Legal Ombudsman - any experiences?

[AnthonyL]

Has anyone here dealt with the Legal Ombudsman and feel able to share
their experiences?

Are the investigators on-the-ball and qualified?

Is the whole scheme a front to protect the legal profession?

Reading

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/07/legal-ombudsman-smooth-first-year

[quote]
A year old on Thursday, the organisation – an independent body dealing
with complaints against lawyers – has had a remarkably smooth first 12
months, at least to judge by the positive reaction of the legal
profession, which had feared being at the wrong end of some rough
justice (although LeO has had to take three solicitors to court to
force them to comply with various directions).
[/quote]

If the legal profession is pleased doesn't that mean it's bad for the
consumer?


--
AnthonyL

[Francis Davey]

Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a écrit :
>
> Is the whole scheme a front to protect the legal profession?
>

I don't think so. I'm a lawyer and if it _was_ a front I would probably find out. That isn't meant to be sarcastic - I can quite see that there might be circumstances when I wouldn't.

Having a quick look at the OLC board, the lawyer/non-lawyer ratio isn't as good as I would like for an "independent" regulator (but not as bad as the PCC :-). On the other hand maybe lawyers will be tougher on their co-professionals. The idea that lawyers are reluctant to sue other lawyers is something I remember from when I was a teenager. It may once have been true, but it certainly isn't now. I have had colleagues who specialised in suing lawyers for negligence (and rather liked i).

>
> If the legal profession is pleased doesn't that mean it's bad for the
>
> consumer?
>

I've had no direct experience of the LO so I can't say whether I'm "pleased" or not. I suspect it is in general an improvement on the previous system, where you complained to the professional's own body and then to the Legal Service Ombudsman.

However, there are a couple of things about the new system I have my doubts about. For example:

[1] It feels overly bureaucratic. Eg, if you wanted to complain about my services you would have to use my complaints procedure first before going to the LO. Since I am a sole practitioner you might think that was a waste of time - especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my part I don't see any reason to make a client go through additional administrative burdens.

There are other administrative burdens that feel unnecessary too. But if it helps people to feel that they are getting better service or safer dealing with lawyers, then maybe they are a price worth paying.

[2] There's a split. The LO doesn't deal with everything. Eg, if you think a barrister has behaved unprofessionally in some way towards you, rather than supplying you poor service, then you still have to go to the Bar Standards Board (I think) rather than via the LO. There will be times when a complaint straddles the service/conduct line and then it might be somewhat confusing for a client to complain. You would kind of hope for a one stop shop.

But, I have no real views either way at the moment. If you have a complaint I would be interested to know how you felt the LO dealt with it.

Francis Davey

[Simon Finnigan]

The legal profession could be glad to have an ombudsman that makes quick
fair decisions - punishes those who deserve it, and being prompt means
nobody spends ages waiting for the result. That's better for those being
investigated and those making the complaints.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <1b6e06e1-7096-4113...@googlegroups.com>,

Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>However, there are a couple of things about the new system I have my
>doubts about. For example:
>
>[1] It feels overly bureaucratic. Eg, if you wanted to complain about my
>services you would have to use my complaints procedure first before
>going to the LO. Since I am a sole practitioner you might think that was
>a waste of time - especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my
>part I don't see any reason to make a client go through additional
>administrative burdens.

I know nothing about the LO, but in general these kind of
administrative burdens are put in to wear down complainants. They
don't put it like that when they justify them of course, but that's
what the justifications usually used amount to.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Francis Davey]

Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 13:00:02 UTC+1, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> I know nothing about the LO, but in general these kind of
>
> administrative burdens are put in to wear down complainants. They
>
> don't put it like that when they justify them of course, but that's
>
> what the justifications usually used amount to.
>

Maybe so, though we (as in my profession) didn't ask for it to be that way. We had the system imposed on us.

Francis

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Ian Jackson" wrote in message
> news:Xcw*1u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

>
> In article <1b6e06e1-7096-4113...@googlegroups.com>,
> Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >However, there are a couple of things about the new system I have my
> >doubts about. For example:
> >
> >[1] It feels overly bureaucratic. Eg, if you wanted to complain about my
> >services you would have to use my complaints procedure first before
> >going to the LO. Since I am a sole practitioner you might think that was
> >a waste of time - especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my
> >part I don't see any reason to make a client go through additional
> >administrative burdens.
>
> I know nothing about the LO, but in general these kind of
> administrative burdens are put in to wear down complainants. They
> don't put it like that when they justify them of course, but that's
> what the justifications usually used amount to.
>

I don't think so at all, in the case of the solicitors' profession. The
whole thrust of complaints handling has been to try to get firms to deal
with complaints seriously and professionally themselves, so that only the
ones that can't be resolved go to the Ombudsman, rather than the old system
of having the Law Society overwhelmed by a huge backlog of complaints. That
now seems to be working. It's in firms' own interests that they have an
opportunity to put things right before the bureaucracy gets engaged,
especially now the Ombudsman is going to charge firms £400 for every
complaint, whether upheld or not.

If a sole practitioner wants to dismiss a complaint very rapidly, he can do
that and let the client go to the Ombudsman, but he would usually do better
to try to resolve it himself, even if only to save £400.

--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Ian Jackson]

In article <87a67187-87ee-4d01...@googlegroups.com>,

Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe so, though we (as in my profession) didn't ask for it to be that
>way. We had the system imposed on us.

That doesn't surprise me. These things are invented by whitehall and
they have a standard way of doing it.

[AnthonyL]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:50:01 +0100, "Chris R"
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> "Ian Jackson" wrote in message
>> news:Xcw*1u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>
>> In article <1b6e06e1-7096-4113...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >However, there are a couple of things about the new system I have my
>> >doubts about. For example:
>> >
>> >[1] It feels overly bureaucratic. Eg, if you wanted to complain about my
>> >services you would have to use my complaints procedure first before
>> >going to the LO. Since I am a sole practitioner you might think that was
>> >a waste of time - especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my
>> >part I don't see any reason to make a client go through additional
>> >administrative burdens.
>>
>> I know nothing about the LO, but in general these kind of
>> administrative burdens are put in to wear down complainants. They
>> don't put it like that when they justify them of course, but that's
>> what the justifications usually used amount to.

So far the jury is out as far as I'm concerned though I don't have
objection to going through due process of the law firm's complaints
process, which has been very slow.

>>
>I don't think so at all, in the case of the solicitors' profession. The
>whole thrust of complaints handling has been to try to get firms to deal
>with complaints seriously and professionally themselves, so that only the
>ones that can't be resolved go to the Ombudsman, rather than the old system
>of having the Law Society overwhelmed by a huge backlog of complaints. That
>now seems to be working.

Not my experience thus far. Most spurious of denials in contradiction
to evidence from their own files.

>It's in firms' own interests that they have an
>opportunity to put things right before the bureaucracy gets engaged,
>especially now the Ombudsman is going to charge firms £400 for every
>complaint, whether upheld or not.
>
>If a sole practitioner wants to dismiss a complaint very rapidly, he can do
>that and let the client go to the Ombudsman, but he would usually do better
>to try to resolve it himself, even if only to save £400.
>

This will only work when the amount being claimed is relatively small.

On an issue relating to the same case the financial organisation
involved made a significant increase to their offer when I said it
wasn't enough and that I was minded to refer it to, in that case, the
Financial Ombudsman. I've have to say I've also had fair treatment
from the latter in an unrelated case.


--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
>>=20

>> Is the whole scheme a front to protect the legal profession?

>>=20
>
>I don't think so. I'm a lawyer and if it _was_ a front I would probably fin=
>d out. That isn't meant to be sarcastic - I can quite see that there might =

>be circumstances when I wouldn't.
>

>Having a quick look at the OLC board, the lawyer/non-lawyer ratio isn't as =
>good as I would like for an "independent" regulator (but not as bad as the =
>PCC :-). On the other hand maybe lawyers will be tougher on their co-profes=
>sionals. The idea that lawyers are reluctant to sue other lawyers is someth=
>ing I remember from when I was a teenager. It may once have been true, but =
>it certainly isn't now. I have had colleagues who specialised in suing lawy=

>ers for negligence (and rather liked i).
>

>>=20

>> If the legal profession is pleased doesn't that mean it's bad for the

>>=20
>> consumer?
>>=20
>
>I've had no direct experience of the LO so I can't say whether I'm "pleased=
>" or not. I suspect it is in general an improvement on the previous system,=
> where you complained to the professional's own body and then to the Legal =
>Service Ombudsman.
>
>However, there are a couple of things about the new system I have my doubts=
> about. For example:
>
>[1] It feels overly bureaucratic. Eg, if you wanted to complain about my se=
>rvices you would have to use my complaints procedure first before going to =
>the LO. Since I am a sole practitioner you might think that was a waste of =
>time - especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my part I don't s=
>ee any reason to make a client go through additional administrative burdens=
>.
>
>There are other administrative burdens that feel unnecessary too. But if it=
> helps people to feel that they are getting better service or safer dealing=

> with lawyers, then maybe they are a price worth paying.
>

>[2] There's a split. The LO doesn't deal with everything. Eg, if you think =
>a barrister has behaved unprofessionally in some way towards you, rather th=
>an supplying you poor service, then you still have to go to the Bar Standar=
>ds Board (I think) rather than via the LO. There will be times when a compl=
>aint straddles the service/conduct line and then it might be somewhat confu=

>sing for a client to complain. You would kind of hope for a one stop shop.
>

>But, I have no real views either way at the moment. If you have a complaint=

> I would be interested to know how you felt the LO dealt with it.
>

I have attempted to go through the process. The complaint arises out
of the fact that on attempting to sort out my mother's estate as
co-executor there was confusion as to my mother's beneficial ownership
of the residence she and her daughter had purchased together and put
in the daughter's name. The same firm was involved in all dealings
and Wills.

