Thomas Eggar LLP pursued me for a debt of an amount well into six figures for over two years, hounding me with claims and eventually issuing a bankruptcy petition against me even though the debt was substantially disputed. I spent most of those two years believing that I would lose my home and dreading every knock at the door. However, although I was just a litigant in person and Thomas Eggar are a substantial city law firm, I defeated their petition in The High Court with all of my arguments against the petition being upheld. Since then, I have been able to establish that the debt claimed was almost certainly false and that communications from Thomas Eggar during the proceedings indicate that they did or should have known that there were no lawful grounds to claim any debt from me.
Thomas Eggar have declined to investigate my complaint or to respond in detail to it, relying simply on the defense that they were doing what their client told them to do and so deny any wrong doing. However, there are a number of "guiding principals" that solicitors must adhere to, and claiming a debt in the manner it was claimed and while there seem to be no lawful grounds upon which to claim a debt could breach many of them. A solicitor's duty of care not to take advantage of an unrepresented party outranks their duty to act in the best interests of their client. I have therefore complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about the conduct of Thomas Eggar LLP.
The problem is that The Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") have a very questionable record of upholding complaints against solicitors made by members of the public. In fact in 2009, 90% of complaints were not upheld and only 2% of complaints were passed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, according to a freedom of information act request.
The SRA's states:
Our purpose is to protect the public
- by ensuring that solicitors meet high standards, and
- by acting when risks are identified.
However, the figures released under the freedom of information act could indicate that with so few complaints being upheld, that the public are not enjoying the protection that they should.
I have therefore chosen to publish my complaint against Thomas Eggar LLP, their responses and those of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The SRA is a public body that claims to protect the public. I believe that it is reasonable and appropriate for the public it serves to have open and transparent access to my complaint, so that the SRA's response and resolutions can be judged by those it claims to protect.
It is my true hope that the eventual result will be a case study that shows the general public can have trust in the SRA.
Next:
SRA Past Performance Data
