Litigant-in-Person Record III – Page 3 of 3

Final Shutdown
When the Legal Ombudsman

Refused to Investigate Documented Misconduct

On 12 August 2025, I submitted a formal challenge to the Legal Ombudsman’s dismissal of my complaints against:

• A solicitor from a merged legal firm
• A solicitor from a regional practice

I provided timestamped evidence of:

• Harassment, obstruction, and CPR breaches
• Billing discrepancies totalling £18,370.00
• Safeguarding failures and procedural misconduct
• A forensic timeline showing my date of awareness as June 2024

I submitted Litigant Record II – Beyond the Dossier, supported by:

• Judicial transcripts
• Police reports
• A breakdown of regulatory avoidance

I made it clear:

This was not a time-limit review.

It was a call for investigation.

On 22 August 2025, Ombudsman Kristy Standbridge responded. She:

• Reframed my submission as a time-limit review
• Ignored the substance of the misconduct
• Claimed I “should reasonably have known” by January 2023, despite my documented confusion, ongoing representation, and procedural distress
• Refused to apply discretion under Scheme Rules 4.7 and 4.8, despite my health diagnosis, safeguarding duties, and forensic diligence
• Closed the file

I responded on 28 August, clarifying:

• That the delay was caused by institutional omission, not personal failing
• That the complaint was submitted within one year of actual awareness
• That the Legal Ombudsman’s own guidance had been followed
• That the postal submission was returned unopened, due to their failure to update the address

On 1 September, Standbridge upheld her decision. She:

• Repeated the jurisdictional framing
• Dismissed the dossiers as “narrative”
• Refused further correspondence
• Directed me to Judicial Review—knowing full well that Litigants in Person are structurally excluded from that route

This wasn’t just a shutdown.

It was a refusal to engage with documented harm.

It was a safeguarding breach wrapped in procedural language.

It was a system protecting itself.

And it confirmed what the record had already revealed:

The Legal Ombudsman is not failing.

It is functioning exactly as designed.

And the cost is borne by the vulnerable.

What “Narrative” Framing Really Does

Standbridge used the lawless structure to:

• Strip my evidence of its forensic weight, recasting it as anecdotal or emotional
• Undermine my credibility, implying subjectivity rather than documented harm
• Deflect regulatory scrutiny, allowing the Legal Ombudsman to sidestep data protection breaches and safeguarding failures
• Reframe systemic misconduct as personal grievance, making it easier to dismiss, minimise, or close the file without accountability

The Not-So-Independent Reviewer

When Oversight Was Offered Without Teeth

After Standbridge’s final decision on 1 September 2025, I was told:

“There is no appeal process against an ombudsman's decision. The only way to challenge it is via Judicial Review.”

But that wasn’t the full truth.

There is an Independent Reviewer—tasked with assessing how the Legal Ombudsman handled complaints.

• Not the outcome
• Not the misconduct
• Just the service

They cannot:

• Reopen cases
• Overturn decisions
• Investigate solicitors

They can only recommend:

• Apologies
• Token compensation
• Internal learning

And they are appointed by the same ecosystem.

This isn’t oversight.

It’s optics.

Lay Oversight, Legal Harm

When the Legal Ombudsman

Wasn’t Legally Equipped to Review Legal Misconduct

I submitted a forensic record.

• I mapped CPR breaches, billing discrepancies, safeguarding failures, and procedural obstruction
• I followed guidance
• I timestamped every step
• I protected my son
• And I trusted the Legal Ombudsman to review it with legal understanding

But the Legal Ombudsman is not a legal body.

It is a service complaint handler—staffed largely by lay persons, not legally trained professionals.

• Its decisions are based on what is “reasonable,” not what is legally enforceable
• Its ombudsmen do not need to be solicitors, barristers, or legally qualified
• Its framework is built to resolve dissatisfaction—not investigate misconduct

That means:

• Legal breaches can be reframed as “poor service”
• Safeguarding failures can be dismissed as “narrative”
• Procedural obstruction can be reduced to “communication breakdown”
• And forensic evidence can be ignored—because it’s not being assessed by legal minds

This isn’t just a mismatch.