On reading the Will file which I obtained the solicitor who prepared
my mother's Will was fully aware of the circumstances and had received
clear directions from my mother as to how she wanted her share of the
property to be bequeathed.

A note on the file shows that another of the firm's solicitors told
the daughter a few years later that my mother had no interest in the
property. Of course I didn't know any of this till after my mother's
death.

The ensuing dispute cost nearly �20k to resolve.

The complaint is not concerned with who had interest or not in the
property but the conflicting statements and actions of the firm.

The LO will not look at the complaint because I cannot show that there
were exceptional circumstances at the time that would have prevented
my mother from complaining herself. As she didn't complain I can't
complain on her behalf.

The investigator that was assinged to me sought to confuse and
obfuscate the issue right from the beginning and his arguments are
spurious.

Apparently I have the right to seek Judicial Review. I'm not to sure
what that would involve but in any event if I won then it would simply
mean that the LO would then investigate the complaint and I'd likely
end up with the same investigator.

So I'm stuck now as to which way to go. Is there any complaint route
against the LO? Do I try the media? My MP? The SRA won't recompense
me and if I take the firm of solicitors to court I face their
expensively assembled team of insurance lawyers.

I do feel like naming and shaming all involved all over the internet
for what difference that might make.


--
AnthonyL

[Percy Picacity]

> snip

As a non-lawyer, I don't see how these statements are 'conflicting'.
Clearly your mother thought she had a beneficial interest and the first
lawyer correctly transcribed her directions as to how to bequeath it.
He may or may not have believed she was correct, but it must depend on
many factors other than than the terms of the original purchase, if the
purchase contract did not directly describe this interest. Later, a
different solicitor came to the conclusion on the facts on file and
presumably as described by her daughter that your mother did not have a
benefical interest. This interest could have been affected by things
that happened in the intervening years.

On the face of it this is a family dispute and I really don't see how
the lawyers can be blamed for it. Just my opinion as a non-lawyer.


--

Percy Picacity

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b856ed...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
> >>=20

I am not sure I fully understand the issue, but if the Legal Ombudsman has
rejected your complaint, that is probably the point at which to give up. if
your mother, as the client, decided not to pursue a complaint, the executors
will not be able to revive it.

If your complaint is that the firm should have put together information on
your mother's case with one lawyer with information on her daughter's case
with someone else, I think it is bound to fail. Solicitors are not required
to investigate earlier cases or to verify instructions given to them by
their clients, and are totally prohibited from sharing one client's
information with another.

If your mother had no beneficial interest in the property, no amount of will
drafting could have given her one. If she mistakenly believed she had, the
solicitors are unlikely to have any duty to test her belief unless she asked
them to. Solicitors do not normally investigate title to property

If you still feel that you have a case to pursue to recover substantial
financial loss, your best course is probably to sue the firm for negligence,
but there is no guarantee that you will win.

[AnthonyL]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:35:01 +0100, "Chris R"
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b856ed...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
>> >>=20
>> I have attempted to go through the process. The complaint arises out
>> of the fact that on attempting to sort out my mother's estate as
>> co-executor there was confusion as to my mother's beneficial ownership
>> of the residence she and her daughter had purchased together and put
>> in the daughter's name. The same firm was involved in all dealings
>> and Wills.
>>
>> On reading the Will file which I obtained the solicitor who prepared
>> my mother's Will was fully aware of the circumstances and had received
>> clear directions from my mother as to how she wanted her share of the
>> property to be bequeathed.
>>
>> A note on the file shows that another of the firm's solicitors told
>> the daughter a few years later that my mother had no interest in the
>> property. Of course I didn't know any of this till after my mother's
>> death.
>>

>> The ensuing dispute cost nearly Ł20k to resolve.

1) The solicitor who drew up the Will knew precisely and regularly
noted my mother's investment in the property in the two years prior to
completed the final version of the Will. The beneficial interest was
the proceeds of the family home she sold to buy a property jointly
with her daughter who had also sold her home. The same firm handled
all these transactions and therefore knew exactly who had title to
what.

If she mistakenly believed she retained an interest then she was led
along with this by the solicitor.

Whether or not she had an interest is not the basis of the complaint.

2) My mother did not know that the other solicitor at the firm had an
opposing view. As you say, solicitors are and are totally prohibited
from sharing one client's information with another. So a few years
after the Will was finalised there is a note on the Will file that my
mother wanted to change her Will and phoned the firm. The Will
solicitor had by now moved on and the other solicitor (the proprietor)
took the call. Shortly afterwards the daughter then rang the
proprietor expressing concerns that the house was in her name. The
solicitor told the daughter that her mother had no interest in the
property. He never told my mother that. In a subsequent witness
statement he recalled a meeting with my mother prior to the purchase
(so this is more than 10 yrs back), and admits to not knowing of
subsequent correspondence between the Will solicitor and my mother,
nor of the final Will.

3) In her lifetime my mother did not not about the above and therefore
had not seen any grounds for complaint. Because she didn't complain
the LO will not handle our complaint because I cannot prove to their
satisfaction that she would have complained.

It is clear that the second solicitor never looked at the Will nor the
Will file in making his pronouncements. It is clear that the first
solicitor never appraised the second solicitor of the potential issue
even though she had been directed by the proprietor to prepare the
Will as part of the the actions required as respective properties were
sold and purchased.

The LO is fobbing me off. They are the only ones that can not only
look at refunding costs but also the damage that has been caused by
the dispute.

As an aside the dispute with the daughter has been resolved. The law
is clear that the intentions of my mother at the time of purchase
determine whether or not she gifted or retained an interest. The
notes from the Will solicitor, commencing before completion of
purchase, clearly show my mother intending to deal with her investment
via her Will. If the proprietor had not given his backing to the
daughter the dispute would have been resolved long ago. As it was I
applied to court, together with whatever evidence I could find and in
the end the daughter caved in and a Consent Order was agreed.

Now please tell me that the firm of solicitors did a good job and are
beyond reproach. Tell me how to argue that my mother would have
complained if she had known.

I'm not putting all the correspondence up here. The letters on the
Will file are very clear and explicit "I put Ł80k into this property
and I want to divide it Łx, Ły, Łz". "If you have any advice to tell
me I would be pleased to hear it".

Her surviving blood relatives (not children) spoke with her at around
the time she was considering changing her Will and confirm she was
content. She died believing her Will in its fullness would be
satisfied.

What's the point of having a solicitor deal with it? There would have
been no less hassle if she had died intestate.







--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b98c0b...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:35:01 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b856ed...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
> >> >>=20
> >> I have attempted to go through the process. The complaint arises out
> >> of the fact that on attempting to sort out my mother's estate as
> >> co-executor there was confusion as to my mother's beneficial ownership
> >> of the residence she and her daughter had purchased together and put
> >> in the daughter's name. The same firm was involved in all dealings
> >> and Wills.
> >>
> >> On reading the Will file which I obtained the solicitor who prepared
> >> my mother's Will was fully aware of the circumstances and had received
> >> clear directions from my mother as to how she wanted her share of the
> >> property to be bequeathed.
> >>
> >> A note on the file shows that another of the firm's solicitors told
> >> the daughter a few years later that my mother had no interest in the
> >> property. Of course I didn't know any of this till after my mother's
> >> death.
> >>

> >> The ensuing dispute cost nearly £20k to resolve.

> Will file are very clear and explicit "I put £80k into this property
> and I want to divide it £x, £y, £z". "If you have any advice to tell

> me I would be pleased to hear it".
>
> Her surviving blood relatives (not children) spoke with her at around
> the time she was considering changing her Will and confirm she was
> content. She died believing her Will in its fullness would be
> satisfied.
>
> What's the point of having a solicitor deal with it? There would have
> been no less hassle if she had died intestate.
>

I'm afraid the issue is still not clear from your post, but I think you are
now saying that your mother did have a beneficial interest, despite not
being on the title to the property. It seems very likely that she instructed
the solicitors to put the property in the sole name of her daughter, and not
to note her beneficial interest in the property on the land registry title,
and that is the origin of the problem; or that the solicitors were acting
for the daughter and not for your mother at the time. What any particular
solicitor thought the position was is hardly relevant; what matters is the
actual legal position. It seems the court has resolved that. The will could
not create a beneficial interest, or leave one that did not exist.

