Questions for the solisitors and legal firms about there general duties to the law

**davenewbergr** · 20th July 2018, 19:08:PM

First: your post is HIGHLY GARBLED so I'm not 100% confident that I wholly understood it.
Question 1. Report it to what court?
Question 2. No.
Question 3. (Which you didn't ask.) Should the partner consider whether he should be making a money laundering report to his firms Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO)? Possibly.
NB: if I had £500 for every time I'd been shown documents that 'conclusively prove' something, when they don't, I could buy a decent sports car. Once or twice they have, but most of the time they range from falling hopelessly short, to being a barking mad melange of bizarre links and spurious connections. On one occasion the client saw his barrister and the judge leaving the RCJ from the rear entrance, which he found highly suspicious. In fact both the Judge's living quarters and the barrister's chambers are in Lincoln's Inn, and they had used - as Lincoln's Inn always does - the Carey Street entrance of the RCJ.
As for your two quotes: 'we will not correspond with you about another client' suggests that you are also a client of the firm. You would not want the firm to be writing randomly to other people about your relationship with the firm; here they are saying that they will not write to you about another client.
'Further to my letter...' is slightly more problematic. Perhaps he is being excessively cautions, but I should have thought a fee earner in any firm would be able to say definitively whether the firm is taking action against any person. An email to 'All' asking: 'is anyone claiming or contemplating proceedings against Crazy Council?' Saying 'I can't tell but I don't think so' is somewhat strange.

**Crazy council** · 20th July 2018, 22:04:PM

Hi

Its ambiugas for a reason as i only need to understand the regulations in relation to solsitors duties to act/report under them curcs, if they have been provided proof, not only of accounting irregularitys, but also how legislation was bypassed to achive it.

Question 3. (Which you didn't ask.) Should the partner consider whether he should be making a money laundering report to his firms Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO)? Possibly.

no, nothing to do with that

Dont get hung up on the "Proof/Evidence bit ", and the accounts irregularitys relate to the processing of the account prior to court application.

Question 1. Report it to what court?

The courts were the applications were swarn at ( legislation require them to ensure the accounts mmet a minimum set of checks and ballances for accuracy before proceeding to court ) The legislation is designed to set some minimum standards, like in general ( 2001-2013 for us ) Council tax Liability orders, It set the minimum conditions that a council could apply to the court ( One month CT, at least one month in arrears ), minimum further notice periods, and that they have checked there paying in accounts and distributed all the moneys in there to the correct CT accounts. The do have suspence/unalocated funds accounts, but they also have rules to ensure there clear before any court applications, and to check for ghost/duplicate accounts

This legislation is not just to protect the public from mistakes, its to ensure the aco***** arnt unreasonably processed, it also to stop the accounting departments failing too badly by requiring them to report a figure every 13 weeks, caled SCR ( sucsefull collection rate ), this figure is a %. If any council, reports a rate of less than 93% for 4 periods ( 12 months ), it triggers external audit of the figures.

When the appointed officer, takes the large pack of applications to the court, to comply with the regulation, he has to sware that all acdcounts contained in the pack, to the best of there knoledge at the time of swaring, comnply with all internal audit regulations ( CIPFA codes ect ).

the SCR an explination

you charge out 100 accounts, eberybody pays, your rate is 100%

90% pay, they have to asses the other 10%

5% No payment, all checks passed, valid court app ( +1% )
5% No payment, checks failed , not due,mistake ( -1% )

Then they would have to report and SCR rate of 95% becuase even though they have had no payment on the accounts they hjave liability orders on, there classed as sucsefull at the point of reporting ( every 13 weeks ). If yourf checks failed % is above 7%, you get audited fully and the accounts checked

Problems can arrasie when they process the accounts regardless of them failing the checks, Like liability order for 1p that accur coists of £ 90.00, or not maching up bank payments with accounts on time.

