injustice

The following is a true and accurate account of the appalling way in which my wife and I were treated by solicitors and barristers. I complained to the OSS in the summer of 1999, but, like all claimants who lodge a complaint, received no joy whatsoever. When I received a letter from the compensation fund which said that they were not responsible for the criminal actions carried out by the solicitors, ie, falsifying plans etc, and altering our deed plan to benefit another party, it was the final straw. I have a copy of that letter if anyone wishes to see it. I continued to press the OSS, I wanted answers, and were not getting any. Finally they agreed to put my case before a Local Conciliation Officer. He informed me that the solicitors in question were being very uncooperative in helping him with my case. When I handed the LCO my full case file of documents he could see why they were so uncooperative. Later in a telephone conversation to me, he said that my wife and I had been treated appallingly, and it had got to be the worst case of solicitor negligence and misconduct he had ever seen. What made the case more severe was the number of solicitors involved and how some of those solicitors had covered up serious misconduct by others.

Unfortunately the LCO working on our case was taken ill, and the case went back to the OSS. Since September 2003, I have heard nothing despite letters, faxes, e-mails and tel calls. At the end of the day my wife and I have lost land registered to us, lost legal rights ie, access/egress to our property, which is yet unregistered and we now cannot register because neighbours extension obstructs 3 metres of our "right to pass", and that initself has severely devalued our property. In addition to those losses I have lost earnings through time off from work and solicitors costs exceeding £12,000. On top of all this is the enormous stress which my wife and I have been put through this last 7 years, and no light at the end of the tunnel.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The situation is as follows. The land between the neighbour's opposite, and us was a section of ransom strip land retained by builder for future access into field East of the two properties. This ransom strip is clearly shown on plans. We have access/egress rights over this land contained within our title deeds, the neighbour directly opposite does not, because they have their own access to highway.

In 1988 the owners at the time were granted p.p. to extend their property at the northern side which abuts the ransom strip. Plans lodged with Council confirmed that their original plot width was not wide enough to accommodate the extension, in other words it would mean encroaching onto that ransom strip, and thereby obstructing our reverse egress. The Council is very much biased against us, and did not inform us of the application. When we first knew about it in Feb 89, it had already been passed 3 months earlier.

However the occupants did not proceed with the extension, and our legal egress remained intact, albeit it was grassed area where we reversed. In 1991 the owners sold the property, and I anticipated the new owners would proceed with the extension, as the application was still valid. The original p.p. however elapsed in Nov 1993 without any attempt to begin the extension. However the new occupant erected a fence on the ransom strip, well away from boundary on his LR plan, thereby blocking our reverse egress.

I would have pulled the fence down myself, but was prevented from doing so by my wife, who being a sensitive person feared retaliation from the neighbour, as we had had a previous confrontation when he returned home drunk. I instructed a solicitor, who in turn wrote to the neighbours explaining the situation, and provided details to back up our claim. Instead of replying in a civil like manner, the reply from their solicitor was arrogant and bombastic. He stated that his client's fence was erected well within the confines of his client's boundary, and did not obstruct a right of way, or any land intended as such, and that our claims were completely unfounded. However in a defence statement lodged with WCC in May 2001, he claims that his client does not own the land, i.e., the builder retains it.

Our solicitor informed us that although we had a "right to pass" over the land, the land in question was not owned by either us or the neighbours, and we would need to purchase it from the company who were handling the builders affairs since going into receivership. This we agreed upon, provided we recouped our loss/expense from the neighbours who in reality were at fault.

Our solicitor was really dragging his heels, and I sensed he was giving way to the neighbour's solicitor inasmuch that he was reluctant to pursue any claim on the neighbours for our loss. I had it in mind that once we had purchased the land, I would remove him from the case, and contact the neighbour's solicitor directly, however I received the same abusive, and arrogant replies.

At about the same time I instructed a Morton Fisher solicitors to bring some form of action on Council for failing to follow up enforcement on builder, and for granting a planning application which infringed upon our rights, although previous p.p. had elapsed. I wanted to make sure the Council did not pass a second application without our knowledge, so we could lodge an objection.