I am still not clear what you think the solicitors did wrong, but I think
the Ombudsman is right to be cautious when relatives of a deceased person
complain about a solicitor's service during her lifetime which might have
been perfectly satisfactory to her, and which she did not complain about.
Solicitors act on the instructions of their clients, and do not generally
owe duties to other people. If their clients want to do strange or eccentric
things, or take risks, or leave issues unresolved or ambiguous, or cut
corners to save costs, that is up to them.

[Nogood Boyo]

On Apr 28, 4:15 pm, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a écrit :
>

[...] if you wanted to complain about my services you would have to

use my complaints procedure first before going to the LO. Since I am a
sole practitioner you might think that was a waste of time -
especially if you didn't like what I had done. For my part I don't see
any reason to make a client go through additional administrative
burdens.
>

A club of which I'm an officer recently had cause to complain to our
solicitor. We thought it made sense to complain to the firm first
because it meant that we wouldn't have to set out such a detailed
complaint for them as we would for someone independent who knew
nothing about the case. I was pretty miffed when the partner we'd been
dealing with said he'd address the complaint himself but I was very
pleasantly surprised when he admitted within a week that "I confirm
that having considered matters in detail that the complaints raised by
you are justified." We've had more progress in the last three weeks
than in the last three years. I reckon he doesn't want other people to
know how crap he's been. His bill should be interesting... I'm glad we
didn't have to resort to the Ombudsman.

Nogood Boyo

[AnthonyL]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:05:02 +0100, "Chris R"

One of the solicitors is helping my mother with her Will and dealing
with her interest. The proprietor is telling the daughter to pass on
the message that the mother has no interest in the property without
having looked at the papers. (There is no way that the daughter
passed this message on with any accuracy or my mother would have
complained). You already said that matters should not be discussed
with other parties.

The proprietor's stance fuels the daughter to argue the property has
been gifted. This led to the dispute. When eventually a formal
witness statement was sought the proprietor admits to not knowing what
was on the files. If he had either looked at the files earlier on, or
just shut up realising that the firm was in a potential "conflict of
interest" situation, then the dispute wouldn't have arisen.


Two professionals in the same firm with conflicting views representing
two people with conflicting interests.

Am I explaining it so badly that this message isn't getting over?



--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51ba0713...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:05:02 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b98c0b...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:35:01 +0100, "Chris R"
> >> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51b856ed...@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
> >> >> >>=20

> >I am still not clear what you think the solicitors did wrong,
>
> One of the solicitors is helping my mother with her Will and dealing
> with her interest.

> The proprietor is telling the daughter to pass on
> the message that the mother has no interest in the property without
> having looked at the papers. (There is no way that the daughter
> passed this message on with any accuracy or my mother would have
> complained). You already said that matters should not be discussed
> with other parties.

So you have heard from somewhere that the lawyer representing the daughter
told her to pass a message to the mother whom he was not representing
containing technical legal advice to the mother which he had given without
finding out if it was correct, but the daughter failed to pass on the
inaccurate message to the mother, thus preventing the mother complaining
about the inaccuracy of the message she didn't receive?

>
> The proprietor's stance fuels the daughter to argue the property has
> been gifted. This led to the dispute. When eventually a formal
> witness statement was sought the proprietor admits to not knowing what
> was on the files. If he had either looked at the files earlier on, or
> just shut up realising that the firm was in a potential "conflict of
> interest" situation, then the dispute wouldn't have arisen.
>

So daughter asked for advice from solicitor as to whether mother had any
interest in the property, solicitor does not consult mother's confidential
file, but relies on daughter's instructions and perhaps a Land Registry
search, and gives advice to daughter which you believe was wrong. How does
that give rise to a complaint from your mother?

>
> Two professionals in the same firm with conflicting views representing
> two people with conflicting interests.
>

Now we may be getting somewhere, but the rules on conflicts are not entirely
straightforward, and have changed considerably in recent years. Giving
information to or advice to two family members about the property they both
occupy is not necessarily a banned conflict. Firms act for members of the
same family all the time. Passing information from one's file to the other
without consent would be misconduct. But conflicts are usually dealt with at
the time, not by a complaint made later by the client's executors.

> Am I explaining it so badly that this message isn't getting over?
>

Apart from general dissatisfaction that the legal advice the daughter
received seemed to entrench her position, it still isn't terribly clear. If
you have been through litigation, then a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman,
and are contemplating judicial review or a negligence action, you would
normally have a pretty good idea of what the alleged misconduct actually
was, what the firm should have done instead, what rules or duties were
broken and what the estate's loss was flowing from the misconduct. As an
executor you have a duty to preserve the assets in the estate, and I would
suggest getting legal advice before pursuing it further, if only to set out
the issues more clearly.

[AnthonyL]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:55:02 +0100, "Chris R"

Not from somewhere - it was an attendance note written by the
solicitor of the firm who were representing BOTH my mother and her
daughter.

>>
>> The proprietor's stance fuels the daughter to argue the property has
>> been gifted. This led to the dispute. When eventually a formal
>> witness statement was sought the proprietor admits to not knowing what
>> was on the files. If he had either looked at the files earlier on, or
>> just shut up realising that the firm was in a potential "conflict of
>> interest" situation, then the dispute wouldn't have arisen.
>>

>So daughter asked for advice from solicitor as to whether mother had any
>interest in the property, solicitor does not consult mother's confidential
>file, but relies on daughter's instructions and perhaps a Land Registry
>search, and gives advice to daughter which you believe was wrong. How does
>that give rise to a complaint from your mother?

Are you from the Legal Ombudsman? Are you playing devil's advocate or
just having fun? My mother phoned to change her Will. The daughter
phone shortly afterwards and he told the daughter that her mother had
no interest in the property and there was no reason to change the
Will. My mother believed she did have an interest in the property
because that is what was done with the other solicitor. The solicitor
makes no mention of doing a Land Registry search and in any event the
firm did all the conveyancing. He didn't check the Will file nor the
work of the other solicitor - he testifies accordingly.

If he had told my mother directly that she had no interest in the
property and my mother believed she did then it is reasonable to
assume that she would have complained.

How can the solicitor be allowed to tell the daughter about my
mother's assets? How can he rely on her to pass the information on
truthfully when it is in the daughter's interests to not pass on the
information truthfully?

It is the conduct of the solicitor that is under question surely?

>>
>> Two professionals in the same firm with conflicting views representing
>> two people with conflicting interests.
>>
>Now we may be getting somewhere, but the rules on conflicts are not entirely
>straightforward, and have changed considerably in recent years. Giving
>information to or advice to two family members about the property they both
>occupy is not necessarily a banned conflict. Firms act for members of the
>same family all the time. Passing information from one's file to the other
>without consent would be misconduct.

The solicitors have provided no proof of consent.

>But conflicts are usually dealt with at
>the time, not by a complaint made later by the client's executors.
>

My mother did not know of the differing views.

>> Am I explaining it so badly that this message isn't getting over?
>>
>Apart from general dissatisfaction that the legal advice the daughter
>received seemed to entrench her position, it still isn't terribly clear.

Same firm - one solicitor prepares Will bequeathing specific assets of
which she was fully aware of the circumstances and background - other
solicitor making assumptions and advising daughter on matters
concerning mother. Daughter thinks "solicitor says house is mine - I
don't have to give my siblings any share". Mother thinks "house in
daughter's name but everything will be shared fairly via my Will".
Dispute costing �20k.

>If
>you have been through litigation, then a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman,
>and are contemplating judicial review or a negligence action, you would
>normally have a pretty good idea of what the alleged misconduct actually
>was, what the firm should have done instead, what rules or duties were
>broken and what the estate's loss was flowing from the misconduct. As an
>executor you have a duty to preserve the assets in the estate, and I would
>suggest getting legal advice before pursuing it further, if only to set out
>the issues more clearly.

I have got the most I can realistically expect to get for the estate
in the out of court settlement (each party agreed to carry its own
costs).

I now want the �20k costs back that was fuelled by the conflicting
actions and poor documentation of the solicitors. The LO will not
look at the complaint because I cannot prove that my mother would have
complained. My mother didn't know there was going to be a problem,
she was unaware of the documented interchange between the solicitor
and daughter in 2006.

The LO are fobbing me off. They have all the evidence from the
solicitors files (which is all I have been relying on). Then they say
I haven't proved my mother would have complained.

Professional negligence is hard to show. Professional misconduct is
clearly evident to me and only the LO can deal with that in a way that
recompenses me. The SRA will at most just give a rebuke and it
doesn't help me.

Unless someone can offer some alternate route.

--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51bb0817...@news.zen.co.uk...

It is becoming clearer, but your case is not looking any stronger. It sounds
as if your mother was correctly advised, as the court found that she did
have an interest in the property. Your complaint seems to be that incorrect
advice was given to the daughter, which led her to dispute the position,
incurring costs. But if the daughter was the client, you cannot complain
about the service she received, because you are not the client. You
certainly cannot complain about the advice given by a solicitor to your
opponent in litigation: that is entirely between solicitor and client.

