Written by 1. Introduction
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the regulatory body responsible for overseeing solicitors in England and Wales. Their role is to ensure that legal professionals adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and that the public is protected from malpractice. In this article, I delve into my case involving Burnetts Solicitors, highlighting the failures in the SRA’s initial investigation and the subsequent escalation through their Complaints Handling Process (CHP). This case brings to light significant issues with evidence review and potential conflicts of interest in the independent review process.
2. Initial Investigation and Escalation
My initial complaint against Burnetts Solicitors centred on several allegations, including professional misconduct and negligence. I claimed that Burnetts engaged in unlawful lockout, incorrect arrears notices, unfair proposals, and mishandling of Subject Access Requests (SARs). I escalated my complaint through the SRA’s Complaints Handling Process, reaching Stage 3 for an independent review by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR).
The CHP is designed to provide a structured and fair process for handling complaints against solicitors. It consists of multiple stages, including an initial assessment, investigation, and potential escalation to an independent review. Despite the structured process, significant issues arose during the investigation and review of my complaint.
3. Mishandled SAR and Its Implications
A critical turning point in my case was the mishandling of a Subject Access Request (SAR) by the CEDR at Stage 3 of the CHP. This SAR revealed internal communications between the SRA and CEDR, where the SRA admitted to not reviewing all the evidence I had submitted. This oversight was significant, as it meant that the initial investigation’s conclusions were based on incomplete information.
The mishandling of the SAR raised questions about the independence and thoroughness of the CEDR’s review process. Given that the CEDR is funded by the SRA to carry out independent reviews, there is a potential conflict of interest that could have influenced their decision to side with the SRA despite the admitted oversight.
4. SRA’s Admission and Reassignment
Following the revelation from the mishandled SAR, the case was brought to the attention of an Investigation Manager at the SRA, Richard Everett. In his communication with me, Everett admitted that the SRA had overlooked critical evidence. As a result, the case was reassigned to a new Investigation Officer because the initial investigator had left her position after 13 years.
The reassignment of the case and the admission of oversight by the SRA mark a significant development. However, it remains debatable whether this is a genuine attempt to address the missteps or a strategy to cover their backs. The sincerity of the SRA’s actions will be tested by the thoroughness and impartiality of the new investigation.
5. Examining the SRA’s Motives
There are two possible interpretations of the SRA’s actions: a sincere attempt to rectify past mistakes or a damage limitation exercise. If the new investigation reaches the same conclusions as the initial one, despite the compelling evidence of misconduct, it could be seen as an effort to protect the institution rather than uphold justice.
The involvement of a new Investigation Officer could bring a fresh perspective to the case, but it also raises questions about continuity and the potential loss of context. The initial investigator’s departure after 13 years might indicate internal issues within the SRA that could affect the investigation’s integrity.
6. Detailed Grievances Against Burnetts Solicitors
To understand the gravity of the situation, it is essential to detail the specific grievances against Burnetts Solicitors:
- Will and Business Asset: Burnetts wrote my Will, listing my business as a significant asset for my children’s inheritance. They argued that their actions were permissible since the retainer concluded. However, I refute this, citing the absence of a closing letter, which indicates a continued duty of care. Case law supports that fiduciary duty can extend beyond the initial retainer.
- Incorrect Arrears Notice: In August 2023, Burnetts issued a grossly incorrect notice regarding arrears, despite knowing the true amount. They ignored my dispute and failed to follow practice direction, as evidenced by a SAR response from Burnetts.
- Lockout and Arrears Dispute: Burnetts instructed bailiffs to lock me out on 17th October 2023 without addressing the arrears dispute. They only addressed the arrears afterward, but incorrectly again, which I noticed after paying them.
- Unfair Proposals: After locking me out, Burnetts made several unfair proposals, taking advantage of the situation.
- Future Payments and Invalid Forfeiture: Burnetts instructed me to make future payments, which I did, invalidating the forfeiture they created by returning a proactive rent payment previously.
- New Lease and Deposit: After payments were made, Burnetts demanded I sign a new lease with a deposit not in the original lease, matching an unreturned deposit from another premises.
- Denied Access and Property Collection: Burnetts continued to deny me access, leading to an arrangement to collect my property and seek relief from the courts.
- Premises Relet: Burnetts promptly relet the premises to obstruct my application for relief.
- Unreturned Payments: Burnetts never returned the overpaid arrears and future rent payments.
- SAR Mishandling and Conflict of Interest: Johnny Coulthard of Burnetts mishandled a SAR directed to my landlord. Coulthard was neither qualified nor authorised to handle the SAR, and his involvement constituted a conflict of interest, violating GDPR and the SRA Code of Conduct.
7. Conclusion
The current status of my case is that it is under reinvestigation by the SRA, with a new Investigation Officer assigned. This development highlights significant issues within the SRA’s processes and the importance of thorough and unbiased investigations. The outcome of the reinvestigation will be crucial in determining whether the SRA is committed to addressing regulatory failures or merely engaging in damage control.
8. Call to Action
This case underscores the need for transparency and accountability in regulatory practices. It is essential for the public and legal professionals to stay informed about such cases and advocate for reforms that ensure fair and thorough investigations. Only through rigorous oversight can we maintain public trust in legal regulatory bodies.
#SRA #LegalRegulation #BurnettsSolicitors #ProfessionalMisconduct #RegulatoryFailures #LegalOversight #EvidenceHandling #Transparency #Accountability #LegalReform