Morton Fisher instructed a barrister, however there was along delay in the barrister replying, but when I received the barrister's opinion, I sensed why it had taken so long. I also sensed some "funny business" going on between that barrister, Local Council AND the neighbour's solicitor, even though the neighbour's solicitor was not in any way involved with this particular action. The barrister's opinion contained nothing more than blatant lies, (see MF list), and it was obvious he was biased to both Council and neighbours solicitor. When I complained to the Bar Council and later the LSO, they denied the barrister concerned had been in contact with the neighbours solicitor, however in 2000 I discovered that plans of the neighbouring property were contained within our title deeds, SIGNED AND DATED by Morton Fisher. I also noticed that the deed plan in our conveyance was not the original plan, moreover someone had altered it, and then recopied it. After receiving a copy of our deeds from MF, it became obvious that that someone was the barrister MF had assigned. Various items on the original plan were missing, and our plan had been creased/folded down the centre to reduce the extent of our "RTP". Missing items on plan also matched the missing items on a plan D. Greer concocted.

The solicitor or barrister had copied our original deed plan, made alterations to it so as to benefit the other party, recopied it, then returned it to our BS in the title deeds as being the original plan. However they forgot to colour in the "RTP", area, which was coloured red on the original.

In the summer of 95 I wrote to neighbours solicitor about fence obstruction and forwarded a surveyors plan to confirm that fence was obstructing a "RTP". Again his replies were of an arrogant, bombastic nature, denying that his clients fence was obstructing a right of way, as it was erected well within the confines of his clients boundary. He also said the surveyor's plan and notes meant nothing, as it was neither here or there. This will give you some idea of the idiotic fraudster we have had to contend with.

My wife and I realised the only way to resolve the issue would be to register our property with the Land Registry the following year and hopefully it would be established that neighbours fence was way past his official boundary. That encroachment and obstruction would have been an issue in the registration. We took out legal insurance cover in Jan 96 to cover any possible legal action, however in the June of that year, just as I had expected, the neighbours re-applied for p.p., using the original plans from 1988. This time the Council did notify us, and we duly lodged an objection on the grounds that neighbour did not own the land, and extension, as shown on plans, would further encroach onto our land in addition to obstructing our reverse egress, which was currently obstructed by the neighbours fence.

However because Council were 100% biased to the neighbours, and their solicitor, who incidentally has close ties with Council, and 100% biased against my wife and I, we needed to take urgent action. The Council Planning Dept were beginning to "bend" the rules/regulations in favour of the neighbour's and their extension, in addition to the false plans lodged by the neighbours crooked solicitor to which they turned a blind eye, (see condensed history). I therefore instructed GPB to use the legal insurance so as to lodge an injunction against the planned neighbour's extension, before the corrupt Council passed it. However he had not got a clue, and failed to grasp the situation, and the need for urgent action. He did work I told him not to do, and to cap it all he sent us a bill for £600 after writing 2 letters, and to make matters worse he had addressed it to the neighbours we were in dispute with. I queried the bill and asked for a breakdown, but he never sent one. I was annoyed at his blunder, but then he sent other mail to the neighbour's address. In 2000 the legal insurer's sent me copies of letters dated 1996, and addressed to me and my wife via this solicitor, however we NEVER received those letters at the time, so I am beginning to wonder just how many other letters he did send to the neighbours address.

The Council passed the neighbours planning application on 6 Nov 96, and GPB had done NOTHING, despite numerous letters and phone calls from both myself and my wife, and as his legal costs were covered by the legal insurance. At the same time I also complained to the LGO asking why the Council were considering this planning application after supplying a surveyor's evidence that it encroached and obstructed our "right to pass".