Even if you show that the firm acted when it should not have done due to a
conflict of interest, the loss does not flow from that fact, but from the
advice given to the daughter.

Professional misconduct may be evident to you, but I am afraid it is not to
me. Usually, proving professional misconduct is harder than proving
professional negligence. If you cannot prove breach of a duty owed to your
mother which led to her suffering loss, it is very unlikely that your claim
will succeed, or that anyone will award more than nominal compensation. It
sounds to me as if the legal ombudsman made the correct decision, and that
even if your complaint had been allowed to proceed, it was unlikely to have
been successful or to have resulted in recovery of the £20,000.

[AnthonyL]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:15:02 +0100, "Chris R"

The solicitor was also my mother's solicitor. He was conflicted and
he should have read the files then shut the f*k up and backed off. His
advice was to my mother (it was my mother who was wanting to change
her Will) and he had no right in attempting to pass on a message to
the mother via the daughter who had an alternate vested interest. How
does that fit into the code of conduct?

He did not represent the daughter in the dispute.


--
AnthonyL

[Steve Walker]

"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:51bb813b...@news.zen.co.uk...

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:15:02 +0100, "Chris R"

>>Professional misconduct may be evident to you, but I am afraid it is not
>>to
>>me. Usually, proving professional misconduct is harder than proving
>>professional negligence. If you cannot prove breach of a duty owed to your
>>mother which led to her suffering loss, it is very unlikely that your
>>claim
>>will succeed, or that anyone will award more than nominal compensation. It
>>sounds to me as if the legal ombudsman made the correct decision, and that
>>even if your complaint had been allowed to proceed, it was unlikely to
>>have
>>been successful or to have resulted in recovery of the £20,000.
>
>
> The solicitor was also my mother's solicitor. He was conflicted and
> he should have read the files then shut the f*k up and backed off. His
> advice was to my mother (it was my mother who was wanting to change
> her Will) and he had no right in attempting to pass on a message to
> the mother via the daughter who had an alternate vested interest. How
> does that fit into the code of conduct?
>
> He did not represent the daughter in the dispute.

Please snip a little, chaps. We're reaching 200 line posts with a short
comment added, it's a lot of redundant data for the moderation system.

Thanks... :o)

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51bb813b...@news.zen.co.uk...

I'm still not clear about what happened, but more importantly, I cannot see
any basis on which the alleged misconduct caused the alleged loss.

[ken]

AnthonyL wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:15:01 +0100, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Le dimanche 28 avril 2013 12:55:02 UTC+1, AnthonyL a =E9crit=A0:
>>> =20
>>> Is the whole scheme a front to protect the legal profession?
>>> =20
>>
>> I don't think so. I'm a lawyer and if it _was_ a front I would probably fin=
>> d out. That isn't meant to be sarcastic - I can quite see that there might =
>> be circumstances when I wouldn't.
>>
>> Having a quick look at the OLC board, the lawyer/non-lawyer ratio isn't as =
>> good as I would like for an "independent" regulator (but not as bad as the =
>> PCC :-). On the other hand maybe lawyers will be tougher on their co-profes=
>> sionals. The idea that lawyers are reluctant to sue other lawyers is someth=
>> ing I remember from when I was a teenager. It may once have been true, but =
>> it certainly isn't now. I have had colleagues who specialised in suing lawy=
>> ers for negligence (and rather liked i).

I would have thought they would seek counsel's advice on whether they
would have a good chance of winning. If a client goes to a solicitor and
says I want you to sue another solicitor. That solicitor might reply
along the lines of "it will cost £10,000 upwards and I need £5,000 up
front to cover my ongoing costs". At that point the client is likely to
say "erm, what are my chances of winning, and how much would I be likely
to get"

I would have thought a lot of money. It would go to High Court wouldn't it?

but in any event if I won then it would simply
> mean that the LO would then investigate the complaint and I'd likely
> end up with the same investigator.

I can't personally see anything wrong with that. You appear to suggest
that that the case wasn't investigated because it was outside the LOs
TOR (that is, a case where the client could have complained but chose
not to do so). That doesn't to me sound like a spurious issue. If the
Court decided otherwise, they would then they would presumably
investigate the substance of the complaint.

>
> So I'm stuck now as to which way to go. Is there any complaint route
> against the LO? Do I try the media? My MP? The SRA won't recompense
> me and if I take the firm of solicitors to court I face their
> expensively assembled team of insurance lawyers.

I would ask to see a copy of their TOR and dedide fo myself whether they
were right in adopting the position that they have.

[John Briggs]

I'd say your mistake was settling the legal action. The legally correct
position would have been to obtain judgement and costs. It would then be
for the daughter to go to the Legal Ombudsman because she was the one
who had been incorrectly advised by the solicitors.
--
John Briggs

[AnthonyL]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:25:01 +0100, ken <ke...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>AnthonyL wrote:
>>
>> The LO will not look at the complaint because I cannot show that there
>> were exceptional circumstances at the time that would have prevented
>> my mother from complaining herself. As she didn't complain I can't
>> complain on her behalf.
>>
>> The investigator that was assinged to me sought to confuse and
>> obfuscate the issue right from the beginning and his arguments are
>> spurious.
>>
>> Apparently I have the right to seek Judicial Review. I'm not to sure
>> what that would involve
>

>I would have thought a lot of money. It would go to High Court wouldn't i=

>t?

>>but in any event if I won then it would simply
>> mean that the LO would then investigate the complaint and I'd likely
>> end up with the same investigator.
>
>I can't personally see anything wrong with that.

The investigator lacks basic comprehension skills and a disregard for
the legal position. He has displayed that from the outset as if it
were policy to obfuscate where possible. The one I had got was not
legally qualified and I'm not sure if he bothered to talk to a legal
professional. Neither was he, nor the LO, helpful in guiding me
through the process.

>You appear to suggest=20
>that that the case wasn't investigated because it was outside the LOs=20
>TOR (that is, a case where the client could have complained but chose=20
>not to do so). That doesn't to me sound like a spurious issue. If the=20
>Court decided otherwise, they would then they would presumably=20

>investigate the substance of the complaint.
>

How could my mother have complained about something that she did not
know about going on behind her back between the other solicitor and
her daughter? If that conversation had not happened there would have
been no issue. If my mother had known of the conversation between
solicitor and daughter "your mother's will is worthless" when she
beleived otherwise then how can anyone in their right mind think that
she would not complain.

Anyhow - I'm not going to let it rest and I haven't yet received any
good suggestions as to how to proceed next.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

[Ian Jackson]

In article <51bdd85c...@news.zen.co.uk>,

AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>The investigator lacks basic comprehension skills and a disregard for

>the legal position. [...]

I'm afraid I tend to agree with Chris. At the very least your
messages here have been confusing but don't give me the impression you
have a good case.

I think you should consider whether perhaps the problem is not so much
a lack of comprehension skills but a lack of clarity in the documents
to be comprehended; and you should consider whether perhaps it is you
who are in error about the legal position.

>Anyhow - I'm not going to let it rest and I haven't yet received any
>good suggestions as to how to proceed next.

I don't know whether there is a plausible route to appeal decisions of
the LO. But I think your main problem is that you don't have much of
a case.

Your complaint seems mostly to be that these solicitors gave the
daughter bad advice. If this is true, and the daughter's case was
weak, then I agree with John Briggs that you shouldn't have settled
with the daughter without getting your costs paid. If you had managed
to get the daughter to pay the costs of the litigation then you would
have been much better off, and if the daughter didn't like the big
bill she herself could complain against the solicitors.

But I suspect that your case was actually not as strong as you think -
and, therefore, the daughter's not as weak. I assume you were
represented in this action against the daughter and that you were
advised to settle.

In any case I agree with Chris that you have no recourse against a
solicitor who gives bad advice to your opponent, even if that leads to
your opponent conducting the litigation against you overly
aggressively. Your remedy is a claim for costs against your opponent.

Having agreed to forgo your costs claim against the daughter, I don't
think you can now try to get satisfaction from her solicitor.

[AnthonyL]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:00:04 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <51bdd85c...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:
>>The investigator lacks basic comprehension skills and a disregard for
>>the legal position. [...]
>
>I'm afraid I tend to agree with Chris. At the very least your
>messages here have been confusing but don't give me the impression you
>have a good case.
>
>I think you should consider whether perhaps the problem is not so much
>a lack of comprehension skills but a lack of clarity in the documents
>to be comprehended; and you should consider whether perhaps it is you
>who are in error about the legal position.
>

I didn't come here to argue the case. I got sucked in piecemeal. I
came here to ask for suggestions as to how to proceed. Full clarity
would be obvious if I posted the documents for perusal.

>>Anyhow - I'm not going to let it rest and I haven't yet received any
>>good suggestions as to how to proceed next.
>
>I don't know whether there is a plausible route to appeal decisions of
>the LO. But I think your main problem is that you don't have much of
>a case.
>

I'm not asking if I have a case.