It’s a structural flaw.

I submitted a legal complaint.

They reviewed it with lay oversight.

And they closed it—without understanding the harm.

The Legal Ombudsman wasn’t legally equipped to review legal misconduct.

And the cost continues to be borne by the vulnerable.

Echoes of Evasion

When the Legal Ombudsman

Repeated the Firm’s Framing to Shut Down the Complaint

When I submitted my complaint, I expected independent review.

Instead, I received a response that echoed the very firm I was challenging.

• Both the firm’s complaints lead and the Legal Ombudsman used the same terminology to shut me down
• Both relied on a letter dated 27 January 2023—a document taken out of context, never intended as a final response
• Both ignored the firm’s actual final response, dated 27 March 2025
• Both used that misdated framing to claim my complaint was “out of time”

This wasn’t oversight.

It was alignment.

The Legal Ombudsman didn’t assess my evidence.

They didn’t question the firm’s framing.

They repeated it.

That’s not independence.

That’s systemic mimicry.

And it confirms what the record already shows:

The Legal Ombudsman isn’t there to protect the public.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

When the Final Route Was Filtered Through Silence

There is one final route: the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

But it cannot be accessed directly.

It must be referred by a Member of Parliament.

This route is:

• Not widely known
• Not offered automatically
• Not designed for ease

The PHSO:

• Cannot investigate legal misconduct
• Cannot reopen closed cases
• Cannot overturn decisions

It can only review how the Legal Ombudsman handled the complaint—procedurally, not substantively.

That means:

• No scrutiny of solicitor conduct
• No remedy for safeguarding failures
• No accountability for regulatory deflection

Just a review of how the silence was delivered.

This isn’t oversight.

It’s optics.

And it leaves the vulnerable with one final question:

Will anyone in power choose to see what the system was built to ignore?

And if the final route is filtered through silence,

What happens when the warnings were already written—and still ignored?

Will anyone in power choose to see what the system was built to ignore?

Unimplemented Reform

When the Legal Ombudsman Ignored the Warnings

And Continued to Fail the Vulnerable by Design

I did not approach the Legal Ombudsman with cynicism.

I approached them with trust.

• I followed their guidance
• I submitted my complaint
• I protected my son’s safeguarding disclosures
• And I believed they were there to help

What I didn’t know—what no Litigant in Person is ever told—is that the Legal Ombudsman is part of a system that has already been publicly criticised by academic bodies and legal institutions.

• Sheffield University’s 2021 report, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, warned that the ombudsman sector is “largely self-regulated,” with limited judicial oversight and no independent appeals process
• The Law Society’s 2025 21st Century Justice report called for ombudsman reform, acknowledging that the current structure creates confusion, shields misconduct, and fails the vulnerable

These recommendations were technically public.

But they were not meaningfully accessible.

• They were not sent to complainants
• They were not embedded in guidance
• They were not visible on the Legal Ombudsman’s website
• And they were not offered to me

Had I known the truth, I would never have approached the Legal Ombudsman.

But I did.

And what I found was not a route to justice.

It was a system designed to protect itself.

The Recommendations Called For

• External scrutiny
• Independent appeals
• Transparency in decision-making
• Protection for vulnerable complainants

None of these reforms have been implemented.

Judicial review remains the only route to challenge a decision—inaccessible to most Litigants in Person.

The Legal Ombudsman continues to:

• Reframe forensic evidence as “narrative”
• Ignore safeguarding breaches
• Close files without accountability

Closing Note to the Recommendations Section

These recommendations are not naïve.

They are built from timestamped harm, documented misconduct, and procedural obstruction.

It is unlikely that any government will implement reforms that expose its own complicity.

But if the public is to continue believing that the SRA and Legal Ombudsman exist to protect them, then at the very least, they should be pre-warned:

This isn’t protection. It’s performance.