I also sent the LGO photographs, LR plans, title deed plans etc and the hard evidence that plot width on deed plan submitted by neighbours solicitor did not in any way correlate with plot width on their official Land Reg. plan. The LGO contacted the Council Plan Dept, however they referred the Ombudsman to their original plan submitted in 1991 as being "an approximate survey". That plan was of course wholly incorrect, and had purposely been drawn incorrect by the Council, to make it appear that our "right to pass" was well outside the area of planned extension, when clearly it was not. If Ombudsman had overlaid this false plan submitted to him by Council with the official Land Reg. plan at the same scale, it was CLEARLY obvious plot width had been made wider. The LGO however denied that Council had been negligent, as there was no bias, and there had been no maladministration.

In March 97, with neighbours extension fully built and occupied, we removed GPB from the case and instructed Rowberry Morris, as recommended by the legal insurers. The following month neighbour moved boundary fence further onto our land in order to accommodate path at side of extension. Within a few weeks I began to realise that this solicitor, although he had a better grasp of situation than previous one, was somehow not working in our interest. I sensed that some other party, namely the Local Council, was influencing them. As the matter progressed it became more and more obvious they were not working in our interest by refusing to admit Council were at fault, even when shown the evidence, and denying that neighbours solicitor had altered plans etc, again after showing them the evidence of falsification. They told me not to concern myself with what the other party's solicitor had done, as they would deal with his conduct, but apparently they never did.

In the summer of 97 the former solicitor GPB issued a summons on me for non payment of his bill, but again he had got my name wrong on the summons, and then sent another summons to No 7 Chestnut Close, and WE ARE No 17. Someone had again opened this summons, so other individuals had again viewed the VERY PERSONAL enclosures within it. After 2 years he could not get either my name, or address correct. I lodged a counterclaim against solicitor for our loss due to his disastrous handling of our affairs. At the County Court, (case No SV850106), I informed the District Judge that any costs which solicitor claims are owed to him should be recovered from neighbours. It was agreed that GPB's claim should be consolidated with our ongoing claim against the neighbours, after all it was part and parcel of the same thing.

Into 1998, and Rowberry Morris continued to drag the case on, and nothing appeared speedy at all. In the summer I travelled to Bristol to have, or so I was told, a conference with the barrister whom RM had instructed. As soon as I walked into his office, I knew there and then that this barrister was in no way working in my wife's interest and me. I thought a conference with barrister was to discuss all the topical issues with our case, but what took place at Bristol was pathetic. It lasted no more than 10 minutes, and barrister was in no way concerned with our loss of land, and rights to No 17.

In April 99 the case was due to be heard at W.C.C. However our barrister became really aggressive towards my wife and I, forcing us not to take the case into court. He applied so much pressure that it reduced my wife to tears. I was very, very angry that I had spent 3 years supplying hard evidence to support our case for the solicitor and barrister to adopt this attitude. It was clearly obvious that he was not acting in my wife's interest and me, and it would have been pointless proceeding into court with someone very much biased to the other side. Previously this barrister and solicitor had removed all the hard evidence of wrongdoing/fraud by the other parties solicitor and Council, and I had my doubts there and then. However our Legal Insurer's informed me that they were working in our interest, which of course was a load of BS. Our barrister informed us on day that if we wished to proceed with action on the neighbours, then he could not act for us, and we would have to find another solicitor and barrister.

Countless people I have spoken to have said, it would appear the solicitor/barrister have received some backhander to keep case out of court, so as not to expose the corruption that had taken place. I could not agree more. We could not adjourn hearing on the day, to find another solicitor/barrister, as it meant we would have to pay all legal costs for both sides up to that day, and as we were both unemployed at the time, we could not possibly afford it.

I therefore lodged a claim against GPB for failing to act promptly in the first place, and lodge an injunction using the legal insurance cover BEFORE the application was passed by planning officials on L.C. However I was disgusted to find that the hearing, before a district judge, was totally unfair inasmuch as the judge refused me permission to speak a single word and put my case forward. I sensed more corruption/cover up creeping in.

Due to the unjustness of the DJ, I lodged an appeal, which was heard before a circuit judge at WCC in Feb 2000. CASE No SV850106. Although the judge had ample evidence of failings by GPB, he removed all blame on that firm of solicitors, and blamed the Legal Insurer's for failure to cover legal costs for an injunction. We therefore had to pay debt and cost's in full on 18 April 2000. The Insurance Ombudsman however denies that the insurer's are at fault. If neither GPB nor the Legal Insurers were at fault, then I would like to know exactly who is.