>Your complaint seems mostly to be that these solicitors gave the
>daughter bad advice.

Absolutely not. The solicitors gave my mother advice. Then
subsequently at the intervention of the daughter gave contradictory
advice which was in the interests of the daughter to withhold from her
mother.

>
>But I suspect that your case was actually not as strong as you think -
>and, therefore, the daughter's not as weak. I assume you were
>represented in this action against the daughter and that you were
>advised to settle.
>

The daughter didn't want to give anything. We were given what I
believe was good advice and that was to settle when the daughter
agreed a fair valuation of our mother's estate.

In any event it did not matter how it was settled. One firm of
solicitors handling all dealings should not have left room for a
dispute.

How can you have:

a) Two professionals in one firm giving opposing advice?
b) One firm handling clients with conflicting interests?
c) Giving advice to once client via the other when their interests
conflict?

>In any case I agree with Chris that you have no recourse against a
>solicitor who gives bad advice to your opponent,

She wasn't an opponent at that stage. The advice was not intended for
her but for her to pass on to her mother. Having got it she then used
it.

>even if that leads to
>your opponent conducting the litigation against you overly
>aggressively.

The solicitor was also my mother's solicitor.

>Your remedy is a claim for costs against your opponent.
>

Yes we had a dilemma. Daughter is not well off. It came to a matter
of satisfying our mother's wishes and we had differentiate between
that and "punishing the daughter" who had been been supported by our
mother's solicitor (conflict of interest anyone?). Once we had
reached a figure that we felt represented our mother's wishes we felt
that no good purpose would be gained by proceeding to court regardless
of the outcome. The money is still coming out of the "family pot".

>Having agreed to forgo your costs claim against the daughter, I don't
>think you can now try to get satisfaction from her solicitor.

The solicitors of the firm gave conflicting advice, poorly documented
the events, (said they) put important and related stuff on the sale
file of my mother's property which in accordance with policy is
destroyed after 6yrs, and dealt with my mother's affairs through the
daughter about whom the Will solicitor wrote on the Will file
"daughter appears to want it all".

I will be pleased to recommend this firm to anyone who thinks they
have done a good job so you can get your parents to use them, or maybe
you would like to use them for yourselves?

The LO at every stage of dealings have got things wrong, and when
corrected proceed to get something else wrong. Their final analysis
gets the sequence of events wrong, even though the sequence is clearly
stated in one of the solicitor's Witness statement so not my fault.
The sequence is of consequence. The LO has squirmed all the way to
avoiding taking on the investigation of this case. They have the
advantage over you that they have the full Will file and they (the
alloted investigator) still can't grasp basic comprehension.

Let's try a bit here - this is an extract of the solicitor's
attendance note after my mother had contacted him about making changes
to her Will:

"I then received a telephone call from the daughter, who said
that what her mother was concerned about was that when they
purchased the property some six years ago, a large portion of
the money to purchase the property was provided by mother but
the property was put in the sole name of the daugher.
.
.
.
.. and they thought it might be an idea to make some mention
in the Will about the property. I said that was not necessary
and there was a clear gift made by mother at the time of
the money and the property was in daugher's sole name and it
did not come into the mother's estate"

To whom is the advice being given? Comments please.


--
AnthonyL

[John Briggs]

> ..
> ... and they thought it might be an idea to make some mention

> in the Will about the property. I said that was not necessary
> and there was a clear gift made by mother at the time of
> the money and the property was in daugher's sole name and it
> did not come into the mother's estate"
>
> To whom is the advice being given? Comments please.

That advice was given to the daughter. Clearly the mother had a cause
for complaint against the solicitors, but it is far from clear that the
executors do.
--
John Briggs

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-06-18 12:20:03 +0000, AnthonyL said:

> snip

> "I then received a telephone call from the daughter, who said
> that what her mother was concerned about was that when they
> purchased the property some six years ago, a large portion of
> the money to purchase the property was provided by mother but
> the property was put in the sole name of the daugher.
> .
> .
> .
> .. and they thought it might be an idea to make some mention
> in the Will about the property. I said that was not necessary
> and there was a clear gift made by mother at the time of
> the money and the property was in daugher's sole name and it
> did not come into the mother's estate"
>
> To whom is the advice being given? Comments please.

The advice may be right or wrong but it is the same advice whoever it
is given to. The only person who has acted badly here is the daughter
who knew her mother did not intend to give her the money, but saw an
opportunity to take it. If the mother had found out she could do
nothing to change the situation apart from persuasion or court action.
The fact that the lawyer told her of this opportunity does not make his
advice 'good' or 'bad' in a moral sense and as it turns out it seems to
bave been a debatable point as to whether the mother had a benefiicial
interest . As I say, the daughter knew what she and her mother
intended and knew she could bring this to pass if she wanted too. It
is nothing to do with the lawyers. She could have gone to any new
lawyer to find out how good her chances of getting all the money were.
Or to agree to share it.


The mother may have a case against the lawyer who arranged the terms
for the payment for the house purchase on her behalf for not
safeguarding her interests, but perhaps she did not retain a lawyer
separate from her daughter's lawyer. If so, sadly, this was her
mistake.

--

Percy Picacity

[AnthonyL]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:25:02 +0100, John Briggs
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>>
>> To whom is the advice being given? Comments please.
>
>That advice was given to the daughter. Clearly the mother had a cause
>for complaint against the solicitors, but it is far from clear that the
>executors do.

Regardless of whether I agree with you as to whom the advice was given
the LO's view is that they can handle my complaint if I can show that
there were "exceptional circumstances" that my mother did not at the
time complain. The fact that it is pretty obvious that my mother
never received this information appears not to count.

Put it the other way, if my mother had received that information, she
would have done something about it.

Readers may also like to note that in the written testimony that
solicitor gave 5 years later he admits to not knowing what happened
after his pre-purchase meeting with my mother, not knowing of the
notes and letters of the other solicitor that led to our mother's Will
and not knowing of the contents of the Will which my mother was
looking at changing.

My mother and the above solicitor never spoke again about the Will. It
was totally in the daughter's interests to not have my mother and the
above solicitor meet or talk because if they did the situation would
have been sorted one way or another. The LO can't see that.


--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c046d2...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:00:04 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <51bdd85c...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> >AnthonyL <nos...@please.invalid> wrote:

> >Your complaint seems mostly to be that these solicitors gave the
> >daughter bad advice.
>
> Absolutely not. The solicitors gave my mother advice. Then
> subsequently at the intervention of the daughter gave contradictory
> advice which was in the interests of the daughter to withhold from her
> mother.
>

I still don't see how yur mother could have been prejudiced by incorrect
advice she did not receive, and which was given after the property was
acquired.

>
> In any event it did not matter how it was settled. One firm of
> solicitors handling all dealings should not have left room for a
> dispute.

At the time of acquisition of the property, I agree, subject to the
instructions the solicitors received. At all times after that, the
beneficial interest was whatever it was, and was not likely to change.

>
> How can you have:
>
> a) Two professionals in one firm giving opposing advice?
> b) One firm handling clients with conflicting interests?
> c) Giving advice to once client via the other when their interests
> conflict?
>

Their interests only conflict if you know there is likely to be a dispute
about the question of whether there was a beneficial interest. Nothing was
changing at this point, so either the interest existed or it didn't, as a
matter of fact.

>
> >In any case I agree with Chris that you have no recourse against a
> >solicitor who gives bad advice to your opponent,
>
> She wasn't an opponent at that stage. The advice was not intended for
> her but for her to pass on to her mother. Having got it she then used
> it.

The only questions about the solicitor's conduct in doing this are (a) had
mother authorised solicitor to speak to daughter about her affairs, (b) did
solicitor believe that to be the case, and (c) if neither of the foregoing,
what loss flowed from the breach of confidentiality?

>
> >even if that leads to
> >your opponent conducting the litigation against you overly
> >aggressively.
>
> The solicitor was also my mother's solicitor.
>

Not during the dispute. A solicitor is not necessarily banned for ever from
dealing with clients or cases in conflict with former clients.

>
> >Having agreed to forgo your costs claim against the daughter, I don't
> >think you can now try to get satisfaction from her solicitor.
>
> The solicitors of the firm gave conflicting advice, poorly documented
> the events, (said they) put important and related stuff on the sale
> file of my mother's property which in accordance with policy is
> destroyed after 6yrs, and dealt with my mother's affairs through the
> daughter about whom the Will solicitor wrote on the Will file
> "daughter appears to want it all".

Destroying files is quite normal.

>
> The LO at every stage of dealings have got things wrong, and when
> corrected proceed to get something else wrong. Their final analysis
> gets the sequence of events wrong, even though the sequence is clearly
> stated in one of the solicitor's Witness statement so not my fault.
> The sequence is of consequence. The LO has squirmed all the way to
> avoiding taking on the investigation of this case. They have the
> advantage over you that they have the full Will file and they (the
> alloted investigator) still can't grasp basic comprehension.