So, officer A has 6 weeks between notification and application in the court process to check the accounts comply. Any acount that is sent notice, but then withdraw before LO due to mistakes is suposed to be weeded out in this stage, not due, duplicate accounts, paid accounts )

at the end of the 6 week period, officer A take a pack of say 2000 liability order applications to the court clerk, He swars and signes to state all accounts contained comply with the regulations and are accurate

This signiture is to bypass part of the liability orders legislation that requires the magistrate to confirm proof of debt individualy. It keeps the responcablity for accuracy with the Officer not the magistrate

So signing that form, knowing that 40% of the account included dont comply, would be fraudulent, The purpose would be to falsy inflate the SCR rate to avoid external Audit.

Prooving that is simply getting acess to the account pack processed, or the data around them, Then proving that they didnt comply, again, witch is easy

Further to my letter...' is slightly more problematic. Perhaps he is being excessively cautions, but I should have thought a fee earner in any firm would be able to say definitively whether the firm is taking action against any person. An email to 'All' asking: 'is anyone claiming or contemplating proceedings against Crazy Council?' Saying 'I can't tell but I don't think so' is somewhat strange.

That was sort of seporte, but exactly as i asked,

If the question asked of the solsitor was are you taking any action against me, ( ie court action applications )

and the responce was what they put above,

witch of the two examples does it meen ?

1. Does this say, we are not involved in any action against you.

2. Or does this say, Yes we are taking action against you on behalf of our client

.

**outlawlgo** · 24th July 2018, 18:00:PM

The Council in this case has a fundamental misunderstanding about the real purpose of civil enforcement, hence its sole reliance on its Council Tax processing software, i.e., allowing applications to go through the process unchecked.

The Council Tax regulations give a local authority discretion to only take court action against its customers if it is reasonable to do so, hence reg 34 (notice the word MAY):

"If an amount which has fallen due...is wholly or partly unpaid...the billing authority may..apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable".

The Council obviously neglects to use discretion; that's why we see applications going through the system for outstanding balances at the time they reach court for as low as £5 and less.

When the council racks up costs to the pubic purse of £millions to try and collect insignificant sums which are not even owed then enforcement is being used as punishment (civil enforcement does not provide for this) and is more accurately described as a vendetta enabled by officers being given free rein to abuse their positions to satisfy a grudge.

**Crazy council** · 25th July 2018, 11:17:AM

Just to bve clear, this is what i asked

Partner A is provided data that shows there client was involved in large false accounting, over a 7 year period

This data shows that his client has broken the legislation reqired to apply teh accounts through the court, over a 7 year period.

If the data is unquestionable

Question 1 Does Partner A have a fidicury dutie if he knows his firm has been involved in the application of the frauds, to report it to the court ( i think they do )

A prior partner at the Firm was sanctioned severly by the SRA, at this time, further details was passed to another partner in the firm, by a member of the public

Question 2 , Does this firm/partner have aany dutie to report itself in relation to the exposed irregularitys, and would there be a raisble issue if they just sat on it untill the SRA concluded

and am after opionions of iether working legal personel or solisitors. just an opinion would be fine, with any details why you think that way

I do understand the other comments but people are answering questions i havent asked,

I think the regulations do, and the eithics guidlines

**R0b** · 25th July 2018, 11:43:AM

I think what you are looking for CC is probably going to be found under the SRA Codes of Conduct and the duty of a solicitor.

There is quite often in transactions a conflict between the duty of disclosure and the duty of confidentiality and the duty of confidentiality trumps disclosure unless for example, the solicitor is required by law, court order or the client consents to disclosure.

Whether a solicitor has a duty to report themselves to the SRA is a matter of fact and opinion and will depend on the circumstances of the case so without actually knowing all of the facts and evidence, no one can really say if they should have reported it. Without looking, I don't think there is an absolute obligation to report in certain circumstances such as what you are suggesting but firms / solicitors can and do self-report at times to be open and transparent and also in the hope of getting more leniency.