At about this time, I lodged a complaint with the Law Society and their complaint's dept, regarding all the solicitors involved including the other parties solicitor. No joy whatsoever. I then lodged a case to "set aside" the order forced upon us by RM and the barrister back in April 99, on the basis that our lawyers were not acting in our interest and the "order" made on the day had been forced upon us by duress. I included in our case file all the evidence that had been removed by RM and the barrister.

The circuit judge who sat on bench WAS NOT the original judge on the case back in April 99, neither was he wearing his wig, as all circuit judges should do when hearing a case. I fully believe that some other judge was purposely put in place to reject our case for "set aside". What made me more convinced was that he refused point blank to look at the evidence of fraud by the other parties solicitors, and turned a blind eye to the perjury committed by those solicitors, inasmuch as the blatant lies contained within their defence file/sworn oath. Again the judge refused us a "case for set aside", and again we had to pay the other sides costs amounting to £700 on 1 Aug 2000

So you see not only have we suffered at the hands of crooked solicitors and barristers but also it would appear judges of a high stature are also covering up the wrongdoing and fraud perpetrated by the so called legal profession. We were then stuck in a situation whereby we had a building extension obstructing 3 meters

of our "legal right to pass", £12,000 out of pocket, stress to both myself and my wife who has had breakdowns over the issue, AND STILL THE PROBLEM IS UNRESOLVED, as we cannot register our property with the Land Registry whilst the legal "right to pass" is obstructed. More substantial costs will be needed to right the situation, redrafting title deed plan, purchase of additional land, and costs for resurecting a access/egress elsewhere.

We sent no more letters to any solicitors, however I continued my claim against the Legal Governing body, ie, the OSS. They dilly-dallied, and it was only when I threatened to notify a newspaper of the appalling way in which we had been treated, they suggested a Local Conciliation Officer. Details were shown to the LCO in Nov 2001, however 12 months on, and I am still waiting for his report. He admitted in a telephone call that it was the worst case of professional misconduct he had ever come across. In early 2003 that LCO was taken ill, and our file has gone back to the Solicitors Practice Unit, however I have heard nothing since Sep 2003.

In Nov 2002 we receive a court summons from GPB to make an order to pay £9,000 debt and costs for case No SV850106, nearly 3 years after the debt and costs were paid in full. How can they do this after almost 3 years? In February 2004 a court ordered deductions from my salary at the rate of £200 a month.

LISTED BELOW ARE THE FAILINGS/MISCONDUCT OF EACH OF THE SOLICITORS/BARRISTERS INVOLVED, AND OF COURSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

DAVID GREER, "THOMAS BANCKS & Co," PERSHORE, WORC (NEIGHBOURS SOLICITOR) 1993 to 2000

Copied his clients deed plan, and redrew the Northern boundary line further out from the original boundary line, so as to make it appear his client had a much

wider plot than what was originally conveyed. True boundary line is clearly visible on his concocted copy of the two plans placed side by side.

Submitted re-copied plan to a solicitor acting in our interest, as being a genuine copy of his client's plan.

Denied that his client had obstructed the legal "right to pass" contained in title deeds for No 17 Chestnut Close, even when shown surveyors plan/notes.

Denied the solicitor acting for my wife and I any access to inspect his client's deeds at his office, in particular the conveyance plan for No 19.

Collaborated with a barrister supposedly working in our interest and also the Local Council in order to commit fraud by altering the deed plan for No 17. This is confirmed by a copy of the altered deed plan for No 17, which he sent to Rowberry Morris in 99, yet he never had access to deeds for No 17.

Copied a Land Registry stamp onto his ridiculous concocted plan to make it appear as though the Land Registry had approved it. He then submitted this false plan with his clients planning application in the summer of 96.