Leaving aside minor errors, the Ombudsman may be having the same difficulty
as we are here in understanding the true basis of your complaint. But you
referred earlier to the lack of "exceptional circumstances" being the reason
given for the refusal to accept your complaint. Under the current edition of
the rules (an earlier version may apply to your complaint) you do not need
to show exceptional circumstances to complain as the deceased's personal
representative. But you would need exceptional circumstances if a time limit
had expired under chapter 4. Is that perhaps the reason given?
http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/Scheme-Rules.pdf
rules 4.5 to 4.8.

>
> Let's try a bit here - this is an extract of the solicitor's
> attendance note after my mother had contacted him about making changes
> to her Will:
>
> "I then received a telephone call from the daughter, who said
> that what her mother was concerned about was that when they
> purchased the property some six years ago, a large portion of
> the money to purchase the property was provided by mother but
> the property was put in the sole name of the daugher.
> .
> .
> .
> .. and they thought it might be an idea to make some mention
> in the Will about the property. I said that was not necessary
> and there was a clear gift made by mother at the time of
> the money and the property was in daugher's sole name and it
> did not come into the mother's estate"
>
> To whom is the advice being given? Comments please.
>

It sounds as if mother asked daughter to contact the solicitor on her
behalf, or at least that the solicitor believed that mother had authorised
him to speak to daughter about mother's affairs. That is not uncommon. If
mother had not given any kind of authority, I agree that the solicitor
should not have discussed mother's affairs with daughter. But I don't see
that this caused the loss.

The problem seems to flow from the original purchase, with mother providing
the purchase price but not having her interest protected on the title. If
the solicitor was acting for mother and did not advise her on that, it would
be negligent; but it seems likely that those were mother's instructions at
the time. If mother chose not to be registered as proprietor, it is hardly
surprising that someone would later be misled into thinking she had no
interest.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c06500...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:25:02 +0100, John Briggs
> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Regardless of whether I agree with you as to whom the advice was given
> the LO's view is that they can handle my complaint if I can show that
> there were "exceptional circumstances" that my mother did not at the
> time complain. The fact that it is pretty obvious that my mother
> never received this information appears not to count.
>
> Put it the other way, if my mother had received that information, she
> would have done something about it.

Are you saying that your mother never knew that she had not been registered
as joint owner of the property?

See my other post about the LO rules and "exceptional circumstances".

>
> Readers may also like to note that in the written testimony that
> solicitor gave 5 years later he admits to not knowing what happened
> after his pre-purchase meeting with my mother, not knowing of the
> notes and letters of the other solicitor that led to our mother's Will
> and not knowing of the contents of the Will which my mother was
> looking at changing.

Is there any reason why he should have known? Solicitors are not expected to
have perfect recall, or to know everything their colleagues are doing, and
clients tend not to want to pay for solicitors to spend time re-reading old
files just in case there might be something of relevance. It is the totality
of the advice on the matter that is important, not what is said at any
particular moment.

>
> My mother and the above solicitor never spoke again about the Will. It
> was totally in the daughter's interests to not have my mother and the
> above solicitor meet or talk because if they did the situation would
> have been sorted one way or another. The LO can't see that.
>

Nor can I, I'm afraid. Your complaint seems to be an attempt to make the
solicitors responsible for a problem that arose when the property was
acquired without your mother being registered as joint proprietor. Either
that was the solicitors' fault, but the claim is out of time, or it was your
mother's error of judgement at the time.

[John Briggs]

Except that she had carefully bequeathed that "non-existent" interest in
a will drawn up by the same firm. It is hardly surprising that someone
who is not a lawyer would later be misled into thinking she had such an
interest.
--
John Briggs

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> "AnthonyL" wrote
>>

>> Put it the other way, if my mother had received that
>> information, she would have done something about it.
>
> Are you saying that your mother never knew that she had not been
> registered as joint owner of the property?

Sounds like the information was given to the daughter. So the
fault may be the daughter's rather than the solicitor's. If there
is any fault here, that is.

>> Readers may also like to note that in the written testimony
>> that solicitor gave 5 years later he admits to not knowing what
>> happened after his pre-purchase meeting with my mother, not
>> knowing of the notes and letters of the other solicitor that
>> led to our mother's Will and not knowing of the contents of the
>> Will which my mother was looking at changing.
>
> Is there any reason why he should have known? Solicitors are not
> expected to have perfect recall, or to know everything their
> colleagues are doing, and clients tend not to want to pay for
> solicitors to spend time re-reading old files just in case there
> might be something of relevance. It is the totality of the
> advice on the matter that is important, not what is said at any
> particular moment.

Is OP saying that the solicitor didn't know what he himself did?
Or that he didn't know what happened after the work that he
completed?

>> My mother and the above solicitor never spoke again about the
>> Will. It was totally in the daughter's interests to not have my
>> mother and the above solicitor meet or talk because if they did
>> the situation would have been sorted one way or another. The
>> LO can't see that.
>>
> Nor can I, I'm afraid. Your complaint seems to be an attempt to
> make the solicitors responsible for a problem that arose when
> the property was acquired without your mother being registered
> as joint proprietor. Either that was the solicitors' fault, but
> the claim is out of time, or it was your mother's error of
> judgement at the time.

It still sounds more like the daugher's fault than the solicitor's.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[AnthonyL]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:45:02 +0100, "Chris R"
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Leaving aside minor errors, the Ombudsman may be having the same difficulty
>as we are here in understanding the true basis of your complaint. But you
>referred earlier to the lack of "exceptional circumstances" being the reason
>given for the refusal to accept your complaint. Under the current edition of
>the rules (an earlier version may apply to your complaint) you do not need
>to show exceptional circumstances to complain as the deceased's personal
>representative. But you would need exceptional circumstances if a time limit
>had expired under chapter 4. Is that perhaps the reason given?
>http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/Scheme-Rules.pdf
>rules 4.5 to 4.8.

This is the explanation:

"Turning to rule 4.2 (b), in my view, "exceptional
circumstances"refers to something out of the ordinary that prevented
the deceased from complaining about her service. This situation might
arise where the firm have 'hidden' their poor service, or the poor
service arises from a failure to advise in circumstances where it was
not reasonable to expect the deceased to have known there was poor
service prior to their death. I have not seen anything that shows your
mother was not aware of the gift she provided to your sister, meaning
she had no reason to complain to the firm. If you believe, that you
have evidence to the contrary, then please forward this to me to
consider."

My mother did not gift it, she merely allowed it to registered in the
daugher's sole name. There is no evidence that she gifted it. There
is no document to say that she had gifted it. If the solicitor who
believed this had happened had written to her confirming her
instructions then she would have known his view and could have done
something about it. Instead he states he wrote a careful note on a
file which he knows will be destroyed in 6 yrs.

Immediately after the supposed gifting is supposed to have occured my
mother was passed on to the other solicitor to deal with her Will and
it is clear from that a letter written from that meeting and
subsequent, and prior to completion of the purchase, that my mother
was seeking to deal with her investment via her Will. She was
supported in this by the Will solicitor who also noted on the file

"daughter appears to want it all".

There may have been a response from my mother and it may well be on
the same destroyed file. The letter the Will solicitor wrote to my
mother at the early stages was not obtained from the firm and they
cannot produce a copy so we can assume that must also have been filed
on the now destroyed file.

Yes my mother could have done more. She was 75yrs old and wanted the
minimum of fuss and formality. I'm angry at that.

Originally there had been a family meeting, all of us, at the same
firm, at which it was agreed a 75% daughter, 25% mother, tenants in
common ownership. When I asked her what had happened on learning that
it was all in the daughter's name and that she had given our
inheritance away she just waved her hand in one of those dismissive
gestures, smiled and said it was all sorted. End of discussion.

The firm was conflicted. This is the sort of mess firms get
themselves into when conflicted. There is no documentation to show
that, in accordance with SRA policy, there was agreement for
information to be passed on from one client to another.

I really don't care what the daughter did or didn't do. It is self
apparent that, having known of the Will for several years (her
testimony), and having known of the proprietor's gifting view, she
could be tempted to use that information to her advantage. A good and
loving daughter would have seen that there was an issue and sought to
resolve it. That is now collateral damage. A daughter who is
prepared to cheat her mother and her siblings. It is the slackness of
the firm that gave her the opening. It was the support from the
proprietor after my mother's death that fuelled her to refuse to
honour the Will.

I spoke to and wrote to the proprietor after my mother's death and
challenges in writing the ownership of the property. He continued to
pronounce his stance without checking the Will file and the reasons
the Will was written as it was. He had plenty of opportunity to not
rely on his memory of an event from 11yrs ago which had been
superseded. He didn't even offer me the Will file to which I was
entitled. I had to learn from another firm that I could get this.

The Will solicitor had plenty of opportunity to clarify to all what
the story was (well she tried to in the Will file anyway).

It really would have been less hassle if my mother had not used a
solicitor at all.

The LO has all these papers and letters. In his refusal to deal with
it he for instance puts the "gifting" meeting AFTER the purchase of
the property instead of clearly as testified by the proprietor, one or
two months BEFORE the purchase.

