Legal Ombudsman Order to SRA to investigate a complaint

Dr Helen Bright made this Freedom of Information request to Solicitors Regulation Authority

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Solicitors Regulation Authority,

Has there ever been an order by any legal services ombudsman to investigate complaints made by Dr Peter Jefferys to SRA about solicitor Ms Yvonne Hossack?

Yours faithfully,

Dr Helen Bright

Information Compliance,

Dear Dr Bright

Thank you for your email which I have dealt with as a follow up to your
FoI request received on 8 November 2011 (Ref: FOI/BS/500).

I can confirm that the SRA dealt with this matter and that Dr Jefferys
went to the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO). The LSO issued her report in
which she recommended that the SRA reconsider the matter. A new file was
then opened under reference CDT/51147-2007 - this matter was then added
into TRI/2518-2007 which was the reference that SRA Legal used for
proceedings against Mrs Hossack.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Information Compliance,

Can you, please, be straightforward and say that Legal Services Ombudsman did not issue an order to SRA to investigate complaints against Ms Hossack and made by Dr Peter Jefferys?

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Information Compliance,

Dear Dr Bright

Thank you for your email.

The Legal Services Ombudsman did not issue an order to the SRA to
investigate complaints against Ms Hossack made by Dr Peter Jeffreys.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Information Compliance,

Thank you, Mr Stanley.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Is this the same Dr Peter Jeffreys from CNWL FT?
D

Dear Information Compliance,

Is it possible, please to obtain redacted version of Dr Peter Jefferys complaints to SRA?

I would argue it is in public interest to catch those who are guilty of Abuse of Process.

Good solicitors must be defended too.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Information Compliance,

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Bright

Thank you for your email.

In an email to Antony Townsend dated 6 November 2010 you made the
following request:

"Written complaints made by Dr Peter Jefferys to SRA regarding solicitor
Yvonne Hossack, please."

My reference number for this request was FOI/BS/500.

You are now asking for a redacted version of Dr Jeffreys complaints to the
SRA. I am withholding this information for the same reason as stated in my
response to your request ref: FOI/BS/500 dated 25 November 2010
(attached). Redaction would have no effect because you already know the
identities of the parties to the complaint.

Under sections 17 and 18 of the Code you have the right to have this
matter referred to the Law Society*s independent Freedom of Information
Adjudicator. Please let me know if you would like the matter referred.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green * keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Information Compliance,

Thank you for your reply and I wish now to appeal against your decision through Internal Review system.

1. Information given to SRA in confidence does not have absolute protection in law and can be disclosed. Data Protection Act 1998 Part IV Section 31 2(iii) allows disclosures in the interests of regulation of the professions. It is my intention to pass this information to the General Medical Council, a regulator of doctors.

2. If you made any contract with Dr Peter Jefferys to keep it confidential in the circumstances of Abuse of Process continuing to keep this as secret would be viewed as corruption on the part of SRA. Please, disclose to which contract do you refer. Who are the parties to the contract?

3. Public interest of Health and Safety demand that you hand over this information to me and GMC. When risk has been identified as it has been, in this case and for some time now, it is duty of SRA to act in the public interest rather than misapply their own Code rules. DPA as you know was also misapplied in the case of solicitors Ms Yvonne Hossack and she won against SRA at SDT because she read DPA 1998 and knew exemptions to confidentiality of personal data. In any case I asked for redacted information. I am not interested in patient names and such. I am interested to see how Dr Peter Jefferys manipulated SRA and I know that as a psychiatrist I can analyze him better than a lay person. He is devious.

4. Freedom of Information Act does not apply to SRA as it is not a designated public body but Solicitors Act 1974 Schedule 1A Inadequate Professional Services Section 1(1) does make provisions for recovery of money due to SRA. In this case SRA is damaged because of the cover up of inadequate services provided by SRA's own prosecuting solicitor. He/she should have read DPA 1998 Part IV Section 31 (2) (iii) before drafting any charges against solicitor Yvonne Hossack. Public bodies have to be accountable but here SRA shows itself as evading its responsibility to recover the fees by asking for a refund from their own solicitor. SRA is like a cobbler walking with a hole in his shoes when it is raining, in my mind.

5. SRA has duties to make legal requirements for solicitors to keep up to date in order to enjoy the confidence of public. 16 hours a year is a pathetic requirement when you compare it to 150 hours required of doctors for Continuous Professional Development. When requests like these are made for information it does uncover needs for improvement in the performance of public bodies. SRA has failed to use its powers under Solicitors Act 1974 Section 2(3)(a)(ii) to improve the educational standards of solicitors and therefore, public safety. Each year there are many changes in law and 16 hours of CPD is grossly inadequate. SRA can be more specifically held accountable for covering up inadequacies in its own solicitor who as far as I know has not been sent on remedial training. Did anyone read Data Protection Act 1998 before drafting charges against solicitor Yvonne Hossack or before giving a reply to my request for information? I guess, not.

