Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
    • Atsushi Katsuki tells the BBC the firm sees the sober generation as both a risk and an opportunity.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

The Solicitors Regulation Authority


TWMCADY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2747 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

- by their reputation. .

that is an important consideration. it is often heard, 'went to xyz sols, they were excellent'. but, is not formal regulatory scrutiny. thats for the authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Steampowered, thanks for the reply, could you please expand on how exactly 'they' are monitored and scrutinized for my own clarity. All businesses rely on reputation so that is a given I feel, but exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal ombudsman deals with complaints regarding quality of service.

The SRA deals with complaints regarding breaches of the SRA's principles.

 

The LO can refer matters to the SRA.

The SRA can refer breaches of its principles to th SDT for sanction.

 

Both the SRA and LO issue annual reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly how and when is data collected and utilised within your profession for the purpose of examining professional performance and adherance to professional code of practise, and is this available for general consumption?

Solicitors have to renew their practising certificate each year and are required to provide certain confirmations to the regulators in order to do so.

 

The SRA occasionally does spot checks of firms to check they are following, for example, anti-money laundering procedures and rules around the protection of client money. I don't think the SRA would normally ask for client files unless that particular client had complained, or a number of different clients had complained about the same solicitor or firm.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I please clarify the points above, solicitors and the legal profession are scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and LO.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

How should solicitors be regulated then in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the BSB for barristers, since they too are part of "the legal profession", (Similarly: "CILEx Regulation" for FILEx qualified lawyers....)

 

It remains unclear if you are suggesting a different regulator, and if so your suggestion of how they will regulate both effectively and fairly (fair to both professional and client!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me if this is a little confusing, but all I wish to understand is the question raised, to reiterate : are solicitors and the legal profession scrutinized, monitored and regulated by the SRA and the LO or are there other bodies that undertake this function?

 

Yes they are by both the SRA and LO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for clarifying that point, perhaps I can once again offer my calculated view on these organisations in support of my initial post:-

The LO - is only interested in covering the grounds of processes and procedures, i.e. have solictors followed the correct documented tasks if so, dismiss complaint. Not interested in contributing facts or truths. Their annual report makes interesting reading, 20000 issues raised, 2500 investigated, this does not mean resolved to the complainants satisfaction but 'resolved'.

SRA - Data provided in my first post outlines the miniscule impact this organisation has on any complaint made. Digging deeper, in most proven cases the solicitor in question will only receive a letter of 'up your game', as reported in my initial post. Max financial fines, which never seem to be implemented, are no more than a days pay for a solicitor. Solicitors have no fear of the SRA whatsover so disregard any threat of complaint to them as hot air. The SRA's own charter states - We are here to protect the public whilst regulating Solicitors to ensure that professional and ethical standards are maintained at all times.

One question which legal professional seem to want to answer is, how on earth can you ensure professional standards are maintained if no proactive monitoring takes place, which IT DOES NOT.

 

So the following statement I feel hold an even stronger point now that those contributing here have commented,

The legal ombudsman has very low or even nill impact on the conduct and scrutinization of the legal profession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't suggested your preferred better option that is:

a) effective, while

b) knowledgeable enough to adequately assess performance, while

c) fair to both client and legal professional.

 

It is easy to state the shortcomings of the SRA and LO.

It is just harder to come up with something (realistic, fair and) better!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the Law Society groups etc. surely a better organization can be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in most proven cases the solicitor in question will only receive a letter of 'up your game', as reported in my initial post. Max financial fines, which never seem to be implemented, are no more than a days pay for a solicitor. Solicitors have no fear of the SRA whatsover so disregard any threat of complaint to them as hot air.

 

What do you want to see? A strike off for every complaint made?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a quick Google it appears that from 123 applications to the SDT in 2015, 56 solicitors were struck off the roll and a further 56 received other sanctions – suspension, reprimand or fine.

 

There were 68 Doctors struck off by the GMC in the same year.

 

I think TWMCADY should provide a source for his/her "facts".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazzas, please excuse me the full thread did not get loaded for some reason, I did infact offer some alternatives earlier. I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind. It is conducted in many other professions, medicine, utilities providers etc. all are different and must be looked at with selective knowledge but to achieve an appropriate scrutinization monitoring body I feel is not beyond the realms of you clever people. After all the SRA and LO cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year to support, and that is without the Law Society groups etc. surely a better organization can be found.

 

OK, tell us what you are proposing then, and how it will achieve those aims.

 

(I imagine it'll need legal professional input to ensure adequate knowledge of legal matters, as well as "lay member" input to be seen to be fair and representing the interest of the public too), but it is easy to make sweeping generalisations - just harder to come up with concrete realistic proposals .......

 

Where have you "offer some alternatives earlier", other than "an independant monitoring group"?.

Monitoring how (how many firms per year, chosen how??).

 

"I feel it would need the will and involvement of people from you organization to achieve this with an open mind"; "you organization"? I'm not a solicitor (qualified or trainee), nor any other fully qualified legal professional, (nor have I even claimed to be!), though (hopefully my posts reflect this): I do have some knowledge in this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazzas, many apologize for the delay, I did previously indicate that an APP of some kind could be used. This would ensure that every person that receives or commissions legal services can complete a critique regarding the service they have received, obviously and I cannot stress this enough before someone indicates the scenario of clients losing cases etc. If managed and drawn up correctly this can be made to form part of the code of practice, centrally managed and analyzed this would prevent in most cases long drawn out complaint procedures, reduced cost and continual monitoring of ALL legal services. Whilst this would I know feel alien to the profession currently this is only one offering which could avoid the decline in trust of the profession and lead in some small way to enhanced and better scrutiny of services offered. Firms could be actively monitored and where appropriate contacted passively to discuss any major points of issue, this would be less costly, more efficient and certainly take the emotion out of the whole affair. Giving the general public critical access to formed data would again open the industry up and certainly give the general public some access to what is currently deemed a closed shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a very strict code of conduct which solicitors must follow.