Further to my letter to you of 16th July, I can confirm that we can find no trace of our taking any action against you at the present time.

As I read this, it says in a roundabout way that the firm is unable to find any evidence that action has been taken against you by the firm.

We will not correspond with you about another client.

I think they might be implying that they are under a duty of confidentiality with their client and will not discuss anything with you without their consent. Or maybe that they have not been instructed by that client to act on their behalf in relation to that matter.

You might find the following link useful

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/ha...4/content.page

Edit: I should also add that usually where a solicitor is in breach of their code of conduct or anything that may be unlawful, they would usually withdraw themselves from acting as their solicitor.

**Crazy council** · 25th July 2018, 13:13:PM

Thanks Rob, thats what i was looking at

I have been reading thorough the SRA rules and codes of ethics. I reallylike dealing with them, and have done sucsefully in the past. I have leart that the best approch with SRA is to identify all the codes you consider broken, then sculpt you alligations around them.

I have been reading around the confidentialty things, but i consider there not applicable, becuase its not something his client has disclosed to him. Its in relation to his clients actions., Also, he client is a public body,

RSB and fred the shread is a good example

FTS was passing accounts as level A, when really, they were level C, he was ubusing his trusted position to do that.

In this case, The accounts thast are processed, have to be class A to proceed legaly, but his client has been bundeling class C accounts, but signing a form saying there all class A.
Further
His client is audited on a figure that relates to the accuracy of processing the accounts, every 13 weeks. If they would have processed the accounts properly, they would have been autited and investigated ( its an automatic process if the audit figure is low )

The solsitor has now been provided the actual accounts that relat to a number of years, that show his client processing false C class accounts, and also, how that falsy raised and Audit marker.

This solisitor has been proveded unquestionable evidence, ---- ( i sort of know what am doing with evidence ), but there heavly involved in something else i have ready.

If there is a requirmewnt to report ( both to SRA and COURT ), i can use the fact that they didnt, against thme fo rother matters.

I should also add that usually where a solicitor is in breach of their code of conduct or anything that may be unlawful, they would usually withdraw themselves from acting as their solicitor.

I know, and i can use this against them, there problem from withdrawiong, is the millions of public fubnds there being paid around regeneration, and the fact, they have a requirement to act like a self preservation sociaty due to there past indiscressions

The other bit you answered, it reaaly is what i seems

I recorded something on my CCTV about 6 weeks ago, Pritty young lady, walked up to my door, took a picture of a letter in her hand, then walked away without posting it ( i dont get anything served on me so its on odd occurance )

Just incase i emailed the council and asked

Are you taking any action ?

Said officer who am accusing said ( NO

They then took action, the court sent me the paperwork, when i asked, and on the paperwork, its show the application done by Firm Wonkey and Chipmunc,

So , i scanned Wonkey and chipmunc for employees, and found a younf lady, looks exactly the same as young lady who didnt post a letter but took photo .

But i didnt tell wonky and chipmunc that, i simply asked them,

Have you taken any action against me, i have had notification of court action i new nothing about ?

Then Partner of said firm said

Quote “”Further to my letter to you of 16th July, I can confirm that we can find no trace of our taking any action against you at the present time.

Unfortuntaly for them, at the time i recioved that, i had also recived the full paperok from the court, witch is the application, by them, infact by one of there paraleagles, the one that pretended to post it

They have realised it now, becuase i sent them the court paperwok, and mentioned that i have a recording, and i askled them to confirm if its one of theres that served anything on me.

Its this aprt of the letter i found odd, and wandered if they was usinmg it to try confuse the situation by implying that them Wonky and Chipmunc wernt taking action, but one of ther eclients was, through them

Quote “We will not correspond with you about another client. ”

I had not asked anything about other clients

Questions for the solisitors and legal firms about there general duties to the law

Questions for the solisitors and legal firms about there general duties to the law

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?