I'll say again, if the firm had done a good job there would have been
no room for dispute. My mother did not know they were doing a bad job
because she never got to hear directly the proprietor's view that the
property had been gifted. Furthermore how is she supposed to know
what has or has not been filed or thrown away? Have you asked to
study your Will file recently?



--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c18b42...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:45:02 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Leaving aside minor errors, the Ombudsman may be having the same
> >difficulty
> >as we are here in understanding the true basis of your complaint. But you
> >referred earlier to the lack of "exceptional circumstances" being the
> >reason
> >given for the refusal to accept your complaint. Under the current edition
> >of
> >the rules (an earlier version may apply to your complaint) you do not
> >need
> >to show exceptional circumstances to complain as the deceased's personal
> >representative. But you would need exceptional circumstances if a time
> >limit
> >had expired under chapter 4. Is that perhaps the reason given?
> >http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/Scheme-Rules.pdf
> >rules 4.5 to 4.8.
>
> This is the explanation:
>
> "Turning to rule 4.2 (b), in my view, "exceptional
> circumstances"refers to something out of the ordinary that prevented
> the deceased from complaining about her service.

4.2(b) of the current rules is about failure to use the firm's own
complaints procedure before going to the Ombudsman; I do struggle to link
that in to the LO explanation. Previous versions of the LO rules do not seem
to be on their website.

> This situation might
> arise where the firm have 'hidden' their poor service, or the poor
> service arises from a failure to advise in circumstances where it was
> not reasonable to expect the deceased to have known there was poor
> service prior to their death. I have not seen anything that shows your
> mother was not aware of the gift she provided to your sister, meaning
> she had no reason to complain to the firm. If you believe, that you
> have evidence to the contrary, then please forward this to me to
> consider."

This sounds as if it is concerned about the time limits. the complaint is
not being rejected because of the substance of it, but because it is out of
time, or possibly because it would be out of time if made now, and you did
not complain to the firm first.

>
> My mother did not gift it, she merely allowed it to registered in the
> daugher's sole name. There is no evidence that she gifted it. There
> is no document to say that she had gifted it. If the solicitor who
> believed this had happened had written to her confirming her
> instructions then she would have known his view and could have done
> something about it. Instead he states he wrote a careful note on a
> file which he knows will be destroyed in 6 yrs.

That would be normal if the solicitor received unusual instructions. It
sounds as if your mother instructed the firm not to put her name on the
tile, even though she intended to have a beneficial interest. Why would that
have been? to anyone looking at the title later, it would appear that she
had no interest.

>
> Immediately after the supposed gifting is supposed to have occured my
> mother was passed on to the other solicitor to deal with her Will and
> it is clear from that a letter written from that meeting and
> subsequent, and prior to completion of the purchase, that my mother
> was seeking to deal with her investment via her Will. She was
> supported in this by the Will solicitor who also noted on the file
> "daughter appears to want it all".
>
> There may have been a response from my mother and it may well be on
> the same destroyed file. The letter the Will solicitor wrote to my
> mother at the early stages was not obtained from the firm and they
> cannot produce a copy so we can assume that must also have been filed
> on the now destroyed file.

Again, that would be normal. Firms are under no obligation to keep files
indefinitely. But are you saying that the supposedly wrong advice not passed
to the mother was more than six years ago? In that case the complaint is
clearly out of time. The LO service is not there to give you a remedy when
the limitation period for court action has expired.

>
> Yes my mother could have done more. She was 75yrs old and wanted the
> minimum of fuss and formality. I'm angry at that.
>
> Originally there had been a family meeting, all of us, at the same
> firm, at which it was agreed a 75% daughter, 25% mother, tenants in
> common ownership. When I asked her what had happened on learning that
> it was all in the daughter's name and that she had given our
> inheritance away she just waved her hand in one of those dismissive
> gestures, smiled and said it was all sorted. End of discussion.

So she knew the position. Had she been unhappy, she could have complained.
That really is the end of the road for your complaint.

>
> The firm was conflicted. This is the sort of mess firms get
> themselves into when conflicted. There is no documentation to show
> that, in accordance with SRA policy, there was agreement for
> information to be passed on from one client to another.

You haven't clearly identified the breach of the rules you are complaining
about. There is no conflict in one firm acting for several members of a
family, for joint purchasers of a property, or for a testator and
beneficiaries of a will.

It is for you to prove your case. the firm does not have to produce
documentary evidence to prove that it acted properly, especially after its
file has been destroyed. You have the overwhelming problem of proving that
your mother did not instruct or authorise the firm to act as they did.

>
> I really don't care what the daughter did or didn't do. It is self
> apparent that, having known of the Will for several years (her
> testimony), and having known of the proprietor's gifting view, she
> could be tempted to use that information to her advantage. A good and
> loving daughter would have seen that there was an issue and sought to
> resolve it. That is now collateral damage. A daughter who is
> prepared to cheat her mother and her siblings. It is the slackness of
> the firm that gave her the opening. It was the support from the
> proprietor after my mother's death that fuelled her to refuse to
> honour the Will.

Again, you are complaining about advice given to the daughter, which is
between her and the firm.

>
> I spoke to and wrote to the proprietor after my mother's death and
> challenges in writing the ownership of the property. He continued to
> pronounce his stance without checking the Will file and the reasons
> the Will was written as it was. He had plenty of opportunity to not
> rely on his memory of an event from 11yrs ago which had been
> superseded. He didn't even offer me the Will file to which I was
> entitled. I had to learn from another firm that I could get this.

11 years! Your complaint really is hopeless. Time limits have long expired.
And under rule 4.5(a), the act complained of must have been after 1 October
2010, when the current statutory Ombudsman scheme was created.

>
> The Will solicitor had plenty of opportunity to clarify to all what
> the story was (well she tried to in the Will file anyway).

Too late. The property acquisition had happened by then. Nothing after that
date caused the loss.

>
> It really would have been less hassle if my mother had not used a
> solicitor at all.
>
> The LO has all these papers and letters. In his refusal to deal with
> it he for instance puts the "gifting" meeting AFTER the purchase of
> the property instead of clearly as testified by the proprietor, one or
> two months BEFORE the purchase.

Not good, but not really relevant.

>
> I'll say again, if the firm had done a good job there would have been
> no room for dispute. My mother did not know they were doing a bad job
> because she never got to hear directly the proprietor's view that the
> property had been gifted. Furthermore how is she supposed to know
> what has or has not been filed or thrown away? Have you asked to
> study your Will file recently?
>

Your complaint is about what was done at the time of the property
acquisition, and it was probably done on your mother's instructions. Even
if not, the relevant time limits have long expired, so there is no remedy
against the firm.

[John Briggs]

The simplest explanation is that the solicitor misunderstood his
instructions and didn't register the mother's interest. He later
gave advice to the daughter which was in accord with his own previous
actions rather with the actual facts. A suspicicious LO investigator (is
the LO the only person who employs investigators who are not
suspicious?) might wish to investigate whether this was merely
incompetence or a self-serving intention to conceal his error.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 19/06/2013 15:00, Chris R wrote:
>> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c18b42...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>

>> My mother did not gift it, she merely allowed it to registered in the
>> daugher's sole name. There is no evidence that she gifted it. There
>> is no document to say that she had gifted it. If the solicitor who
>> believed this had happened had written to her confirming her
>> instructions then she would have known his view and could have done
>> something about it. Instead he states he wrote a careful note on a
>> file which he knows will be destroyed in 6 yrs.
>
> That would be normal if the solicitor received unusual instructions. It
> sounds as if your mother instructed the firm not to put her name on the
> tile, even though she intended to have a beneficial interest. Why would that
> have been? to anyone looking at the title later, it would appear that she
> had no interest.

Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same
solicitor who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that
he misunderstood his instructions.
--
John Briggs

[Chris R]

>
>
> "John Briggs" wrote in message news:tsmwt.61923$Gm5....@fx11.am4...

"She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name". Why
would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.

In any event, the OP seems to accept that any chance to complain about the
original transaction has been time barred and lost.

[John Briggs]

On 19/06/2013 20:45, Chris R wrote:
>> "John Briggs" wrote in message news:tsmwt.61923$Gm5....@fx11.am4...
>> On 19/06/2013 15:00, Chris R wrote:
>>>> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c18b42...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> My mother did not gift it, she merely allowed it to registered in the
>>>> daugher's sole name. There is no evidence that she gifted it. There
>>>> is no document to say that she had gifted it. If the solicitor who
>>>> believed this had happened had written to her confirming her
>>>> instructions then she would have known his view and could have done
>>>> something about it. Instead he states he wrote a careful note on a
>>>> file which he knows will be destroyed in 6 yrs.
>>>
>>> That would be normal if the solicitor received unusual instructions. It
>>> sounds as if your mother instructed the firm not to put her name on the
>>> tile, even though she intended to have a beneficial interest. Why would
>>> that
>>> have been? to anyone looking at the title later, it would appear that
>>> she
>>> had no interest.
>>
>> Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same solicitor
>> who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that he
>> misunderstood his instructions.
>
> "She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name". Why
> would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
> instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.

