Can you please provide the policy which gives the SRA the right to blacklist an individual? The SRA will no longer accept emails from me and I'm wondering whether the SRA is breaking the law (Equality Act 2010).

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Since when? This is literally the first time I've heard of this being the case. The reason being; the SRA have made it up.

Letter dated 25/09/20 from Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith -
"We need to make sure we can give time and help to all our customers and receiving lots of emails regarding matters which are now closed, takes time away from this work".

I realise no-one at the SRA is particularly bright but perhaps I could point out to Georgina Smith emails can be moved to a folder in a matter of seconds. She has taken away my ability to complain to the SRA about any problems I may have with a solicitor.

The letter also states ...(we)"will no longer accept emails from (my primary email address) for a period of 12 months". Problem is the SRA are ignoring all emails from me as an individual (all emails from my other email addresses to the SRA are also blacklisted).

Same question again as you failed to answer it properly the first time.

"The SRA will no longer accept emails from me and I'm wondering whether the SRA is breaking the law (Equality Act 2010)".

Is the SRA complying with the Equality Act 2010?

Equality Act 2010

Part 3 Services and public functions

29 Provision of services, etc.

(1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2)A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—

(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;

(c)by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3)A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—

(a)a person requiring the service, or

(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4)A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

23/07/20 email from Georgina Smith
"We are unable to help further and will no longer acknowledge or respond to emails. Should we continue to receive emails from you that do not give new information on this matter, then we may decide we cannot accept your emails and take steps to stop them coming through to us".

24/07/20 email from Georgina Smith
However, our position remains the same as outlined in my previous email. Given that we have addressed your concerns through all three stages of our dedicated complaints process, and have not identified conduct concerns in any of your further emails to us, we will not now respond further.
We note you have copied your *MP into your emails and will of course respond to them should we receive any correspondence from their office about this matter.

* Luckily for Georgina Smith my MP is Yvonne Fovargue so Georgina Smith was never in any danger of receiving any correspondence. That would require my MP to do some work.

Email dated 19/05/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
"We would be concerned if a solicitor deliberately sought to mislead the court. Such an accusation is very serious, and we would therefore need strong evidence on which to base an investigation into this".

Email dated 10/11/17 informs (SRA regulated solicitor) that the contract of employment is incorrect, yet he included it within the bundle. Caroline Jones was forwarded the 10/11/17 email on the 01/04/20.

"We have not identified anything within the information we have carefully considered that shows the firm have behaved unethically or contrary to our rules of professional behaviour, and that we would need to act upon in our role to protect the public interest. It is for that reason that we have not investigated matters with the firm further".

An SRA regulated solicitor including an incorrect contract of employment within a bundle is ethical in your opinion?

Email dated 26/05/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
"There is nothing that we can usefully add to all we have explained but appreciate you do not accept our decision". Your decision ignores an SRA regulated solicitor not adhering to over half of your 7 principles. The solicitor included an incorrect contract of employment within a bundle.

Email dated 23/07/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
"Answer this - (SRA regulated solicitor) knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court?
The question repeated because three SRA employees (Georgina Smith, Carolyn Jones and Clare Flynn) will not answer it. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court"?

Email dated 24/07/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court?
(SRA regulated solicitor) did mislead how court the ? (SRA regulated solicitor) not
How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court?
I don't send you emails for fun. Please respond to my email sent yesterday at 16:00pm, it's why you're employed.

Email dated 19/08/20 to Helen Hickling (an alleged manager who has ignored every email I've sent her)
SRA'S ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY -
"However, our principles set out the core ethical values we require of all those we regulate, and apply at all times and in all contexts -
and apply both in and outside of practice (as the context permits)".

The following was included in an email dated 08/04/20 to Clare Flynn -
"Reporting an individual or firm
We work with solicitors, firms, other types of lawyers and non-lawyers to make sure they comply with our Principles"...
and
"There are 7 Principles that all people and law firms we regulate must meet".

..."proper administration of justice"
This wasn't the case because (SRA regulated solicitor) remained silent even though he knew the wrong contract of employment was in the bundle. He had no evidence of a notional payment of £0.01 per week being the "industry norm" yet included the nonsense in the Grounds of resistance.