And the system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed.

I am not trying to outshine Sheffield University.

I am echoing them—without ever having read their report.

Because I didn’t just live it. I’m still living it—and witnessing the severity of the consequences.

This capsule doesn’t just document exclusion.

It confirms that the system ignored the warnings.

And yet still continues to fail the vulnerable.

In July 2025, I received a response to my initial draft from a legal reform advocate who had previously published critiques of the Legal Ombudsman’s structure.

John's feedback—offered with clarity and candour—confirmed that the record I was building aligned with wider calls for reform.

The Risk of Reinforcing Flawed Structures

Before any expansion of powers is considered, the Legal Ombudsman’s internal framework must be reformed.

Without structural change, increasing its authority risks:

• Deepening exclusion for Litigants in Person
• Accelerating dismissals under discretionary rules
• Widening harm through decisions made within a biased framework
• Legitimising opacity under the guise of independence

In short:

Power without reform is not protection—it’s reinforcement.

Any recommendation to increase the Legal Ombudsman’s powers must be preceded by a forensic review of:

• Its Scheme Rules
• Oversight relationships
• Procedural filters

Because we risk giving sharper tools to a system that rehearses fairness in its paperwork—but denies it in practice.

Who Holds the Power to Reform the Legal Ombudsman?

The Legal Ombudsman is governed by a chain of oversight:

• The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) – sets strategy and rules
• The Legal Services Board (LSB) – oversees the OLC
• The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) – receives assurance reports but does not directly intervene
• Parliament – holds ultimate legislative power but rarely exercises it in this domain

In practice, reform is shaped by:

• Legal regulators – who are structurally tied to the profession
• Consumer panels – who advise but do not control
• Public pressure and forensic records – which expose contradictions and demand accountability

So, “Who would be powerful enough to change it?”

The answer is:

Those who built it—and those brave enough to expose how it performs.

From a Lay Person’s Perspective

The Legal Ombudsman is structurally flawed and dangerously insulated from accountability.

The ombudsman sector operates in a largely self-regulated manner, developing its own standards without external oversight.

• Judicial review is the only meaningful legal oversight—but it’s unrealistic for most individuals, especially Litigants in Person
• Internal mechanisms like publishing decisions, peer review, and internal audits are not enough to guarantee fairness

Recommendations

• Embed external scrutiny across the sector—not just internal review
• Strengthen procedural fairness by standardising decision-making and transparency
• Reform the governance framework to ensure ombudsmen are held to the same standards they impose on others
• Establish an independent oversight body to monitor ombudsman conduct
• Improve compliance mechanisms for private firms and legal service providers
• Introduce alternative dispute resolution pathways for vulnerable complainants
• Harmonise ombudsman schemes through legislative reform
• Reorganise the sector to allow judicial scrutiny and cross-scheme accountability
• Address the embedded disadvantages faced by individual complainants—especially those without representation

These recommendations are not naïve.

They are built from timestamped harm, documented misconduct, and procedural obstruction.

It is unlikely that any government will implement reforms that expose its own complicity.

But if the public is to continue believing that the SRA and Legal Ombudsman exist to protect them, then at the very least, they should be pre-warned:

This isn’t protection. It’s performance.

And the system isn’t broken.

It’s working exactly as designed—to protect the legal system, not the public.

Historical Context

• Research dating back to the 1980s has identified unfulfilled potential and deficiencies in UK ombudsman legislation
• The Legal Ombudsman is part of an “integrity branch” of the constitution—but its structure undermines that role

Who Structured the Legal Ombudsman

When Reform Was Designed to Contain, Not Correct

The Legal Ombudsman wasn’t born from public demand.

It was built by government reformers, legal regulators, and institutional architects—each with a stake in how complaints were managed, not how misconduct was exposed.

