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 …..

21^st May 2013 [Peter’s Blog No3 on same subject]

Re: Partners in the firm of Oxley & Coward Solicitors being executors of a deceased person’s estate.

Hi, just to reconfirm for those who have joined me for the first time, I’m Peter Barnes (I am over 70) and one of four beneficiaries of our late mother’s estate. One is over 80, two (including me) are in their 70s and the youngest is in her late sixties. I allege that the executors of my late mother’s estate are just waiting while we’ve all passed away then they will milk dry and finally slaughter the sacred cow.

As I said in my earlier blogs, the executors of the estate were not named in particular in my late mother’s will as being the executors; it simply said that the executors had to be two Partners in Oxley & Coward Solicitors of 34/46 Moorgate Street, Rotherham. Solicitors Mr Barry Long and Mr Sadiq had to make an application to the Chancery Court for Grant of Probate before they were able to officially administer the estate. Mr Long and Mr Sadiq advertised and leased a vacant unit on the premises months before they obtained Grant of Probate on 7^th June 2011. See copy of Grant of Probate below ………….

From the onset they advertised and let units on the estate when they were fully aware of a potential buyer wanting the property with vacant possession. They even let one unit on what my legal adviser termed as a “Ransom Strip” which was slap bang in the middle of the proposed development.

I sought legal advice in early 2011 and I was advised on executors and their duties to the estate, and I quote here exactly what she said; “It is not the role of the executors to run a profitable business out of an estate. The role of the executors is to bring the estate to a conclusion and normally within 12-months otherwise an explanation is required, and to dispose of the estate at its best value”.

After my legal adviser reviewing a copy of the will she advised that; “the executors were not instructed to promote a business, to continue a business or to run a business, they are simply there to wind-up the estate. They are to dispose of the estate in the most expedience manner for the benefit of the beneficiaries. The executors are certainly not able to let any vacant properties on the estate”.

However, interestingly, the executors informed me in a letter dated 6^th June 2011 that my late mother did not actually run a business she merely received an income from rented property in the UK. See copy of Mr Long’s letter below.

I’m also copying here extracts taken from the information Mr Long provided me with and enclosed with his letter, when trying to justify advertising and letting units on the premises as opposed to putting the whole of the estate up for sale and distributing the proceeds in the most expedience manner for the benefit of beneficiaries.

.

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.

 

It might not have been classed as a business but the executors had failed to consider that the units they and/or their instructed agent advertised as been for letting were not in use at the time of my late mother’s death, as in E[2.27]. In fact they had laid 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 her 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.

 

Just a bit of background about the “family”

 

Unfortunately for the estate, in January 2012 one of the solicitors acting as executor of the estate received a “DEAR BARRY” email from the eldest of my three siblings (according to mother she had hated me from the day I was born) telling them that Mr Barnes (me that is) was not to have any involvement in negotiations etc. I am copying the email below here because I couldn’t really believe that anyone could be so thick. She even had my two other sisters agree with her because she thought that putting-up three against one would enable her to override my 25% interest in the estate. In my book this email gave the executors a green light to do as they pleased.

I think its time to tell you that while father was laying on his death bed in January 2010 mother received notice from the Office of Public Guardian refusing her registration of Enduring Power of Attorney over father due to an objection. The court told me it was a Mrs Gregory (the eldest daughter) who had made the application backed by my younger sister, Mrs Tinker.

 

Father had lost his legal capacity in December 2009 (after the RDGH had allowed him to fall out of bed and he suffered a brain bleed and blood clots) and these two sisters were preventing mother registering the EPA. They made out that mother was illiterate by submitting evidence to the effect that she could not read or write and that she had no business accruement. Mother was gutted and up to the time father died they had run her a bill up of around £3,500.00 with Oxley & Coward Solicitors defending her case. The total bill to contest their action was estimated at around £10,000.00.

 

Albeit Mother was partially sighted she could distinguish five, ten and twenty pound notes one from the another, and she knew exactly what pills she was supposed to be taking even though carers offered them to her for her to take. She also had good business sense otherwise father would not have got to where he was had she not.

 

Mother herself overrode one incident just 24 hours before she was to take a mental capacity test with her GP for the GP to make a report for the OPG. She realised that one of the pills offered to her by the carer from the “Nomad” was not one that she should be taking. It was a Tramadol and had been inserted into the Nomad and had she taken it she might well have failed her mental capacity test, and her defence against her two daughters would have failed. I am not making any accusations here but from what mother said she seemed to know who the culprit was. Tramadol, according to what I’ve been told by a nurse, makes the elderly look and act as if they’re suffering from dementia.

 

Whilst father had lost his legal capacity and was unable to sign legal documents he understood exactly what was going on and I sound recorded many conversations with both him and my mother so that if required I could prove just how they felt let down by these two daughters. He actually said to me; “so if I were to die Pete does that mean that your mother will be able to run the estate as she wishes”? Mother was in the process of selling their bungalow at the coast and the action taken by these two siblings stopped her selling it. However, father died on 5/4/2010 and the whole case against mother dropped through because as joint tenants the whole of father’s share of the estate passed directly onto her. She successfully sold her bungalow in July 2010 just before Capital Gains Tax was increased. Father had outwitted them and set mother fee.

