7^th June 2013 [Blog No. 4]

Hi again, it’s me, Peter Barnes

I thought, as most people would think, that when “The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (known on the internet as “TOSSERS” for short) changed to the SRA things would change somewhat. However, I could not have been more wrong.

I also see Elizabeth France now works for the Legal Ombudsman. I had a running with her in my wife’s case, when Ms France worked for the Information Commissioner, which was just before Ms France went to work for BT.

Anyway, yesterday I received a K-rap of a response from the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) after her reviewing my Complaint against Oxley & Coward Solicitors (the firm). It was no more than I had expected but I had to go through the process of the Legal Ombudsman to highlight how they are just a bunch of civil servants wasting public funds, and who have no teeth.

The Legal Ombudsman’s report contained six pages of complete waffle, I don’t know how they (the Legal Ombudsman’s Office) can justify sapping-up millions of pounds of Public Funds while doing absolutely nothing, apart from covering the backs of solicitors.

If I recollect correctly, in one of the Ombudsman’s own literature regarding making a complaint (back in, or around 2004) the Ombudsman actually stated (I say bragged) that 90-odd percent of complaints (I’ve forgotten the exact percentage) never went anywhere. No change there then. This probably related to a complaint put to the Heath Service Ombudsman in my wife’s alleged clinical negligence case but I found them also to be a useless Public Funded Quango.

By the way; you can access my wife’s blog on her alleged clinical negligence claims (she was crippled by Pratif Majumdar (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon) in an operation on her Right knee back in 1987, and also about her instructed solicitors, by clicking on this link; http://moniqueannbarnes.blogspot.co.uk/  The site is worth a visit especially if you and/or one of your relatives have had cause to take legal action against our NHS. It will/can stop the claimant receiving further corrective treatment from the NHS and they are backed by the claimant’s instructed solicitors who tend to prevent the case from progressing but not until they have exhausted all funding of the case.

Back to the Legal Ombudsman in my case: The Ombudsman states in her report that she has not taken into account all the issues raised by Mr Barnes. Why not??

In her report dated 5^th June 2013 she states in page 3:

………, although I can consider the way that the firm have dealt with the estate as part of their overall service, I can only criticise it where I have evidence that they have acted in a way that was wrong or was wholly unreasonable.

However I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and I am not satisfied that this is the case. It is clear that the firm have given very careful thought as to how to deal with the assets in this estate and in particular the way that they should deal with the small industrial estate (estate). Their view, having taken professional advice, was that they should try and get planning permission for retail use and then sell it but that, in the meantime, they should try and let the units so as to secure some income for the estate. The firm have taken this approach and I consider that they have acted reasonably and in line with the professional advice that they received.

Above, the Legal Ombudsman has incorrectly stated that the executors sought planning permission as a result of professional advice received. They did not and have not sought planning permission; they did not want to expend money on doing that. In any event the ombudsman failed to consider that the proposed purchasers (the supermarket chain) were obtaining their own planning consent, and I had been advised by the selling agent acting on behalf of the adjacent landowner that the supermarket chain had already had the green light from the council for the planned development.

The ombudsman says they were right in letting units on a short tem to secure some income; I allege that what the ombudsman does not consider here is, however, that they wasted money by advertising units to let that were unfit for letting due to some having a prohibition order on them imposed by the Chief Fire Officer. They actually let one unit on a 2½ - 3 year lease which had a Prohibition Order put on it by the HSE many years ago for having unsafe entrance doors. All the vacant units required rewiring to comply with the new Electrical Certificate requirements.

The ombudsman has not considered that for the pittance of rent that they hoped to achieve would not cover the extra administration costs or the extra work involved, and only the managing agent and the executors could profit from the extra work involved. The ombudsman has not considered that they expended unnecessary costs on upgrading the electrical installation in the unit they did let by them not leaving the unit vacant. They leased the unit for a weekly rent that was half the price it would cost for renting a skip for the day. I smell a RAT here!

The ombudsman also failed to consider here that the executors had disposed of part of the estate by leasing the unit on a 2½ - 3 year lease (on what my legal adviser termed as a Ransom Strip) prior to the executors obtaining Grant of Probate and thereby tying-up the estate from being available for sale with vacant possession for at least that period of time. This proves they had no intention of selling the estate for at least 3-years.

The ombudsman has not considered that the adjacent landowner had also threatened the executors with legal action for them dragging their feet instead of negotiating with the supermarket chain in which her own land was involved in the deal.

The ombudsman has not considered the executors and selling agent’s advertising campaign where and when they put a very small and inappropriate advertisement in the local press as can be seen clearly on my earlier blog. I allege that the advertising of my late mother’s property had been a sham, and against any professional estate agent’s selling principles!