6. Recently, government has sent consultation documents to various regulators expecting co-operation between them in the interest of public safety. When risk like Dr Peter Jefferys is identified, there is reasonable expectation of co-operation in order to reduce the risk to public. Removing a good doctor or solicitor from practice can be fatal. Solicitor Yvonne Hossack has already been reported as stating that Dr Peter Jefferys is a very dangerous man, but no action has been taken by SRA's Chief Executive, Mr Antony Townsend, who worked at GMC. He, as you know refused to answer the question on how he manages his conflict of interests when I asked him. Dr Peter Jefferys also worked at GMC since 2001. There he Abused the Process for personal advantage by making false allegations against me. He is superb at faking concerns about professionals that represent threat to him as I did and Ms Yvonne Hossack did. He is excellent at initiation of mobbing.

7. SRA is entitled to the cost of its investigations caused by Abuse of Process by Dr Peter Jefferys. Also loss of reputation as some of us were truly amazed that SRA accepted his allegations due to his personal revenge against Yvonne Hossack, solicitor who complained about him to GMC in the first instance because of his lack of integrity. She failed only because she did not persist. One has to take GMC for judicial review in such circumstances. It can take years of persistence for GMC to accept a complaint. As a busy solicitor, I guess, she just gave up.

8. There was no legal order from Legal Services Ombudsman to SRA to take up the complaint from Dr Peter Jefferys and SRA had a number of options of resisting it, which it did not take up, and instead went along due to manipulation by Dr Peter Jefferys. It is embarrassing to admit one was conned but so what this can happen to the most intelligent people because human beings are primarily emotional and emotions are something that Dr Peter Jefferys is very good at manipulating.

9. I would be interested if he used reverse psychology on SRA and Legal Ombudsman as this is what he did at GMC and it was very effective. I can provide further details if required.

10. Public knowledge that SRA takes up complaints through the Abuse of Process is likely to deter public from trusting SRA. Covering up for a dangerous man would be seen as corruption. Here are some definitions:

corruption noun abuse of public trust, act of bribing, act of profiteering, baseness, breach of faith, breach of trust, bribery, complicity, conduct involving graft, corrupt inducement, corruptibility, crime, criminality, debasement, deception, deviation from rectitude, deviousness, disgrace, dishonesty, dishonour, disloyalty, disrepute, fraudulence, fraudulence, graft, improbity, indirection, injustice, jobbery, knavery, lack of conscience, lack of principle, lack of probity, malignancy, obliquity, perfidiousness, perfidy, perversion of integrity, scoundrelism, turpitude, unscrupulousness, venality, villainy, want of principle, wickedness
Associated concepts: corruption in public office
Foreign phrases: Corrumpit optimi est pessima.The corruption of the best is the worst. Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. It is a cursed interpretation which corrupts the text.See also: bad repute, bribe, bribery, crime, decline, defilement, delict, delinquency, deterioration, detriment, dishonesty, dissolution, graft, gratuity, guilt, improbity, knavery, malfeasance, misconduct, misusage, nepotism, perversion, pettifoggery, racket, seduction, spoilage, turpitude, vice

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

CORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
2. By corruption, sometimes, is understood something against law; as, a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the lender usurious interest. It is said, in such case, that it was corruptly agreed, &c.

11. As a data controller SRA has legal obligation to keep information accurate and up to date. Data Protection Act 1998 Schedule I Part I Article 4. It appears that data regarding Dr Peter Jefferys has not been updated. Please, can you do that in the light of the information given to you by me and others?

12. Norwich Pharmacal Order would allow disclosure of all the requested information by me from you. I am now formally, asking you to prevent unnecessary court and other legal costs to SRA and disclose the information to me. You already have my email address which can be used to send scanned documents. If you need any other address, please, request it. I have suffered injustice from Dr Peter Jefferys and disclosure of information is important evidence to my case also. Norwich Pharmacal Order allows for such disclosures. I would seek recovery of all the costs incurred by me if SRA's persistent refusal to disclose the information leads to me obtaining Norwich Pharmacal Order. A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order that requires a respondent to disclose certain documents or information to the applicant. The respondent must be a party who is involved or mixed up in a wrongdoing, whether innocently or not, and is unlikely to be a party to the potential proceedings. An Norwich Pharmacal order will only be granted where "necessary" in the interests of justice. Orders are commonly used to identify the proper defendant to an action or to obtain information to plead a claim.

13. Finally, is it not true that there is reasonable expectation from public and solicitors that SRA would protect solicitors from those who are known to Abuse the Process?