It was structured under the Legal Services Act 2007, following recommendations from:

• Sir David Clementi, whose 2004 review called for a single complaints body
• The Office of Fair Trading, which warned of anti-competitive practices in legal services
• The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which drafted the legislation
• Parliament, which passed the Act with cross-party support

The Act created:

• The Legal Services Board – oversight regulator
• The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) – governing body of the Legal Ombudsman
• The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) itself – a service complaint handler, not a legal tribunal

But the Structure Was Flawed from the Start

• The Legal Ombudsman was staffed by lay persons, not legal professionals
• It was designed to assess service dissatisfaction, not legal breaches
• It is funded by the legal sector, not the public
• And is overseen by bodies with financial and reputational ties to the firms it is  meant to regulate

This wasn’t a justice mechanism.

It was a containment strategy.

The Legal Ombudsman cannot:

• Investigate solicitor misconduct
• Enforce decisions
• Offer legal remedy
• Provide independent appeal

It can only review how the service felt—not what the law requires.

And that means:

• Legal harm is reframed as poor service
• Safeguarding failures are dismissed as narrative
• Regulatory breaches are filtered through discretion
• And the vulnerable are left with a system that was never built to protect them

This capsule doesn’t just name the architects.

It confirms what the record has already revealed:

The Legal Ombudsman isn’t failing.

It is functioning exactly as designed.

And the cost continues to be borne by the vulnerable.

The Judicial Review Illusion

Judicial Review (JR) is presented as the safeguard of last resort—a formal legal mechanism to challenge regulatory decisions.

But for most individuals, especially Litigants in Person, it is structurally inaccessible and statistically ineffective.

It performs access.

It does not deliver it.

According to the Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly (April–June 2025), there were 940 Judicial Review applications—the highest quarterly figure since 2018.

But success rates remain low, consistent with previous years.

Let’s break that down:

• If 2.2% succeeded, that’s 21 wins → meaning 919 did not
• If 5.2% succeeded, that’s 49 wins → meaning 891 did not

So yes—between 891 and 919 applicants lost their Judicial Review in that quarter.

Who Profits When Litigants in Person Lose Judicial Reviews

When a Litigant in Person challenges a regulator or public body through Judicial Review—and loses—it’s not just a legal defeat. It’s a financial win for others. Here’s who benefits:

Lawyers and Legal Firms

• For the regulators and public bodies, legal teams are hired to defend the decision.
• These firms bill for every hour—reading, responding, preparing, attending court.
• Even if the LiP loses quickly, the defence still gets paid.

The Courts (HMCTS)

• The court charges fees:
• £154–£180 to apply for permission
• £770–£850 for a full hearing
• If the case is dismissed early, the court keeps the fees. No refund.

Regulators and Public Bodies

• When a JR fails, the original decision stands—no need to revisit, explain, or change anything.
• They avoid accountability, save time, and protect their reputation.

Professional Indemnity Insurers

• If a solicitor or regulator is accused of wrongdoing, insurers might have to pay out.
• But if the JR fails, there’s no payout—just another “win” for the system.

The Judiciary (as an institution)

• Judicial Review is the only legal route to challenge a judge’s decision.
• When LiPs lose, it protects the authority of the court and avoids setting uncomfortable precedents.

And What Does the Litigant Get?

• No remedy
• No refund
• Often, a costs order—meaning they may have to pay the other side’s legal fees too

The System Doesn’t Just Dismiss. It Profits.

Judicial Review is framed as a safeguard.

But when Litigants in Person lose, it becomes a revenue stream—for courts, firms, and regulators.

It performs fairness for appearance’s sake only.

It protects power.

This Isn’t Just Statistical. It’s Structural.

For Litigants in Person, Judicial Review is not a remedy.

It is a rehearsed dismissal.

The system simulates fairness while delivering exclusion.

And judges know it.

It has been reported and observed that some judges express frustration or discomfort when dealing with Judicial Reviews—especially those brought by Litigants in Person.
These cases challenge institutional decisions, expose procedural flaws, and disrupt the usual flow of authority.

That makes them uncomfortable territory—particularly when the challenger is not part of the legal profession.

