support of its continued concealed existence : if I was accused of such it isn't anything I could definitively disprove, but I would ask "how many people do you think are on this 'blacklist'"? And "how many people do you think have access to the blacklist and have to check before taking on clients?"

 

By the way, there is an openly acknowledged "blacklist" (of some 190+ people) forbidden from commencing civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/vexatious-litigants

Just to confirm : you aren't one of those listed?

Edited February 17, 2013 by BazzaS

[unclebulgaria67]

This is nothing to do with a blacklist. It is a simple case of it being far too expensive and time consuming without the OP having the means to pay the legal fees. If you are a Solicitor and someone contacts you about this very old complex case, where they don't have substantial funds to fight it , then they are going to say NO very quickly.

 

It would be a different case, if the OP had hundreds of thousands of pounds they were willing to commit to this. Then they would have Solicitors biting their hands off, trying to take this money from them.

 

Think the OP will have to fight this on their own as they have been doing.

[andydd]

Unlike the building blacklist discovered some time ago, I find it very hard to see what possible use a solicitor blacklist would be ?. many thousands solicitors will take on hopeless cases (as a quick read of this forum will show), they ultimatley dont care should you win or lose, you will still need to pay them, they are of course under an obligation to inform ou should they believe your case is without merit, as they all appeared to have done, and you havnt really persueded anyone here that this ISNT the case.

 

Let me ask, how much money to you have available to fight your case ?. It sounds complex and would cost many thousands if not tens of thousands !

 

What do you hope to achieve ? It isnt clear whether you are after a monetary outcome.

 

Why not take themn on as a LiP ?, many thousands here have followed this route (including me) and have had great successes, you will get some good support here with court procedures and processes BUT I suspect almost everyone will advise you not to proceed (as it would appear every solicitor has done).

 

Andy

[steampowered]

If you want to use this site for help, then you have to provide details of what exactly happened - including what the fraud was and what documents you are hoping to get from B&B. Otherwise, good luck moving on with your life.

 

I assure you there is no general solicitor's blacklist. Ultimately solicitors are a business. They are not charities and they have to pay their staff and bills. They won't take on clients who can't or won't pay their bills. Solicitors also don't want to take on clients who they think will sue their solicitors or report them to the SRA if things do not go their client's way.

 

Regarding the Limitation Act 1980 - the situation is more complicated than has been discussed in this thread so far. Indeed, criminal offences are not subject to the LA1980. However, civil claims based on criminal offences are subject to the Act. An action based on civil fraud would normally be classified as a tort, so you get a six years limitation period under section 2. You get some help under section 32 which says the six year time period does not start to run until you have discovered the fraud or could reasonably have discovered it. If you knew (or suspected) fraud more than six years ago, an action for damages based on that fraud would be barred. The police could still prosecute but you wouldn't be able to bring a civil claim on the back of that. Section 4 could also help you but its scope is strictly limited, I don't know the facts but you might find it very difficult to show that an asset of yours was fraudulently stolen (not the same thing as claiming damages for fraud). Not to mention the difficulty with proving fraud (you need to prove deliberate dishonesty, not just negligence).

Edited February 17, 2013 by steampowered

[marcone]

Again, no solicitor can make a judgement about whether or not I have a case without looking at my evidence in the first instance. They don't know if I have a case or not. The police however did look at my evidence and saw that I did have a case for criminal fraud. The matter is now in their hands.

 

I am, nevertheless, still unable to get legal help on other matters, such as the Natwest case, which is clear cut - the bank has admitted wrong-doing. I do, in fact, qualify for Legal Aid since Natwest destroyed my business, but the Community Legal Service wont help me either. I don't regard myself as being paranoid before the facts of the matter. Also, I don't regard myself as being the unluckiest person in the world. This is an issue of human rights. It is also a matter of public interest and concern. How can a member of the public not get legal help wherever he goes?

 

I have done nothing but help myself from the outset; but there are clearly limits to what a member of the public can ordinarily be expected to do without professional counsel. And why should they in a civilised society? Many solicitors I have spoken to initially say they can assist, only to then ignore my phone calls, emails and letters when I later try to contact them again. Others contacted me later saying they can not assist me after initially saying they could. I am talking about experts here - people who know their craft. Many just don't bother to respond at all; or I am referred to the Law Society and passed from pillar to post. I have contacted up to 300 legal firms and I am still unable to get help. How can so many apparently unconnected legal firms behave like this if there is no central database 'blacklist'? Without resorting to speculation and assumption, it seems that no one can provided an explanation for this based on the facts I have presented.

[marcone]

The police are my last hope for getting legal redress, or I'm going to the media with my story.

[scotgal68]

I would go to the media, what have you got to lose?

I have no idea about a blacklist but 300 solicitors/law firms? Don't you think these guys might talk to each other? When I've conducted any research. I look for secondary evidence first, see what's out there to save me replicating any study, That's how research works. It might be that's what the lawyers are doing and when its realised that your case will fail, they decide not to proceed.

It sounds like a nightmare for you and I can sense your frustration, but if it's destroying your life then you have to make it stop. What quality of life can you be having when you're all consumed with this issue.

As I said go to the media, but if they don't take your story on and it's your last hope, what will you do then?

Edited February 18, 2013 by scotgal68

[Consumer dude]

End game ?