 

What they had done, however, was to give the executors the opportunity to do exactly as they thought fit with the estate when mother passed away in December 2010, them knowing that the four siblings were at loggerheads.

.

I personally had been involved in assisting mother and father with the estate and the analysis for the year-end accounts for years before father and mother died and I knew a great deal of the ins and outs of their financial affairs.

 

As matters regarding the estate progressed (very slowly I might add as the executors were and still are dragging their heels) had I not been diligent and recognised that the proposed development boundary line in the proposed sale was cutting right through the Warehouse unit, the Barnes Estate would have possibly met with a massive financial loss on completion. When I insisted, and put it to the executors and the agent for a second time the agents insisted that they had dealt with the matter, and yet when an amended drawing was provided there had been no amendment to the boundary line regarding it avoiding the Warehouse unit. I allege that they were intending the estate taking a massive hit on completion of the proposed sale.

  

This true story continues ……………

 



8th May 2013 Blog No 2

I am still on the trail of proving that the executors of my late mother’s estate should not have disposed of part of her estate by way of a 3-year lease, and to do so months before they had obtained Grant of Probate in June 2011.

I allege tying-up part of the estate on a 3-year lease was a reckless act on their part, and they have committed a devastavit (a wasting of the estate) by that reckless act. It caused a loss of part of the estate’s assets for a period of at least 3-years and possibly more if the tenant subsequently refuses to vacate the leased premises by the terms set-out in the lease. It’s easy to get tenants into a property but it’s another matter when it comes to getting them out.

I cannot see anywhere where it states that it is the duty of an executor to run a profitable business out of the estate. It is, however, the duty of the executor to pay all debts and recover any outstanding moneys due to the estate in a timely fashion and to distribute the estate among the beneficiaries.

All the vacant units on the estate were unfit for letting in any event for various reasons which I had put to the executors. They went ahead and advertised and let and obtained other prospective tenants against my advice, even though they were officially unfit for letting.

On 20 April 2012 I requested permission to view the estates accounts which I understood I could do as a legatee free of any costs to the estate. However, in his letter to me dated 25 April 2012 in response (See copy letter below) Executor Mr Barry Long said that if I wanted to view the accounts it would be at a cost to the estate because a member of staff would have to be in attendance.

Now that is contrary to what is written on page 600 of the book entitled “The Law of Succession” (12^th Edition) by Parry & Kerridge. In citing Freeman v Fairlie (1812) and Ottley v Gilby (1845) (a legatee is entitled to inspect, but not to a copy of the accounts at the expense of the estate).  This book is well worthwhile obtaining if you find yourself in a similar position with bent solicitors acting as executors of an estate.

 

 

To-date I still have not inspected the estates accounts as held by Oxley & Coward Solicitors but I have reserved the right to contests their accounts when they eventually become finalised.

 

The executors from the onset erected a TO LET sign on the property and advertised vacant units on the estate as been for letting as opposed to putting the estate on the open market as been FOR SALE and/or at the same time progressing the proposed purchase/sale of the estate to the interested supermarket chain.

 

When pushed by the beneficiaries to sell the estate Burgess Commercial (the instructed commercial estate agent) put an advertisement/photograph in the Rotherham Advertiser. It did not make any mention of the size/area of the estate being 0.93 acre nor did it show the 14 workshop, shop and/or office units, nor did it show the detached dwelling with separate brick-built garage and additional workshop set in spacious gardens. The advert did in fact look like a small disused travellers’ site, or as put to me by one of the other beneficiaries, “a chicken run”. See copy of advert/photograph below. I allege that the executors had no intention in selling the property until such time they had milked the estate dry.

 

I allege that the misrepresentation in the sale of the estate by the executors and/or their instructed estate agents in the advertising of the estate were a wilful act. When put to the Property Ombudsman the Ombudsman responded by saying that they were unable to act on my behalf as a beneficiary in a complaint against the estate agent, but they went on to agree with me that it could be a matter for the police as a scam or fraud.

 

 

I have put the whole matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) but to-date they have simply shunned it off by saying they only investigate matters where the public are at risk as they have not got the resources.

I have lodged a complaint to the SRA asking for their decision to be re-visited due to new information that has recently come to light.

I have been advised by the tenant occupying the unit with the controversial 3-year lease that he was offered compensation back in early 2012 to vacate his unit and relocate elsewhere. However, he obviously refused their offer because he is still in occupation of his unit. He still occupies the “Ransom Strip”.

In the first instance; had the letting of the aforesaid unit been legal then the executors would not have had to offer compensation to the tenant to vacate and relocate, and in the second; where was the money coming from to pay him off, THE ESTATE??

In accordance with advice from the SRA I put my complaints about the solicitors to the Legal Ombudsman back in October 2012. They returned recently with their negative Report on the matter saying that the executors/solicitors have done nothing untoward. They did this when acknowledging in their report that they had not investigated all the issues I had put to them. I allege here that the SRA and the Legal Ombudsman are just a well paid Quango that are in a position to cover the backs of the solicitors, and they do not work within the interests of the public.

I will come back with an update on the SRA and the Legal Ombudsman, and also on the new commercial estate agent who was instructed by the executors in February 2012 in place of Burgess Commercial. You will just not believe it.

This true story continues ……………