Instead of lodging a correct copy of his clients Land Registry plan, ref. (HW94700) with his clients planning application, he copied the Land Registry plan for the land WE had to purchase, ref. (HW152363), then drew a red line in felt tip way past his clients boundary onto the land we owned. His letter, which accompanied the false plan, stated that his client owned the land in red.

As a result of his actions in first paragraph, the altered plan would not correlate with the official Land Registry/O.S. scale 1:500 plan. When lodging plan with his clients planning application, he therefore purposely reduced the plan in size by 25% so plot width appeared the same as on Land Registry plan.

Planning regulations stipulate that when applying for property extension, the applicant MUST submit to the Planning Authority a Siteplan Pack from the O.S. Up to six copies of both block plans (1:500 scale) and location mapping to a (1:1250/1:2500 scale) are required when applying for planning permission.

No such Siteplan pack was submitted with his clients planning application.

Denied the Halifax Building Society the right to inspect his client's deeds, following solicitor's letter and possible injunction. Consequently the Halifax withdrew the mortgage cover for planned extension.

Did not use either his clients true deed plan, or his re-copied false plan when registering the additional land his client purchased to the rear of plot. Had he done so, the anomalies would have been exposed.

Dept of Environment brochure clearly states that NO building should commence over a right of way, unless an "order" has been made to extinguish or re-route the right of way. No such "order" was ever made by either D. Greer or Council.

Mr Greer also has the audacity to inform the Land Registry that I should be in prison for lying to a judge. If anyone should be behind bars, it should be himself, for the colossal fraud he has committed, and collaborating with other parties to knowingly commit fraud, and perjury.

Committed perjury in the summer of 2000, by claiming, in a sworn oath, that Land Registry had abided to the "order" forced upon us by the barrister in April 99, when they had done no such thing.

Admitted in sworn statement that his client DID NOT OWN THE STRIP OF LAND upon which he has built extension and path at side. This is after countless letters since 1995 whereby he claimed that his client's extension would be built on land WELL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF HIS BOUNDARY, AND WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT A RIGHT OF WAY, OR ANY LAND INTENDED AS SUCH. He now admits it AFTER THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE, and loss of our legal rights.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MARK HEATH, AND B. CAIRNS, "MORTON FISHER SOLICITORS", & BARRISTER CONRAD RUMNEY, BIRMINGHAM. 1994/5.

My wife and I instructed the above solicitor, in late 94. He in turn instructed the named barrister, to bring some form of legal action on Council for failing to follow up enforcement notice on builder, and/or granting the occupants at No 19 permission to extend their property onto ransom strip land in Nov 88. That action would clearly obstruct our legal "right to pass", yet my wife and I were not informed of the planning application. The first we knew was in Feb 89, which is over four months after p.p. was granted.

Failed to act in client's interest, and biased towards Council and No 19, by bending the factual evidence in favour of both Council and occupants at No 19.

Collaborated with both Council and neighbours solicitor, confirmed by the undue delay, and comments in his opinion which are "word for word" identical to comments made by No 19's solicitor, and yet neither Heath or Rumney had access to letters from David Greer addressed to me.

Collaborated with both David Greer and Council to fraudulently alter the deed plan for No 17 by creasing/overlapping it in the centre, thereby reducing the distance of "right to pass" area. The altered plan was then re-copied and returned to our Building Society as being the original plan, however they forgot to "colour in" the right to pass area with red on the re-copied plan consequently it did not correlate with the wording in title deeds to No 17. This is confirmed in a letter sent to a later solicitor from Land Registry. Mistakes in plan also appeared in David Greer's plan, (see para 5).

Abuse of Legal Aid funds amounting to over £4,000.

Refused to hand over client's case file in 2000, because, as they quoted, "There were documents and letters in file, which I was not allowed to see". If that isn't downright suspicious, I don't know what is.

It was totally wrong for Morton Fisher to instruct the barrister to act, as that barrister works solely FOR, AND IN THE INTEREST OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

In his opinion Rumney said that there was no reference to enforcement by Council. That is incorrect, because there were two letters in the file. He went on to say that we were never granted any rights over the land question. Again that is incorrect, as the legal conveyance states a "right to pass" at all times over the land. This is regardless of whether the land is grass, tarmac, concrete or whatever, and regardless of whether it crosses other land.