Parliamentary guidance confirms that complaints about judges often stem from process decisions or perceived bias—and that Judicial Review is the only legal route to challenge these.

• The pathway is narrow
• The stakes are high
• And the odds are stacked

Even the Lady Chief Justice has acknowledged “too many examples of judicial bullying” and the need to improve the complaints system.

While not specific to Judicial Review, it reflects a broader discomfort with scrutiny—especially when it comes from below.

Oversight without access is not protection.

It is performance.

For those already exhausted by procedural deflection, the prospect of Judicial Review is not a safeguard.

It is a final, insurmountable barrier.

This system does not fail by accident.

It fails by design.

And Judicial Review, for all its legal weight, is part of that design.

Visibility Without Protection

When a Transcript Request Quietly Triggered Notification

On 26 August 2025, I submitted a formal request for the transcript of the 11 August 2022 hearing.

• The hearing was public
• No reporting restrictions
• No confidentiality order

Yet the court’s response included a notification to the firm involved in the original litigation.

• This wasn’t standard practice
• It hadn’t happened before
• And it wasn’t explained

I wasn’t raising alarm.

I was requesting a record.

But the system responded with visibility—not protection.

This Moment Doesn’t Stand Alone

It threads into a wider pattern:

• Where Litigants in Person are visible, but unsupported
• Where procedural transparency quietly signals, rather than safeguards
• Where steps toward accountability are quietly flagged

I requested a transcript.

They notified the firm.

And the message was clear:

Even when you ask for the record, the system may record you.

Why the Transcript Was Requested Two Years Later

The request for the 11 August 2022 transcript was not delayed by choice—it was triggered by necessity.

At the time of the hearing, I was navigating:

• Active harm
• Procedural confusion
• Emotional fatigue

The full implications of what occurred during that hearing only became clear as I built this record and cross-referenced the contradictions.

The request on 26 August 2025 was forensic, not retrospective.

It marked the point where visibility became essential—not just for me, but for the integrity of the record.

Visibility without protection means harm can be performed quietly, then buried in procedure.

This transcript request was a step toward unburying it.

These Are the Questions—and the Answers

The Public Deserves to Know

So they can decide for themselves whether the legal system is still fit for purpose.

Who Is the Legal Ombudsman?

• Who created it?
• Who runs it?
• Is it truly independent—or just structured to look that way?

Who Built the Legal Ombudsman’s Framework?

• Who wrote the Scheme Rules?
• Are the people running it really lay people?
• If so, why do they follow rules shaped by legal insiders?

What Is the Legal Services Act 2007?

• What did it change?
• Why was it introduced?
• Who benefits from the structure it created?

Is This System Built for Someone in My Position?

• Why does it feel like the Scheme Rules are designed to exclude Litigants in Person?
• Was I wrong to go to the Legal Ombudsman?
• Or does my experience expose the system’s true design?

What Does “The Boot Locked Firmly on My Neck” Really Mean?

• Is the justice system still operating on ancient principles of control dressed up as fairness?
• Why does seeking help feel like being crushed by the very system meant to protect?
• Is it because we are living under a modern version of Hammurabi’s Code—where power decides what justice looks like?

Hammurabi’s Code

The Ancient Script Behind Modern Exclusion

Referencing Hammurabi’s Code isn’t just poetic—it’s forensic.

It anchors this record in legal history, showing how the logic of control has endured across centuries.

1. A Recognisable Origin Point

Hammurabi’s Code is one of the earliest written legal systems.

By invoking it, this record steps beyond personal harm and into the architecture of law itself.

It’s not emotion.

It’s not opinion.

It’s history.

2. The Continuity of Control

Hammurabi’s laws were built on:

• Conditional logic
• Hierarchical bias
• Retaliatory justice

Today’s Scheme Rules and regulatory frameworks still operate on:

• “If you didn’t complain in time, then we won’t investigate.”
• “If you’re a Litigant in Person, then your evidence is less credible.”
• “If the firm says it’s resolved, then we won’t look deeper.”

