Summary of complaint
Below is a summary of my complaint to the SRA about Thomas Eggar LLP, which I broke down into 9 individual complaints. There is a link at the bottom of this page to download the full text of the complaint, the supporting documents and Thomas Eggar's official response to my complaint. Thomas Eggar refute all claims of wrong-doing and say that they were acting on their client's instructions.
Complaint 1
I complain that Thomas Eggar LLP continued to claim money from me even though I think they were, or should have been aware that there were no lawful grounds for any debt to exist. I think they continued their claim in the hope that I would not know, or would not find out that their client had re-let the premises to other tenants and that this would effect a surrender of the lease (as an operation of law) under which they claimed a debt
The Law Society's Practice notes on dealing with litigants in person prohibit taking "unfair advantage" and go on to state that such unfair advantage includes "claiming what cannot properly be claimed" and "demanding what cannot properly be demanded".
The Solicitors Regulation Authorities Code of Conduct also prohibits taking advantage of an unrepresented parties lack of legal knowledge.
Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006 makes it an offence to make a misrepresentation with the aim of making a financial gain for oneself or another, or to cause loss to another. The SRA principal #2 is to "uphold the rule of law".
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 2
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP made an unjustifiable threat that led me into agreeing to a contract that I otherwise would not have agreed to. Geoffrey Harrington of Thomas Eggar LLP stated that they would seek "recourse" under an earlier guarantee clause if I did not agree to a replacement lease. This guarantor clause appeared to allow Camarin to claim a large sum of money from me. In fact, there could have been no claim under the guarantor clause in law and had I been aware of this, I would not have agreed to a replacement lease under which Thomas Eggar LLP would later make their claims.
The Law Society's Practice notes on dealing with litigants in person prohibit taking "unfair advantage" and go on to state that such unfair advantage includes "bullying and unjustifiable threats".
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Society's Practice notes on dealing with litigants in person prohibit taking "unfair advantage" and go on to state that such unfair advantage includes "bullying and unjustifiable threats".
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 3
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP failed to complete an implied undertaking when it confirmed "heads of terms" for a new commercial lease but failed to create a lease that encompassed those terms according to its own interpretation. This led to my argument against the bankruptcy petition that the lease was misrepresented to me and this argument was upheld in The High Court In Bankruptcy.
The SRA Code of Conduct requires Solicitors to complete undertakings and as above, not to take unfair advantage of an unrepresented party.
From the point of view of Thomas Eggar's client, it appears Thomas Eggar created a lease that The High Court did not consider reliable enough to enforce a debt.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP failed to complete an implied undertaking when it confirmed "heads of terms" for a new commercial lease but failed to create a lease that encompassed those terms according to its own interpretation. This led to my argument against the bankruptcy petition that the lease was misrepresented to me and this argument was upheld in The High Court In Bankruptcy.
The SRA Code of Conduct requires Solicitors to complete undertakings and as above, not to take unfair advantage of an unrepresented party.
From the point of view of Thomas Eggar's client, it appears Thomas Eggar created a lease that The High Court did not consider reliable enough to enforce a debt.
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 4
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP again tried to take advantage of my unrepresented status by encouraging me to enter into what it claimed was a limited charge against my home to satisfy the alleged debt to their client. In fact, the debt is now known to be false (which I believe Thomas Eggar LLP were or should have been aware of) and in fact the wording of the "equitable mortgage" document they wanted me to sign would have permitted an unlimited claim against my home.
The SRA Code of Conduct requires Solicitors not to take unfair advantage of an unrepresented party.
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP again tried to take advantage of my unrepresented status by encouraging me to enter into what it claimed was a limited charge against my home to satisfy the alleged debt to their client. In fact, the debt is now known to be false (which I believe Thomas Eggar LLP were or should have been aware of) and in fact the wording of the "equitable mortgage" document they wanted me to sign would have permitted an unlimited claim against my home.
The SRA Code of Conduct requires Solicitors not to take unfair advantage of an unrepresented party.
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 5
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP misled British Gas into believing that I was liable for the supply of electricity to its clients premises, which were in use by its client at the time. British Gas had otherwise concluded that Thomas Eggar LLP's client Camarin Holdings Ltd were liable. Further, Thomas Eggar LLP did not inform British Gas that they were already pursuing my bankruptcy, despite encouraging British Gas to consider that I had a £14,000+ liability to them. Once it was confirmed that I could not have any legal responsibility for the supply of electricity as Thomas Eggar had claimed, I asked Thomas Eggar to send a correction to British Gas. They refused.
The SRA Principals require solicitors to "act with integrity" and "behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services".