"with honesty"
"Industry norm" and knowing the incorrect contract of employment was in the bundle are not examples of acting with honesty.

"with integrity"
To know the incorrect contract of employment was in the bundle and say nothing is not the finest example of being principled and fair".

The following was included in an email dated 09/04/20 to Clare Flynn -
"We certainly do not advocate dishonest behaviour".
I don't mean to be glib but you've got a funny way of showing it. The SRA are advocating dishonest behaviour as (SRA regulated solicitor) knew the incorrect contract of employment was in the bundle and didn't inform Judge Britton at the start of the preliminary hearing.

Email dated 28/09/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
"(SRA regulated solicitor) knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court? Care to have a go at answering it?

Email dated 28/09/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
My 23/09/20 13:58pm email remains unanswered.
Georgina I asked this question on the 23/07/20, you of course ignored it as it requires actual intelligence to answer it.
"(SRA regulated solicitor) knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court? Care to have a go at answering it?

Email dated 29/09/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
My 23/09/20 13:58pm email remains unanswered.
Georgina I asked this question on the 23/07/20, you of course ignored it as it requires actual intelligence to answer it.
"(SRA regulated solicitor) knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court? Care to have a go at answering it?

Email dated 05/10/20 to Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith
My 23/09/20 13:58pm email remains unanswered.
Georgina I asked this question on the 23/07/20, you of course ignored it as it requires actual intelligence to answer it.
"(SRA regulated solicitor) knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did (SRA regulated solicitor) not mislead the court? Care to have a go at answering it?

As the respondent's solicitor (SRA regulated) knew prior to my preliminary hearing (held 15/11/17) the contract of employment he included in the bundle was incorrect (See attached. FFPS refers to Fiddlers Ferry power station) and chose not to disclose that information to the Judge.
Has (SRA regulated solicitor) breached the Fraud Act 2006? (Fraud Act 2006 2b section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information).

It's a bit rich claiming I'm unreasonable when receiving a wage SRA employees refuse to answer
"Is an SRA regulated solicitor knowing an incorrect contract of employment he'd included in a preliminary hearing bundle, an example of the SRA regulated solicitor misleading the court". The SRA are also ignoring an example of potential fraud by an SRA regulated solicitor and by blacklisting me I cannot report a different solicitor who I think illegally impersonated a barrister.

Regards

Anthony John Monks

"We are not able to assist you regarding this matter".

Complete rubbish.

Once again,

"The SRA will no longer accept emails from me and I'm wondering whether the SRA is breaking the law (Equality Act 2010)".

Is the SRA complying with the Equality Act 2010?

Equality Act 2010

Part 3 Services and public functions

29 Provision of services, etc.

(1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2)A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—

(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;

(c)by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3)A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—

(a)a person requiring the service, or

(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4)A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

Jack,
If the question is above your pay grade (likely) - escalate it!

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Jack, what do you not understand about me being blacklisted by the SRA?

"If you have concerns about our application of our "Managing unreasonable behaviour towards SRA staff policy", you should direct these to our complaints team".

I've emailed the SRA's complaints team as directed by you. Now it's a case of will they bother responding?

Regards

Anthony John Monks

Jack,

I sent an email to [email address] on 25/02/21 and unsurprisingly my email was ignored by the SRA as I've quite obviously been blacklisted.
As your first suggestion was useless, what do you suggest next? What is preventing you from contacting [email address] on my behalf?

Regards

Anthony John Monks

[email address] = the SRA's complaints team email address (were they ignore some members of the public).

Jack, I'm bored of waiting.
"As your first suggestion was useless, what do you suggest next? What is preventing you from contacting (the SRA department which deals with complaints) on my behalf?

Regards

Anthony John Monks

I'm assuming you've done a bunk Jack? Where do the SRA find their staff?

Regarding my initial request of 25/01/21 -

According to the SRA's Corporate Complaints Officer Georgina Smith (10/03/21 email) -
"In making decisions about whether we are able to continue in correspondence with individuals, we will carefully consider our duties under the Equality Act".