That "right to pass" is on ransom strip land, which the occupants at No 19 have encroached upon, and systematically claimed. He also claims that the occupants at No 19 own the grass strip to the side of their property. If that is correct then why have their solicitors, in a defence file, stated that their clients DO NOT OWN THE LAND. Rumney also denied that he had been in contact with the Council and neighbours solicitor, can he explain therefore how plans to the other property are contained within our title deeds, SIGNED AND DATED BY MORTON FISHER.

Counsel opinion from Messrs Rumney contained nothing more than blatant lies. It was that lies and deceit, which prevented the Legal Aid Board to consider, further funding towards a hearing. In a nutshell Rumney had blocked any possible chance of exposing the corrupt officials on Planning Department, by himself committing fraud, inasmuch as attempting to alter the plan for No 17.

Photocopied other clients confidential files/documents, which had absolutely nothing at all to do with our case, then mistakenly included them within our title deeds and returned them to our Building Society along the with altered deed plan. If they call this a LEGAL PROFESSION then God help us.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WILLIAM McFARLAND & SIMON NEWBOLD, "GEOFFREY PARKER BOURNE & Co", STRATFORD ON AVON JULY 1996 to APRIL 1997.

Solicitors my wife and I instructed in the summer of 1996, to lodge an injunction against neighbours planned extension to side of their property, and further encroachment by neighbour onto former ransom strip/right to pass land.

Failure to act in client's interest, and get a grasp of the situation involved.

Failure to act to client's instructions as regards injunction, despite frantic letters and phone calls from both my wife and myself.

Wasted both time and money requesting plans/details from Council, when he had been handed/shown copies of the details he required by myself in July 96.

Wasted time and money investigating planning blight, BEFORE extension was built, instead of lodging an injunction against its construction ASAP.

Failure to return telephone calls to either myself, or the legal insurers at the most crucial time, and whilst legal cover was in force, as well as failing to reply to letters from both myself and my wife.

Doing alleged work they were told not to do, and corresponding with other parties after being told not to, as they were biased towards the occupants at No 19, and would tell him a totally different story.

Bias towards neighbours at No 19 as confirmed in remarks made by Mr Newbold.

Supposedly doing work on the case, (although I cannot see it), when distinctly told not to do so until legal cover was in force.

Invoicing for work supposedly done during OCT/NOV 1996 when legal cover was in force.

Forwarding bills for alleged work done to, of all places, the neighbours who we were in litigation with, and failed to forward a breakdown of bill as I had requested.

Forwarding a soft, pathetic letter to occupants at No 19 threatening injunction proceedings without any intention of following it through, and after being told not to write any letters to neighbours, their solicitor, or Local Authority.

Was inclined to believe the lies and other BS emanating from both neighbours solicitor and Council, instead of the factual evidence I provided to him on the first day. For example neighbours solicitor told him that fence had been in existence since estate was built in 84. However in 1995 in a letter to me, D. Greer claimed that the fence had been "recently erected" He should have known there and then that D. Greer was crooked.

Spending only 2 hours on the case between Oct 96 and Mar 97, the most crucial period, and at a time when legal cover was in force.

Going on holiday for 3 weeks at the most crucial period, without informing me, or leaving anyone to take charge of our case whilst he was away.

Failure to forward on letters from Hambro addressed to my wife and I, and abuse/misuse of legal funding provided by Hambro.

Forwarding very personal details on the case to yet another incorrect address in Chestnut Close whilst awaiting court proceedings. The very personal content had therefore been exposed to yet another party.

Forwarding a letter informing me not to take legal action on them, or report their failings/incompetance to the Law Society/OSS.

When issuing a summons for alleged non payment they even failed to get my name correct after 4 years

Failure to hand over the client's file when all monies had been paid.