But his interpretation (and recollection of them) wasn't accepted by a
court - although the case was settled rather than going to judgement.

> In any event, the OP seems to accept that any chance to complain about the
> original transaction has been time barred and lost.
--

John Briggs

[Chris R]

>
>
> "John Briggs" wrote in message news:hhpwt.46382$YV.2...@fx33.am4...

I think you may be conflating the events prior to the acquisition of the
property with those subsequent.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <Cmjwt.109344$hJ.2...@fx19.am4>,

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>(is the LO the only person who employs investigators who are not
>suspicious?)

Hardly. There's the IPCC, for example. If we don't limit ourselves
to nominally independent investigators, every organisation which has a
strategy of incompetent complaint handling.

[AnthonyL]

Wrong on so many counts that it hardly seems worth answering.

1) The LO has not ruled it out because of the time
2) The Firm also dealt with the complaint
3) I am not complaining that the house was put in the daughter's sole
name]
4) I am complaining that the Firm did a bad job in properly clarifying
and documenting the whole episode
5) I am complaining that even after my mother's death the proprietor
was telling me that my mother had no interest when clearly if he had
read the Will file then he would at least have had to modify that with
a "maybe". If either then or 4 years before he had clarified it with a
"maybe" then the aggressive stance of the daughter would have been
abated. And if he had spoken with directly with the daughter, or had
written to my mother at the beginning the massive misunderstanding
would not have occured.

As these things were not fully known until the Will file was read then
then and the issue resolved, albeit out of court, then the complaint
time line was accepted.


--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

This is quite likely. Of course if he had written to my mother then
he would have been covered and my mother could have cleared up any
misunderstanding. And the later was 6 years later - worth a check of
the files before pronouncing? And finally after my mother's death and
on being challenged by me again worth a look at the Will file before
he sent it to me? He may then not have been so bombastic about his
view.

>A suspicicious LO investigator (is
>the LO the only person who employs investigators who are not
>suspicious?) might wish to investigate whether this was merely
>incompetence or a self-serving intention to conceal his error.

But he has chosen not to investigate, and that stinks to me.

--
AnthonyL

[AnthonyL]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:45:02 +0100, "Chris R"
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>> Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same solicitor
>> who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that he
>> misunderstood his instructions.
>
>"She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name". Why
>would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
>instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.

We don't know. There may be any number of good reasons. Maybe the
Will solicitor wrote all these good reasons down carefully on the
same file.

>
>In any event, the OP seems to accept that any chance to complain about the
>original transaction has been time barred and lost.

No I haven't.


--
AnthonyL

[John Briggs]

Which is not unreasonable, as the same individual is common to both.
--
John Briggs

[AnthonyL]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:16 +0100, John Briggs
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same solicitor
>>> who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that he
>>> misunderstood his instructions.
>>
>> "She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name". Why
>> would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
>> instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.
>
>But his interpretation (and recollection of them) wasn't accepted by a
>court - although the case was settled rather than going to judgement.
>

And neither did the immediately following notes and correspondence by
the Will solicitor who consistently refers to my mother's investment
and then proceeds to prepare the Will bequeathing the sums invested.

Knowing that the property was to be put in the daughter's sole name
(it hadn't yet happened) then there is a view that the conflict of
interest was arising and the firm should have ceased to represent both
parties.

The mother doesn't know and cannot be expected to know that the
professionals at the firm at this stage have differing view. If you
deal with a firm you deal with the firm.

A mess that warrants investigation surely?

--
AnthonyL

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c2c743...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:00:10 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >Your complaint is about what was done at the time of the property
> >acquisition, and it was probably done on your mother's instructions.
> >Even
> >if not, the relevant time limits have long expired, so there is no
> >remedy
> >against the firm.
>
> Wrong on so many counts that it hardly seems worth answering.

I agree that we have probably got to the point where nothing useful is being
added.

>
> 1) The LO has not ruled it out because of the time

OK; but you have still not explained why they are ruling it out, other than
the extract you posted referring to rule 4, which is about time limits and
the need to go to the firm first.

> 2) The Firm also dealt with the complaint

Good, so the rule referred to by the LO should not be relevant: If you went
through the firms' complaints procedure first, it's clearly unnecessary for
the Ombudsman to exercise discretion under 4.2.

> 3) I am not complaining that the house was put in the daughter's sole
> name]

Yet that seems to be the substance of the problem.

> 4) I am complaining that the Firm did a bad job in properly clarifying
> and documenting the whole episode

I think you need to find specific acts or omissions that amounted to
breaches of the rules or poor service, rather than generalising. If you want
to recover �20,000, you will have to show that the problem you are
complaining about actually caused your loss. You also have to be within the
time limits in respect of this specific act or omission.

> 5) I am complaining that even after my mother's death the proprietor
> was telling me that my mother had no interest when clearly if he had
> read the Will file then he would at least have had to modify that with
> a "maybe". If either then or 4 years before he had clarified it with a
> "maybe" then the aggressive stance of the daughter would have been
> abated. And if he had spoken with directly with the daughter, or had
> written to my mother at the beginning the massive misunderstanding
> would not have occured.

He may have got it wrong. People do. Sometimes they are responsible for
that, sometimes not. Among other things, he could be acting on information
or instructions provided to him by someone else, or on inferences from
documents in front of him, such as the lack of any entry on the Land
Registry title. But the mere fact that he described the situation wrongly,
after the fact, does not make him liable to change the actual situation. Not
does it make him responsible for everything that anyone may do in
consequence of his opinion.

>
> As these things were not fully known until the Will file was read then
> then and the issue resolved, albeit out of court, then the complaint
> time line was accepted.
>

The timeline is still very unclear from your posts, so I'm not surprised
that the LO has had difficulty with it.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c2ca02...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:45:02 +0100, "Chris R"
> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same
> >> solicitor
> >> who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that he
> >> misunderstood his instructions.
> >
> >"She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name". Why
> >would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
> >instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.
>
> We don't know. There may be any number of good reasons. Maybe the
> Will solicitor wrote all these good reasons down carefully on the
> same file.
>

If I am understanding the sequence correctly, and it is very unclear, the
will was drawn up shortly after the property purchase. In drawing up the
will, the solicitor would rely either on information from the colleague who
did the conveyancing or, just as likely, on your mother's description her
assets. If she told him that she had a beneficial interest, he would accept
that and act accordingly. That is evidence of your mother's belief that she
had an interest, but not direct evidence that she in fact had one.

> >
> >In any event, the OP seems to accept that any chance to complain about
> >the
> >original transaction has been time barred and lost.
>
> No I haven't.
>

So this occurred 11 years ago, yet you still think you can complain about
it? On what grounds?

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AnthonyL" wrote in message news:51c2cbba...@news.zen.co.uk...

>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:16 +0100, John Briggs
> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Except that the "anyone looking at the title later" was the same
> >>> solicitor
> >>> who had handled the conveyance. It is simpler to conclude that he
> >>> misunderstood his instructions.
> >>
> >> "She merely allowed it to be registered in the daughter's sole name".
> >> Why
> >> would she do that? It seems the solicitor made a careful note of his
> >> instructions, unfortunately since destroyed.
> >
> >But his interpretation (and recollection of them) wasn't accepted by a
> >court - although the case was settled rather than going to judgement.
> >
>
> And neither did the immediately following notes and correspondence by
> the Will solicitor who consistently refers to my mother's investment
> and then proceeds to prepare the Will bequeathing the sums invested.

It hardly matters, because the court agreed that she did have a beneficial
interest, but the solicitor drawing up the will was quite likely acting on
your mother's instructions telling him that she did have an interest.

>
> Knowing that the property was to be put in the daughter's sole name
> (it hadn't yet happened) then there is a view that the conflict of
> interest was arising and the firm should have ceased to represent both
> parties.

No conflict arises when two people buy a property together, if they are
agreed on how it is to be shared. There are certainly questions to be asked
if one says it is to be registered in the sole name of the other, especially
if she also declines to have a trust deed drawn up, but it is not
automatically a conflict requiring the firm to cease acting.

>
> The mother doesn't know and cannot be expected to know that the
> professionals at the firm at this stage have differing view. If you
> deal with a firm you deal with the firm.
>
> A mess that warrants investigation surely?
>

If two solicitors in a firm having different views were grounds for
complaint, there would be no firms left in practice.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-06-20 13:15:02 +0000, Chris R said:
snip

> If two solicitors in a firm having different views were grounds for
> complaint, there would be no firms left in practice.

Even a one man firm could soon run into trouble if the proprietor was
not too dogmatic to occasionally change his mind on a difficult
question!

--

Percy Picacity

[Stuart Bronstein]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> Chris R said:

>> If two solicitors in a firm having different views were grounds
>> for complaint, there would be no firms left in practice.
>
> Even a one man firm could soon run into trouble if the
> proprietor was not too dogmatic to occasionally change his mind
> on a difficult question!

I've heard it said that between any two lawyers, there are at least
three opinions.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com