"We do not consider it a breach of the Equality Act to have explained that we could no longer accept further emails in these *circumstances".

*Circumstances -
SRA had thoroughly considered my issues in accordance with their regulatory processes and Corporate Complaints process.

Reality -
the SRA ignore their own alleged principles.

SRA staff refuse to answer whether one of their regulated solicitors knowing a contract of employment he'd included in a preliminary hearing bundle being incorrect and refusing to inform a judge of that being the case is an example of their regulated solicitor misleading the court.

In a 23/07/20 email to three SRA employees; Georgina Smith, Carolyn Jones and Clare Flynn -
(SRA regulated solicitor) "knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did" (SRA regulated solicitor) "not mislead the court?
The question repeated because three SRA employees will not answer it.
How did" (SRA regulated solicitor) "not mislead the court"?

Also mentioned "misleading the court" in a 24/07/20 email to the same three SRA employees.

Mentioned to "manager" Helen Hickling in a 19/08/20 email; who couldn't find 180 seconds to email me back.

In a 28/09/20 email to a collection of senior SRA employees including Georgina Smith, Helen Hickling and numerous others -
(SRA regulated solicitor) "knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did" (SRA regulated solicitor) "not mislead the court"?

Also mentioned in another 28/09/20 email to Georgina Smith, Helen Hickling and numerous others.

Mentioned in a 29/09/20 email to Georgina Smith, Helen Hickling and numerous others including the SRA's CEO and SRA Directors.

In a 05/10/20 email to Georgina Smith, Helen Hickling and numerous others including the SRA's CEO and SRA Directors -
(SRA regulated solicitor) "knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did" (SRA regulated solicitor) "not mislead the court"?
and
"As the respondent's solicitor... knew prior to my preliminary hearing... the contract of employment he included in the bundle was incorrect... and chose not to disclose that information to the Judge. Has the" (SRA regulated solicitor) "breached the Fraud Act 2006? (Fraud Act 2006 2b section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information)".

Now SRA employees are not only ignoring my question about an SRA regulated solicitor misleading the court, SRA employees are now ignoring potential fraud by one of their regulated solicitors!

In a 06/11/20 email to Georgina Smith, Helen Hickling and numerous others including the SRA's CEO and SRA Directors -
(SRA regulated solicitor) "knew the contract of employment he was intending to include in the preliminary hearing bundle was incorrect yet included the incorrect contract of employment anyway. How did" (SRA regulated solicitor) "not mislead the court"?

"Why will no-one at the SRA answer this question"?

"As the respondent's solicitor" (SRA regulated solicitor) "knew prior to my preliminary hearing"... "the contract of employment he included in the bundle was incorrect and chose not to disclose that information to the Judge. Has" (SRA regulated solicitor) "breached the Fraud Act 2006? (Fraud Act 2006 2b section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information)".

"Why is the SRA ignoring potential fraud by an SRA regulated solicitor"?

"How is" (SRA regulated solicitor) "ignoring my... email which informs him the contract of employment to be included within the preliminary hearing bundle is an incorrect contract of employment not an example of "the firm" deliberately misleading the court"? (SRA regulated solicitor) "included this incorrect contract of employment within the bundle regardless and remained silent about it during the preliminary hearing"...

The SRA continued to receive a very high number of emails and some were "offensive and derogatory".

Reality -
If a national regulator is incompetent and my matter isn't being taken seriously, why would I accept the SRA being exceedingly poor and walk away quietly? I wouldn't and didn't. Georgina Smith gave no examples of my emails being "offensive and derogatory".

Because the SRA continued to receive "a very high number of emails" the SRA according to Georgina Smith were "unable" to accept emails from me.

Apparently it never dawned on Georgina Smith or any other SRA employee to actually answer my emails and secondly it evidently never crossed their minds to create a folder and move my emails to it. No, it was easier to not bother adhering to primary legislation.

So there we have it Jack, Georgina Smith thinks the SRA adhered to the Equality Act 2010 in blacklisting me because she's of the opinion the SRA adhered to it! Afterall the SRA "carefully considered" their duties. Fine decision to house the SRA in Birmingham. A+.

Regards

Anthony John Monks