Fraudulently claiming debts and costs FOR 10 TIMES THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT, by submitting the claim again through another court 3 YEARS AFTER DEBT and COSTS HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL. See the case file used in our claim against this solicitor

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CRAIG GODDING & G.ARETH PRICE, "ROWBERRY MORRIS SOLICITORS" GLOUCESTER & BARRISTER MYLES WATKINS BRISTOL APRIL 97 to APRIL 99.

Solicitors whom my wife and I instructed in April 97, to continue our claim on neighbours for trespass/damage and loss of our legal rights. Our legal insurers recommended this solicitor.

Failure to act in clients interest, and biased to the other party

Failure to reply to letters/phone calls regarding undue delay.

Removing vital evidence, plans/photo's etc, to weaken our case, and thereby make the neighbours case appear stronger. Ignoring wrongdoing by Council, and serious misconduct by neighbour's solicitor.

Abuse/misuse of funds provided by legal insurance.

No conference with barrister prior to hearing.

Failure to hand over clients case file papers/letters.

Revealing to the defendant's solicitor's personnel letters from myself to R.M., and failing to forward copies of defendants correspondence to me and my wife.

Purposely delayed the hearing until 29 April 99 when judicial laws changed.

Counsel denied any knowledge of my counter replies to defendants witness statements, which proved all, had lied under oath with their statements.

Counsel refused to take our case into court, and made the remark "If that is what you want then I am afraid I cannot act for you". Why wait until the hearing day to inform me he was not going to take the case into court? Because if he had of done, then I would have gone elsewhere. He did it to suppress the wrongdoing by Council, and the fraud, which had previously taken place between the defendant's solicitor, Council, and a previous solicitor/barrister in 1995.

I did not spend 2 years supplying the solicitor with ample evidence of wrongdoing by the other party, their solicitor, and Council, for them to side with those parties, in other words by refusing to act in our interest on the hearing day. Had the case gone into court, then all witnesses would have been guilty of perjury. It would have been pointless proceeding into court with a barrister who was most certainly not acting in me and my wife's interest, and we could not adjourn the hearing to find other solicitors to act for us, because it would have meant paying legal costs for both sides up to that day, and this we could not afford.

Why has neither the surveyor we instructed, or the defendant's surveyor passed any comment on the defendants alleged deed plan, and only on No 17, ie, why wasn't the defendants alleged deed plan in either of the surveyor's reports?

When I informed Mr G that the copy of our deed plan sent to him by David Greer was not the original, and had been altered with, why did he begin to make excuses, and dismissed any suggestions of alterations, even when they were plainly obvious, as I pointed them out to him?

Why did Counsel suggest an amended surveyors report to make our case as strong as possible, as the defendants evidence was "very weak", when the amended report had, had the hard evidence removed from it, and why make this remark if he had no intention of acting in our interest on the hearing day?

Where did acting surveyor obtain copy of title plan for No 17 as shown in his amended report, it is not the same as in his first report, neither is it a copy of plan held by our Building Society? See the case file used in our claim to "setaside" the order forced upon us by this solicitor/barrister.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WYCHAVON DISTRICT COUNCIL and WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 1988 to 1997

Failure to follow up 2 enforcement letters on builder to correct the service drive in order to comply with all approved plans, and service drive regulation plans.

Granting the occupants of No 19 planning permission, in 1988, to build an extension on 3 metres of the legally conveyed "right to pass" ie, reverse egress from No 17 Chestnut Close, without informing the occupants of No 17. Occupants at No 21 were informed, and yet it in no way affected them.

Forwarded a false plan of the site area to the Ombudsman as being "an approximate survey", when clearly it was not. They had simply measured the distance of "right to pass" from front of No 17, and made sure that the southern section was not covered by planned extension on this false plan by placing the two properties 3 metres further apart than they actually were.

Collaborated with defendant's solicitor and a previous solicitor/barrister supposedly working in our interest, to fraudulently alter deed plan for No 17.

Working in conjunction with defendant's solicitor they concocted a plan using the deed plan for No 17, and alleged deed plan for No 19. The plan was wholly incorrect, nevertheless they copied a Land Registry stamp on it to make it appear it had been approved by Land Registry, then placed it with the planning file.