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Dear D. Speers,

Yes, it is the same man.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Helen Bright

Information Compliance,

Dear Dr Bright

I think this email may have been sent to the wrong recipient.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Information Compliance,

Dear Dr Bright

Thank you for your email.

Your request for copies of written complaints made by Dr Peter Jeffreys
against Ms Yvonne Hossack will now be reconsidered.

You will be contacted with the outcome of the review by 7 February 2011.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

dev dut left an annotation ()

Dear Sir/ Madam

It is like battling my head against brick wall.
G M C would protect Mafia, would breach any act ,statue or regulation.
Information office has all the details of my several requests over the past few years.
Sadly nothing happens, nothing moves, Lord Denning MR because I am not in equal bargaining power and I am week and disadvantaged.GMC is not going to provide any thing that is very important and G M C legal team knows the effect and the result if the truth is allowed to be known to the public.
you have all my details on the record.

DD

Bob Stanley,

2 Attachments

Dear Dr Bright

Further to my email of 25 January 2011 (attached) I have now reconsidered
your request for a copy of Dr Jeffery's complaints against Ms Hossack.

I have decided that the Society's original reliance on section 14.10 of
the Code as set out in my email to you of 25 November 2010 was incorrect.
Please find attached a copy of Dr Jefferys' letter of complaint against Ms
Hossack dated 2 April 2005 as requested.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in providing you with
this information in response to your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Bob Stanley,

Thank you very much for a full and prompt reply

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Dr Helen Bright

Dear Solicitors Regulation Authority,

Although, you have provided me with the information requested initially, I wonder if you could please, provide me with Witness Statement on which Dr Peter Jefferys relied at SDT when he gave his oral evidence. I now have the recording of the hearing too obtained from SDT.

If you want me to make a new request I can, but I think it is easier to follow the thread this way.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Helen Bright

Joao Curro,

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Bright

Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/623

Thank you for your email dated 18 July 2011 to the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (SRA) requesting information. I am treating your request for
information under the Law Society Freedom of Information Code of Practice
("the Code").

You have requested access to the following information:

"I wonder if you could please, provide me with Witness Statement on which
Dr Peter Jefferys relied at SDT when he gave his oral evidence."

The SRA is a part of the Law Society but acts independently in carrying
out its regulatory functions. The Law Society is not covered by the
Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA) as it is not a designated authority,
but has adopted its own voluntary Code of Practice which closely reflects
the FOIA. The Code may be found at:

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...

I am currently dealing with your request. Bob Stanley, Information
Compliance Manager will aim to respond formally by 15 August 2011 which is
20 working days from the receipt of your request.

Yours sincerely

Joao Curro

Information Compliance Officer - Legal Services

The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL

t: 020 7242 1222 (Ext 4539)

f: 020 7320 5685

[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green - keep it on screen

[3]Sound Off For Justice

Support our campaign to stop the government**s proposed cuts to legal aid.
Make your voice heard. [4]Sound Off For Justice.

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

Stay up to date by registering for the Society**s e-newsletters at
[5]www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/newsletters.law

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.
Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...
2. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...
3. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
4. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
5. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandeven...

Bob Stanley,

2 Attachments

Dear Dr Bright

Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/623

Further to my colleague Joao Curro's email of 18 July 2011 please find
below the response to your request under the Law Society's Freedom of
Information Code of Practice.

You requested the following information:

"I wonder if you could please, provide me with Witness Statement on which
Dr Peter Jefferys relied at SDT when he gave his oral evidence."

Please find attached a copy of the witness statement requested.

I hope this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green - keep it on screen

[2]Sound Off For Justice

Government proposals will prevent access to justice and cost more than
they aim to save. [3]Sound Off for a better alternative.

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

Stay up to date by registering for the Society**s e-newsletters at
[4]www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/newsletters.law

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.
Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...
2. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
3. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
4. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandeven...

Dear Bob Stanley,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Is it possible to obtain copy of his report dated 4-6-2003 and marked as exhibit PMJ1, also exhibits PMJ2, PMJ3, PMJ4, PMJ5,and PMJ6. These would have been attached to his witness statement you sent me and which I read.

Please, send these to my email address rather than this website.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Bob Stanley,

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Bright

Thank you for your email.

Please let me know the email address to which you would like the response
sent.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green *** keep it on screen

show quoted sections

Dear Bob Stanley,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I have just telephoned you and given you my E-mail address.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Dear Bob Stanley,

Thank you for asking me for my E-mail. I have just given it to you over the telephone.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright

Dear Bob Stanley,

Please accept my apology for providing you with a link you could not open because subscription is required.

Subscription is free to Lexology.

I think, because of the copyright I cannot publish it here, but I shall email you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Bright