 

I don't see how logistically your suggestion would work as there are hundreds if not thousands of law firms and tens of thousands of clients.

 

The man power the SRA would need to monitor and review every feedback for from every client would be ridiculous and would cost much more.

 

What other industries have a proactive regulatory body like you are suggesting? I'm struggling to think of one off the top of my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See previous.

Solicitors are at more risk of adverse feedback than most other professions as a result of the adversarial system (there is always a "winner" and a "loser" to an adversarial court case).

All an app does is reflect the individuals perception : it needs filtering through an assessment (such as the LO system, currently).

 

Publishing "Unfiltered feedback" may not be fair to the professional, or will create pressure for some professionals to become over-defensive or over-pessimistic, to increase the likelyhood of "better" feedback.

 

If a SRA principle has been breached then a SRA report should be made, not just "poor feedback via an app".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As feared you are looking at the negatives not even willing to consider any form of monitoring or upgrade of the service as it stands. If you were to only read what I stated, I stated that whatever was/is to be created and formed must alleviate all of the issues that you raise, do you not think there are people out there who create these type of products all of the time with the help of psychologists, please open up.

 

To say that this is logistically impossible is only to put barriers in the way, this facility can be actioned in the most part automatically and filtered accordingly, by your own suggestion most are vexatious claims anyway so these could be filtered out at the first pass.

 

Do you not consider the medical arena, especially in the USA, use this approach, certainly every hospital or GP that I have visited in our local has this facility in one form or another now.

 

When you say solicitors operate to a strict code of practice now, I agree, but it obviously is not working hence the number of complaints etc. raised, the regulators and their cohorts are not providing a service which is acceptable to the general public, even if it is acceptable by you and your profession.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying "me" and "my profession", but It's not my profession.

That is "strike one" for puttting words in my mouth ....

I've noted I'm not a solicitor (trainee or qualified), nor an other qualified legal professional.

 

How will vexatious claims be filtered out?, and "automatically", too??

I just don't think your suggestion realistically retains "fairness" for BOTH client and professional.

 

I've not said "most will be vexatious" ("strike two", so kindly stop "putting words in my mouth"), but just noted that there will be a higher rate of dissatisfied clients in an adversarial system .... do you dispute that?

 

I'm very willing to listen to realistic suggestions for an improved system.

It is just that your bias (based on your experience / perception!) is obvious, and you are suggesting a different system, not (yet!) a better one.

 

NHS ; the "friends & family test". The data is anonymised.

Yet, the data goes to the CSU's (Comissioning Support Units) and then to the CCG's (but only if the CCG's ask for it!) but not to the CQC!

So, how much impact does it really have beyond "ticking a box" that NHS England insists is ticked ....

However, it certainly seems to have made you feel you are making a difference by filling the forms out.

 

Perhaps the solicitors should do the same, if they want to give the impression of progress. It won't be the same as an equitable and realistic system that is fair to both client and professional AND makes a difference, without much more detailed work to make it a realistic option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments referring to 'you', me and your profession were aimed not at you but others who have commented having indicated that they are members of the legal profession, so it most certainly is not all about you.

 

I never even suggested this was a total solution, but, a starting point to consider options as I consider the current system inappropriate, yet, all who have commented in the negative seem to want to remain with a closed mind and not consider ANY alternatives.

 

Critiques of all natures can be both functional and informative, when looked at with a closed which is what I am sensing here no problems will ever be cured, it all right don't fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I've said, all along is "give details of a realistic proposal"

 

I'll listen, just not to:

a) vague "it should be better!" Comments (sure, it should, but that needs an actual proposal!), or

b) unrealistic (but more detailed) proposals.

By all means improve the system : but tell us how!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a quick Google it appears that from 123 applications to the SDT in 2015, 56 solicitors were struck off the roll and a further 56 received other sanctions – suspension, reprimand or fine.

 

There were 68 Doctors struck off by the GMC in the same year.

 

I think TWMCADY should provide a source for his/her "facts".

 

I agree.

 

However, the data you have given is numerator data.

The denominator data is trickier.

 

The GMC states there were 236,908 doctors on the register with a license to practice in 2014.

However, this is for all of the UK, and doesn't seperate out Scotland and NI from "E&W".

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Chapter_1_SOMEP_2015.pdf_63501394.pdf

 

What if Scottish / NI doctors are more (or less!) likely to be struck off, or more or less likely to commit acts worthy of strike off?.

 

The SRA gives data for the "population of practising solicitors" for a number of different months in 2014.

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/data/population_solicitors.page

 

This allows us to take the figure as around 130,000.

 

Taking the figure you have given (albeit for 2015!)

57/130,000 : 0.44 strike off's per 1000.

68/236,908 : 0.29 strike off's per 1000.

 

Does this mean the GMC is more lenient than the SRA?

That they are equally lenient/strict but doctors are less likely to commit acts "worthy of strike-off"?

 

Or merely, 'torture your data long enough, and it'll tell you what you want to hear'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...