The ombudsman says; “I note that Mr Barnes has said that the firm have incurred unnecessary costs because they agreed to undertake the electrical upgrade for the units whereas he considers that this was for the tenants to deal with. However the firm have explained that they were advised that they needed to deal with this to ensure that their insurance remained valid. The firm therefore had to weigh the cost of the work against the potential costs of not having insurance cover and, on that basis, I would not agree that their decision was unreasonable”.   

The ombudsman failed to consider that it was I (Mr Barnes) that informed the executors and selling agent at the onset that the electrical installations in the vacant units were in an unfit state and that this was one of Mr Barnes’ objections (among other reasons) against them advertising and letting vacant units on the premises.

The ombudsman also failed to consider that which I put to her/them regarding: Re Crowther [1895] 2 Ch 56.

Assets

E[2.27] Unless the will otherwise provides—see A[5.215], when carrying on a business either to sell it as a going concern or under authority contained in the will, the personal representatives may only use those assets which were used in the business at the time of the deceased's death.

The Ombudsman as well as the executors, failed to consider that the units the executors had advertised as been for letting were not in use at the time of my late mother’s death, as in E[2.27] above. In fact they had lain empty for a considerable time (many years in fact) due to the dilapidated condition of the units, including an HSE Prohibition Order on one unit, and other reasons (one imposed by a Chief Fire Officer) of which I advised the executors at the time when I vigorously apposed them leasing units on the estate. Nor was there any provision made in the Will to authorise them so-doing. I allege that the executors recklessly put the estate at risk apart from being guilty of a Devastavit, a wasting of the estate.

See copied below my email of 6 June 2013 to Ms Dunphy (Investigator) in response to the Review dated 5^th June 2013 as received from Legal Ombudsman Cerys Jones. You should find it self-explicit.

From: barnes_imali@hotmail.co.uk

Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:04 PM

To: Deborah Dunphy

Subject: Re: LEGAL OMBUDSMAN REF: 201222828

6^th June 2013

Dear Ms Dunphy

Thank you for your email earlier today with the Ombudsman Cerys Jones final decision attached.

I was aware that the process of going through the Legal Ombudsman was a complete waste of my time but it was a process that I had to illuminate and to enable me demonstrate on my blog that the Legal Ombudsman’s Office (a Quango) is a complete waste of space and  a waste of public funds. All the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) has done here is to give the firm/executors (Oxley & Coward) the “Green Light” to carry-on milking the sacred cow!!!

See link: https://plus.google.com/103164538777535624168

One thing has come out of this though; I see in the second full paragraph on page 3 of the Legal Ombudsman’s attachment that the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) has confirmed, and I quote; “In this case however the evidence is that the firm have now agreed a sale for the commercial premises with a supermarket chain at a price that was considered to be good by the managing agents”.

I was not aware until now that the sale had actually been agreed. This shows how much the firm/executors have kept us in the dark! However, now it’s been confirmed by the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) I can use this as a fact and in support in another legal matter, and I want to thank her for that.

I disagree with the Legal Ombudsman’s decision due to her omitting to review vital evidence in the matter and I reserve the right to take Legal Action against the executors/the firm when I consider it appropriate to so do.

E.g. The case law of Crowther [1895] 2 Ch 56.

Assets E[2.27] Unless the will otherwise provides—see A[5.215], when carrying on a business either to self it as a going concern or under authority contained in the will, the personal representatives may only use those assets which were used in the business at the time of the deceased's death. The executors were unable to use assets (and let vacant Units on a 2½ to 3-yars lease) that were not in use at the time of my late mother’s demise.

Neither did the Legal Ombudsman consider that funds have been retained in the estate’s account by the firm as collateral to sell the firm, as opposed to duly distributing same among the beneficiaries.

The Legal Ombudsman failed to consider that at the onset executor Mr Long had confirmed (verbally and in writing) in January 2011 that selling to the supermarket chain would make what he called “A CLEAN SALE”. At a subsequent meeting with the beneficiaries Mr Long also confirmed that there were sufficient funds coming-in from the rented units to maintain the management of the estate without letting any vacant units. I have this in the sound recorded conversation made of that meeting.

I await hearing from you Ms Dunphy in regard to my most recent complaint.

Yours sincerely

E P Barnes

cc The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP

I’ve just done a find a solicitor search on the Law Society Website to see whether-or-not Ombudsman Ms Cerys Jones is registered with them as being a solicitor, and I see she is not. See copy of search copied below.

Find a solicitor

You searched for: JONES; CERYS.  
Found 0 results.

It beggars belief how anyone without up-to-date legal knowledge can say they are qualified to report on whether-or-not a solicitor has done their job correctly and within the realms of the law, if they are not a practicing solicitor themselves.  

This true story continues …..