Totally ignored our objections, backed up with surveyors notes, when current occupants, (the defendants), re-applied for planning permission in the summer of 96.

Totally ignored the Dept of Environment regulations regarding rights of way.

Totally ignored the regulations regarding minimum spatial separation.

Totally ignored the six-block plan required for planning permission.

Totally ignored the Parish Council's objection that site was to cramped.

Totally ignored the Building Regulation as outlined in delegation notes.

Turned a blind eye to the false plans lodged by defendant's solicitor.

Failed to put our objections before a planning committee, because they knew the true facts would be exposed.

Offered free legal advice to the defendants as regards our objection.

Advised the defendants to change from planning permission to planning development, so that the Council could not refuse the application.

Forwarded a letter to Local Government Ombudsman with false, unproven statements regarding the vehicular egress from No 17.

Failure to take into account overall plot width of plan lodged with the planning application, when scaled against plot width shown on applicants Land Registry plan.

LISTED HERE ARE COMMENTS MADE BY VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO I HAVE CONTACTED ABOUT THIS SAGA

"It wouldn't surprise me if money had changed hands regarding the evidence of tampering with your title deed plan. I can see the plan has been tampered with, you can see it, and so can D.I. Bartlett. However it is the responsibility of the Law Society to deal with such issues". D.C. SUMMERTON, WEST MERCIA POLICE

"Judge Dickenson said that their was no legal cover in force for solicitor to lodge an injunction, however having spoken to Hambro this morning, it would appear that statement was incorrect, and it was therefore wrong for judge to make the remark". OPINION FROM BARRISTER SARA MILES

"It would appear that although legal cover was in force, your solicitor failed to act promptly, and to contact Hambro with full details of the cover required to proceed with an injunction before the extension was built. Having first applied for legal costs to pursue a claim for planning blight, he then reapplied some time later for further legal costs to serve an injunction, when in all sense and reason it was to late, as building was complete. I find the insurers not at fault and suggest you refer the case back to court" INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN

"Although I have not seen your evidence, I believe everything you say. I used to live at Evesham, and knew at the time there were some "funny going's on" within the Planning Dept at Wychavon Council". TEL CONVERSATION WITH A SOLICITOR BASED IN BIRMINGHAM

"I think you and your wife have been treated utterly appallingly by the legal profession. This has got to be the worst case of professional negligence/misconduct I have ever encountered in my time as an investigation officer for the OSS. The solicitors concerned are very uncooperative, and it would appear they are "covering up" for other parties" MR WILLIAMS RETIRED SOLICITOR AND LCO FOR THE OSS.

"Phew what a can of worms. We would like to publish your story, but cannot do so whilst legal proceedings against you are in progress. We would need to speak to you first in order to condense the vital facts down into a more compact form for publication. I think emphasis should be placed on the governing bodies failures more than the individuals". JOURNALIST WORKING FOR AN ESTABLISHED NEWSPAPER.

"That is disgusting. The whole saga stinks rotten to the core with corruption and cover up. I think you should be entitled to compensation for your solicitors incompetence, fraud, failure to act in your interest and loss of your legal rights" USUAL REPLY I GET FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE TOLD THE FULL STORY.

NOTE I am not looking for compensation/redress, as I would much sooner things be put back as they were. I expect solicitors and barristers that I instruct, to act in me and my wife's interest, instead of bending the rules to benefit the other party, and thereby cover up serious misconduct by their solicitor and Local Council. I also expect judges to: -

A) Allow me to speak and put my case across in accordance with rules of natural justice. District Judge Dickinson.

B) Refrain from blaming some other party because they believe solicitor's tell the truth in court. Circuit Judge Cavall

C) Look at hard evidence of failure/misconduct to prove a claim for "setaside", instead of refusing point blank to look at that evidence. Circuit Judge McEvoy

If solicitors had acted in our interest, and promptly, then extension would not have been built, and our legal rights, and registered land, would still be in our possession, neither would our property have been devalued by a grotesque view of neighbouring gable end.