In pursuing a bankruptcy action against me on behalf of their client, but encouraging British Gas to consider themselves one of my creditors without informing them that they were seeking my bankruptcy, this could show that Thomas Eggar LLP abused the bankruptcy process, as they were not "properly motivated" to use the bankruptcy process which is designed to evenly distribute a bankrupts assets to all creditors.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP misled British Gas into believing that I was liable for the supply of electricity to its clients premises, which were in use by its client at the time. British Gas had otherwise concluded that Thomas Eggar LLP's client Camarin Holdings Ltd were liable. Further, Thomas Eggar LLP did not inform British Gas that they were already pursuing my bankruptcy, despite encouraging British Gas to consider that I had a £14,000+ liability to them. Once it was confirmed that I could not have any legal responsibility for the supply of electricity as Thomas Eggar had claimed, I asked Thomas Eggar to send a correction to British Gas. They refused.
The SRA Principals require solicitors to "act with integrity" and "behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services".
In pursuing a bankruptcy action against me on behalf of their client, but encouraging British Gas to consider themselves one of my creditors without informing them that they were seeking my bankruptcy, this could show that Thomas Eggar LLP abused the bankruptcy process, as they were not "properly motivated" to use the bankruptcy process which is designed to evenly distribute a bankrupts assets to all creditors.
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 6
That Thomas Eggar LLP changed the contents of a deed (a commercial lease) with the effect of increasing the liability they claimed I had under it, without my permission and after I had signed it. Thomas Eggar LLP then withheld the changed article from me for several months, perhaps so that I would not discover the unauthorised alteration and perhaps so that I could not seek legal advice about it. The High Court in Bankruptcy ruled that the resulting lease could not be relied upon to enforce a debt because of the changes made by Thomas Eggar LLP.
I believe that these actions breached the SRA principals 1,2 and 6, being to uphold the rule of law, to act with integrity and to behave in a way that maintains public trust.
---------------------------------------------------------
That Thomas Eggar LLP changed the contents of a deed (a commercial lease) with the effect of increasing the liability they claimed I had under it, without my permission and after I had signed it. Thomas Eggar LLP then withheld the changed article from me for several months, perhaps so that I would not discover the unauthorised alteration and perhaps so that I could not seek legal advice about it. The High Court in Bankruptcy ruled that the resulting lease could not be relied upon to enforce a debt because of the changes made by Thomas Eggar LLP.
I believe that these actions breached the SRA principals 1,2 and 6, being to uphold the rule of law, to act with integrity and to behave in a way that maintains public trust.
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 7
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP engaged in debt collection activities that breached The Office of Fair Trading's debt collection guidelines and perhaps Section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. These include ignoring a dispute about the alleged debt and possibly engaging in "debt collection" tactics that were aimed to cause stress and humiliation.
The first Principal of the SRA is to "uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;"
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP engaged in debt collection activities that breached The Office of Fair Trading's debt collection guidelines and perhaps Section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. These include ignoring a dispute about the alleged debt and possibly engaging in "debt collection" tactics that were aimed to cause stress and humiliation.
The first Principal of the SRA is to "uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;"
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 8
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP abused the court process by proceeding with a bankruptcy petition which it knew was disputed on genuine grounds and either did know or ought to have known that the alleged debt was false.
The SRA code of conduct requires that solicitors are not "complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;” wheras the SRA's first principal is to "uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice"
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP abused the court process by proceeding with a bankruptcy petition which it knew was disputed on genuine grounds and either did know or ought to have known that the alleged debt was false.
The SRA code of conduct requires that solicitors are not "complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;” wheras the SRA's first principal is to "uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice"
---------------------------------------------------------
Complaint 9
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP's employee Mr Malcolm Worrell attempted to mislead the court with a statement made in a Witness Statement under a statement of truth which he knew or ought to have known was not true.
The SRA code of conduct requires that solicitors do not "attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The current status of my complaint can be checked here. My full complaint and the associated supported documents can be downloaded by clicking the links below.
Download my full complaint, as provided to Thomas Eggar LLP
and The Solicitors Regulation Authority
Download the supporting documents and evidence (some details removed for privacy)
I think that Thomas Eggar LLP's employee Mr Malcolm Worrell attempted to mislead the court with a statement made in a Witness Statement under a statement of truth which he knew or ought to have known was not true.
The SRA code of conduct requires that solicitors do not "attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The current status of my complaint can be checked here. My full complaint and the associated supported documents can be downloaded by clicking the links below.
Download my full complaint, as provided to Thomas Eggar LLP
and The Solicitors Regulation Authority
Download the supporting documents and evidence (some details removed for privacy)
No comments:
Post a Comment