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.