The logic hasn’t changed.

Only the language has.

3. The Metaphor Lands

Hammurabi punished builders for collapse.

Today, regulators let builders collapse lives—and call it “outside jurisdiction.”

The boot doesn’t land with violence.

It lands with silence, delay, and discretionary dismissal.

4. Accessible to Lay Readers

Not everyone knows the Legal Services Act 2007.

But they’ve heard of “an eye for an eye.”

Hammurabi gives them a reference point.

This record builds a bridge between ancient law and modern exclusion—making the system legible for those it was designed to leave behind.

These questions aren’t just personal.

They echo a deeper truth:

The logic of exclusion is ancient, rehearsed, and still in play.

To understand how modern regulation performs fairness while scripting harm.

My Next Step – The Independent Reviewer

I now take the next step: contacting the Independent Reviewer.

I am already certain their template response is written—waiting for my contact so it can be sent.

That contact is yet to be made, but the reply is waiting in the wings.

Another closure is likely to be made official—quiet, procedural, and rehearsed.

We know how this is structured.

We know the likely reply.

Prewarned, rehearsed, and ready to say why it won’t make any difference.

This marks the close of Litigant Record III—and the quiet beginning of Litigant Record IV.

Where the Solicitors Regulation Authority becomes the next gatekeeper.

How is any Litigant in Person supposed to trust this system.

When their submission is routed through the very machinery that buried it the first time?

The SRA – The Next Gatekeeper

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has now confirmed receipt and is reviewing:

• A Report They Are Trying to Bury
• Litigant Record III

That review is:

• Not neutral
• Not fresh
• Not unknowing

The pattern is familiar.

The template reply may already be prepared—waiting for the review to conclude so it can be sent.

But this time, the record is contradiction-proof.

Every omission, every deflection, every quiet protection will be documented.

This is not cynicism.

It is pattern recognition.

Litigant Record IV begins here.

And if the SRA refuses to address the issues they are mandated to investigate,

Then the record will go to town—naming:

• Every procedural dodge
• Every structural silence
• Every decision-maker who chose containment over correction

The SRA is not just a regulator.

It is a decision-maker.

And Litigant Record IV will hold it to account.

Litigant in Person From III to IV

When the Regulator Became the Record

Litigant-in-Person Record III ends not with resolution, but with recognition.

The SRA has received the report.

But the reply may already be templated.

The silence may already be structured.

This isn’t speculation.

What follows is not a continuation.

Litigant Record IV begins where oversight ends.

Where gatekeeping becomes architecture.

Where refusal becomes design.

The regulator is no longer just a recipient.

Continue to Litigant Record IV

 Where the Gatekeeper Becomes the Architect

Statement of Truth

This record documents failures that began in January 2021 and continue to date.

Across A Record They Are Still Trying to Bury, Litigant Record III – Beyond the Dossier II, and Litigant Record III – Beyond the Dossier III, a pattern emerges:

Legal system–led misconduct, regulatory strategy planning, and procedural obstruction.

Each capsule has been written with forensic intent—supported by evidence submitted to relevant authorities, and sequenced to expose contradiction, not conjecture.

1. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and Legal Ombudsman have been notified of these failures. Their responses, omissions, and closures are documented within this record.
2. This statement does not accuse individuals beyond the evidence presented. It reflects lived experience, procedural fact, and the emotional cost of systemic exclusion.
3. The Judicial Review statistics cited are publicly available. The regulatory patterns described are drawn from direct correspondence, formal responses, and documented timelines.
4. The system may fail—but for every person failed by the systems that claim to protect, there is a record.
5. This statement is made for regulatory, judicial, and public scrutiny—because silence protects no one, and deletion is not accountability.
6. I, Maureen Booth-Martin, confirm that the facts stated in this document are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Every capsule, timeline, and contradiction has been reviewed for accuracy, clarity, and emotional integrity.

Maureen Booth-Martin

10 September 2025

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved