Small update on Philip Irvinson and Peter Ward

The explanation for the above post will follow shortly.

In mean time I'd like to highlight that Philip Ivinson continues to break the law in failing to provide me with a copy of the information he holds on me (my client file).  Or to supply me with any reason why he cannot fore-fill his legal duty to comply with this simple request.  I find it shocking that despite the fact that his law breaking is now public knowledge via this blog, he still continues.  His position is abundantly clear, if you have a problem with his service he is willing to break the law to make life difficult for you.

Further, as previously mentioned Peter Ward is extremely difficult to pin-down.  I therefore now have a picture of him, with the hope it would mitigate any confusion with other barristers of the same name.

Staggering Incompetence

Conversation between myself and Charles Goldthorpe at Chiltern Solicitor's office *add date*

Please see the bottom of this section for an interpretation of this conversation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex                             However.  This isn't the main concern.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                              Right. [clears throat] Sorry, let me just gather myself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             No that's ok, no problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Um... Right ok. Alright. So what did happen and what went fine really... was that Peter went to Court and asked an extension of time, because when we all sat down and discussed it, he said "ok, this is a negligence case really, it's not really..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             That's my view right from the start, as you know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. Exactly, yeah. And so fair enough try to get an extension to get that added to the case and then so say time had been extended, I take it... I don't want to put words into your mouth, and tell me if I am wrong, I take it if an extension had been given...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             The Trial would have been adjourned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah it would be adjourned  and then between yourselves and Peter you would produce a document that would prove that the case was out of time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             What we would have done is we would... the  case would have been adjourned, we would be given a certain amount of time to prepare what they call an Amended Particulars of Claim,  that's where the initial claim form - so you can amend that to add to that the Claim for negligence.  They would then get the time to file a Defence...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             There may be other directions [0:16:44.2] ... necessary and then it would go back to Trial.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. So the ultimate document that would have been produced would have been an analysis of the time limit?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             It would be an analysis of why they missed it.  Because they have                        missed it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. So it would have been a document that said ... you were contacted on such and such a day...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             You were contacted on such and such a day... you did this, that and the other... you didn't advise that  the time limit was up, you missed it and therefore you're negligent because you  [0:17:19.3]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah exactly. And it would have also said... it would have covered the continuing act for when the time limit started stopped.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Yes. What we would have to have done is come back to another conference and gone through it with you to make sure we have got the dates and times and everything right in the documents.  What got done would have been an amended draft document, sent it to you, have a chance to look at it, then we would have the meeting, discuss it, go through it, tidy it up, put it right. Alright, that's how it would work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. Can I ask you a hypothetical question now?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             You can ask me a hypothetical question I will give you a                                      hypothetical answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah... if I had submitted such a document to the Court and the other side had known that the document had been submitted and not submitted any Defence of it, and if you consider on the day the Judge was not prepared to adjourn the Hearing so it would be a reasonably likely outcome that the Judge would have cited no contest because the other side had not submitted a Defence...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Possibly. It's in the power of the Judge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah but ... more likely because the Judge has already said he is not prepared to adjourn... yeah.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             If it had gone ahead, and that document had been there and there had been no Defence to that actually, then they would have been unable to put forward any evidence to counter to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             It wouldn't be automatic but... as good as.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Well.. here is that document.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Alright.  I've seen this though haven’t I?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Have I not? No. I shan't sit down and read it now because...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        That's fine. It is basically...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             [0:19:25.8] you've got it...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        That is basically the document that they are talking about. That is proof of the time limit. And the reason that this was not in the bundle, was because... and this is in the communication I sent you... the Defendant wasn't allowing it to go into the bundle. They disputed...

...

Alex                                        Yeah. Well my argument here is that there is three opportunities - at least three, I need to check everything I've got - there is three opportunities that this should have come up and it should have been discussed at the beginning of the case. And also, what's important about this is the other side knew that you were asking for an extension of time. They knew that you didn't know about this document or this document wasn't being dealt with. So they had no fear of...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             They had no fear of it because they knew we didn't know about it...                   right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. So and this would have come up, if the case had been discussed in any detail. It's also in the inter-party documents and I mentioned it on the day to Peter as well. And it's mentioned in Court. So this is ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             [mumbling] sorry, I am talking to myself...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        That's ok. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             [speaking quietly] Right.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        So if this document...[static] no, nothing at all... so my belief is that if this document had been dealt with as it should have been, then the case would have had a very different outcome. There would have been no need for an application for an adjournment because we would argue that something that was already there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Not necessarily the case. The judge could have still ignored it even if it was in the bundle. 

...

Charles Goldthorpe             Peter  knew about it or if he didn't know about it, he should have                       done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        Yeah. So

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             I understand that

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex                                        So this is the reason that I am not happy. And the reason this comes about is because there is a total lack of preparation for the case. And that's why on the day the case went incredibly bad, I can I explain to you why...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Goldthorpe             Yeah ok. 

Chiltern Solicitors committing criminal offence!

As with all cases your Solicitor (data controller) will take charge of copies of documents pertaining to your case.  I needed to establish with Chiltern Solicitors which documents they have.  The reason for this is very serious and will be covered later.

I have a legal right to these document http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information

Further, they must be provided within 40 days, or an explanation at to why they cannot be provided must be produced.  I have now for many months (see below *to add) been requesting copies of my file from Philip Irvinson.  However, he continued to break the law in not providing either the documents or any reason for the not providing the documents.

Further Chiltern Solicitor were not registered as a Data Controller until the 17th Oct 2014.  This leaves at least 3 years in which they failed to register and the entire period in which I had dealings with them.    This is a very serious offence!  And I'd guess that the only reason that have now registered is that they knew I was researching their conduct.

 http://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=537968

 "Under the Act every organisation (data controller) that processes personal  information (personal data) must notify the Information Commissioner’s Office,  unless they are exempt. Failure to notify is a criminal offence".  Taken from the Information Commissioner Office website

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/a_brief_guide_to_notification.ashx

I'm shocked that a Solicitor can show such a disregard for the law, especially laws that are designed to protect their clients.  Again, I would also speculate that this criminal offence would invalidate their insurance.

Is it sensible to employ someone to get your legal affair into order, when they don't have their's in order?  I know for my it's been a huge mistake!

*Blog now submitted to google for indexing, oops should have been done months ago.

Details of communications in relation to document requested:

Email to Philip Ivinson 29/08/14:

"I have made many requests for copies of document from both yourself and Peter Ward and we still have made no progress at all  in getting them to me."

Email to Philip Ivinson 31/10/14:

"Also, you have not even sent me a copy of the requested documents.  This is highly unprofessional, if not illegal and is not in keeping with someone claiming they are keen to resolve matters. "

More to follow...

Lies (incompetence) told in court by the Barrister Peter Ward

As mentioned your Barrister speaks for you in court and you have no right to correct him.  So if your Barrister doesn't know your case he will just have to lie in order to give the judge an answer.  This happened many times during the hearing, I will record the times I remember them.  This will be an on-going post...

1:  I has made a request that I could record proceedings due to having a memory problem.  This was due to be dealt with before the main proceedings started.  Peter Ward had never discussed this issue with me in any detail.  The judge asked can I just take notes?  To which Peter Ward replied 'Yes'.  

This was a lie and the pre-hearing documents showed that I have problems writing notes as I have Dyslexia, this formed part of my application for having the hearing recorded.  Further, part of the evidence within the case included a professional assessment of my Dyslexia which gave a clear recommendation that instead of me using handwriting I should be allowed to use a computer (for a pending exam).  So there 3 points on which this information could have been known by Peter Ward, yet he lied and informed I could take notes, which lead to the judge disallowing my recording of proceedings.

2: As I did not acquire legal representation until very near the hearing date the judge enquirer if there was a reason for this.  To which Peter Ward again lied and said 'no'.  However, I did inform Peter Ward of my difficulty in acquiring professional help during out initial (and only pre-hearing meeting).  I clearly inform him that, as the case was a failure to make reasonable adjustments, goods and services as opposed to employment, these are very difficult cases to find people with experience. Normally failure to make adjustments cases are employment case and heard at employment tribunals.  Goods and services cases are heard in county courts.  Peter Ward clearly knew this information but again lied or was incompetent.   

3:  The judge asked if a counter claim had been submitted.  To which Peter Ward replied 'no'.  As I was still on the stand when this question was asked I could actual responded to it.  And I informed that it had been submitted and that it was in the form of a Solicitor opinion on a time-limit.  Clearly Peter Ward has no idea what I was talking about because he had not read the case.  This is such an important point and will be covered in more detail later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see the hearing was not recorded and therefore it is highly likely that other misinformation/lies were conveyed to the judge.  If I remember others I will add them.  

More Chalres Goldthorpe concerns

On further investigation of Charles Goldthorpe I contacted Moon Beever to verify his claims as being employed in the role of 'litigator' (see his LinkedIn profile). On speaking to human resources they informed that they could not disclose information on any previous employees'. So instead I asked 'does you company employ any people under the role of 'litigator', to which she replied was no, they have never employed people under that role. I also spoke to a partner at the firm and he again informed he could not discuss any ex-employee but informed that he would consider himself to be a litigator, this adds further credibility to my above claim that using this title falsely indicates that you are a Solicitor. I also attempted to verify his claims of working as an "investigator" for the Law Society. However, they could not find him on their computer. Please note this does not mean he did not work for them as I could not establish how far back the call operators system kept records. I have written to the law society and they are investigating this (all be it very slowly).

Also, Charles Goldthorpe makes the following claim “and I am a qualified Fellow of the Institute of Paralegals and an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.” I have spoken to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and they have informed me that he isn't a member. I have raised this as an issue with Philip Ivinson and he has said he was investigating it but never got back to me. On the subject of never getting to be Philip Ivinson has now had a number of requests from me regarding obtaining copies of files held in relations to my case. However, many months have now passed and no documents have been sent or any explanation as to why they have not been sent. I believe that as this request was made under the data protection act his failure to comply (without a legitimate explanation) is of legal concern. In fact there as so many inconsistencies regarding Charles Goldthorpe that it raises concerns that if these are also present on any legal insurance paperwork then Chiltern Solicitors policy would be invalid and that dealings would be without cover. To check this I've requested of Philip Ivinson a copy of his insurance policy but he has refused to share this information with me.

Who is Peter Ward?

Peter Ward isn't that easy to pin-down as he appears to work alone, he doesn't have a LinkedIn profile, his own website and he only has a Yahoo Email.  This is the limited information I can find:

He appears to work from 88 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6AA and is registered as "The Chambers of Peter Ward".  I never met or was invited to meet him here, or given a telephone number for this location.  This address appears to be Serviced Offices and he might possibly just use this as a PO Box.

On inquiring of Chiltern Solicitors who this man was as it was so difficult to find anything about him.  This was the reply I received:

"If modesty permits the best advert I think I can give are my reported cases:

Moxam v. Visible Changes Ltd. & Anor. [2012] EqLR 202

Nixon v. Ross Coates Solicitors & Anor. [2010] EqLR 284, New Law Journal 160: 7447

Kopel v. Safeway plc [2003] IRLR 753

Lassman v. De Vere University Arms Hotel [2002] ICR 44

H. J. Heinz Co. Ltd. v Kenrick [2000] IRLR 144, ICR 491

Parveen v. Little & Ors. [2000] ICR Part IV xiii

Reed & Anor v. Stedman [1999] IRLR 299

Tullett v. Page Group & Ors. (1998) Employment Lawyer 4:9

Both recent cases were reported fairly widely in the mainstream media when at first-instance as well. The Sarah Nixon case is still on the Daily Mail website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189290/Former-chair-Tory-policy-unit-denies-telling-female-colleague-women-sterilised.html"

He is also sometimes refer to as Chambers of Mr Peter Ward.  

Who is Charles Goldthorpe?

On contacting Chiltern Solicitors I received a reply from Charles Goldthorpe. As I had contacted a Solicitors I expected a reply back from a Solicitor. However, Charles Goldthorpe never actually explained what his role was. However, before paying the first down payment of £5000 I thought I should check him out. And I couldn't find anything to show he was a Solicitor. The reason for this is that he isn't a Solicitor, he's a Paralegal. For those that don't know a Paralegal can be anything from some as experienced as a real Solicitor to someone who does photocopying. Also at £175 plus VAT £210 per hour (I need to double check this is plus VAT) this is a very expensive paralegal, in fact this is more comparable with the fee you would pay a fully qualified Solicitor.

Employing a paralegal is a risk, you are not protected by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. However, there are a few organisations that do weakly govern paralegals such as the Institute of Paralegals. However, to the best of my knowledge Charles Goldthorpe was previously a member of the Institute of of Paralegals (IoP) but his membership had lapsed (I need to get the exacts dates on this, I'm awaiting a response to my inquiry from IoP).

I was quite alarmed on finding out he was a Paralegal and raised it as a matter of concern.  However, we were only a few weeks away from the court date and I had no choice but to stick with him.  If I'd have known he was a Paralegal from the start I would never have employed him.  He knows many clients would feel the exact same way that's why he hides this fact.  On initial communication with him he had no role stated within his email signature, he now has consultant.  I feel he is very dishonest in not disclosing this, it effects how you are protected, doesn't give you a clear understanding of his level of legal knowledge, and has a bearing on the fee he charges.

Also, Charles Goldthorpes LinkedIn profile claims the following on previous employment experience "litigator Moon Beever March 1997 – December 1998 (1 year 10 months)Bloomsbury" My understanding is that a 'litigator' is another terms for a Solicitor/Lawyer: http://www.yourhillcountrylawyer.com/what-is-a-litigator/ Again I feel that a serious misrepresentation has taken place. Further, another issue became very apparent from the start. He doesn't appear to be able to construct a document in a succinct manner. This is taken from his LinkedIn profile: "After leaving school i joined williams & Co a local solicitors as a trainee leaving to further my job prospects to join Young & Co before moving to CC Bell & Sons in 1985.my roll was that of a litigation clerk/legal executive dealing with personal injury and family law." As you can see, its extremely sloppy, he must know that i's should be capitalised and that a space comes after a full-stop. His legal documents also have these types of sloppy errors. You want your legal opponent to fear your Solicitor and to think he has an eye for detail and the ability to present your case in the best possible manner. These errors weaken your position before you even start to look at the content.