Litigant In Person V - Page 2 of 2

Lived experience of exclusion

Titles in Progress

These working titles reflect the lived experience of exclusion — and the bitter irony of being shut out by a system designed to protect.

They’re not rhetorical flourishes. They’re timestamped truths.

Primary Options

• April Fools at the Gate: What the Legal Ombudsman’s “Updates” Really Do to Litigants in Person
• The April Fool’s Joke That Wasn’t: How the Legal Ombudsman’s Rule Changes Shut Out the Vulnerable
• Side-by-Side Notes on the Legal Ombudsman’s Updated Scheme Rules — What Firms Are Told vs What Litigants in Person Are Given

Alternative (biting)

• Appendix 2: Two Rulebooks, One Gate — How the Legal Ombudsman Speaks to Firms and Silences Litigants in Person

Appendix 2: What Litigants in Person Get — The Second Rulebook at the Gate

Appendix 2

What Litigants in Person Get — The Second Rulebook

This appendix presents the consumer-facing version of the Legal Ombudsman’s remodelled Scheme Rules:

• A 6-page summary — simplified, stylised, and designed to reassure Litigants in Person

It sits alongside Appendix 1, which contains the full legal version — structured for insiders, saturated with discretionary powers, and written in regulatory code.

When read together, these two rulebooks reveal a system that speaks in full authority to firms — and in diluted, evasive language to the public.

Where the Harm Began — And Who Was Protected

The harm didn’t start with the Legal Ombudsman.

It started with the builder — and was sustained by the legal system.

The Builder

• Breached contract, caused material and emotional damage
• Triggered the need for legal intervention
• Was shielded from accountability when the CCJ was not registered — a procedural failure that erased consequence

The Opposing Solicitor / Regional Firm

• Acted for the defendants, not for me — yet their conduct raised safeguarding concerns
• The Legal Ombudsman refused to investigate, citing jurisdiction
• No referral to the SRA was made, despite clear risk
• Their role in procedural obstruction was never tested

The Instructed Solicitor / National Practice

• Mishandled the case, failed to protect their clients’ interests
• The Legal Ombudsman dismissed the complaint as “out of time,” based on presumed awareness
• My timeline was ignored, my safeguarding disclosures unacknowledged
• The barrister instructed by the firm was never scrutinised

Legal Ombudsman and SRA Oversight

The Legal Ombudsman

• Protected firms by dismissing my complaints without testing the evidence
• Failed to refer conduct concerns
• Failed to acknowledge safeguarding
• Used Scheme Rules to contain, not correct
• Became the final stitch in a system designed to protect itself

This wasn’t just a failure to investigate.

It was systemic shielding of those who caused harm — while the person harmed was forced to build the record outside the system’s perimeter.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

The SRA also received forensic capsule dossiers — and acknowledged them.
But acknowledgment isn’t engagement.

Their responses show procedural receipt, not regulatory action.
And when the body responsible for solicitor conduct fails to act, the harm isn’t just sustained.

It’s legitimised.

SRA Capsule — When Containment Is Performed, Not Protection

The SRA did not fail to act.
It performed oversight without delivering remedy.

Across Litigant Records I to IV, the pattern is clear:

• Misuse of CPR 35.6 — through repeated calls and emails — was documented, timestamped, and confirmed by police as part of a sustained harassment campaign
• Solicitor misconduct was sustained, strategic, and emotionally destabilising — yet reframed as “service matters”
• Safeguarding risks were ignored, even when confirmed by Avon & Somerset Police and embedded in sworn statements
• Off-record solicitor engagement left me procedurally exposed, yet the SRA declined to investigate billing contradictions, reputational coercion, and structural abandonment
• Judicial boundaries were breached post-ruling, with attempts to re-enter the property via video link — yet the SRA endorsed this as “never more than a proposal”
• Delays of 40–45 days were not neutral. They were strategic pauses that allowed firms to shape their narrative before scrutiny began

This is not oversight.

It is containment by design.

The SRA’s refusal to investigate the opposing solicitor’s post-ruling conduct — despite transcript evidence, email trails, and emotional fallout — was not a lapse.

It was a structural endorsement.

Their decision, issued by Investigation Officer Laurence Price on 25 October 2024, concluded:

“This was never more than a proposal … no attempt was made to attend.”

This line reframed sustained pressure as procedural suggestion.

It ignored the court’s explicit ruling, the expert’s refusal, and the emotional harm caused.

It validated breach by minimising intent.

The SRA did not act on safeguarding disclosures.

It did not triage risk.

It did not engage with the substance of my complaint.

Instead, it performed visibility — issuing acknowledgments, referencing internal teams, and maintaining a public-facing portal — while withholding engagement.

The SRA’s Architecture of Containment

The SRA’s structure allows:

• Triage officers to reclassify conduct as “service matters”
• Assessment teams to close cases without investigation
• Internal reviewers to uphold prior decisions without fresh scrutiny
• Senior management to remain invisible while shaping thresholds
• Board members to define what counts as risk, harm, or public interest

This is not faceless bureaucracy.

It is multi-faced containment.

And for Litigants in Person, it means the system is not built to protect.

It is built to perform fairness while preserving institutional control.

The SRA’s refusal to engage with my structurally anchored record — despite timestamped  evidence, police-confirmed harassment, and procedural breaches — is not just a regulatory failure.

It is a structural contradiction.

Because when the regulator defends the indefensible, oversight collapses.

And the record must be built beyond the reach of regulatory protection.

SRA Regulatory Rules — When the Framework Enables Evasion

The SRA doesn’t publish a single “Scheme Rules” document like the Legal Ombudsman.

Instead, its regulatory framework is embedded in the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, the Code of Conduct, and its Enforcement Strategy.
Together, they reveal how oversight is performed — not delivered.

Key Structural Contradictions

• Rule 1 — Triage discretion: The SRA decides whether a report “falls within its remit.” This allows safeguarding breaches, harassment, and CPR violations to be dismissed or redirected without investigation
• Rule 2 — No statutory response time: There is no deadline for initial engagement. The 40–45 day delay I documented is not a backlog. It is a strategic pause
• Rule 3 — Invisible decision-makers: Authorised decision-makers act without public accountability. Their reasoning is rarely shared, and their discretion is final
• No safeguarding trigger: Nowhere in the rules is there a mandatory safeguarding referral — even when police-confirmed harm is disclosed
• Containment by categorisation: Misconduct is routinely reframed as “service matters” and redirected to the Legal Ombudsman — even when the record is structurally sound and timestamped

The SRA’s Code of Conduct for Firms Requires Solicitors to:

• Act in a way that upholds public trust
• Provide a proper standard of service
• Report serious breaches promptly

Yet in my case:

• The instructed solicitor’s off-record engagement, reputational coercion, and billing contradictions were never investigated
• The opposing solicitor’s breach of judicial boundaries was reframed as a “proposal”
• Police-confirmed harassment was ignored

This isn’t just procedural drift.
It’s structural containment.

The SRA’s framework allows visibility without engagement, discretion without scrutiny, and delay without remedy.
And for Litigants in Person, it means the regulator is not built to protect.

It is built to defer.

This capsule doesn’t challenge the existence of rules.

It documents how those rules enable evasion — and why the record must be built outside their reach.

From Regulatory Deflection to Oversight Collapse

When the Solicitors Regulation Authority reclassified solicitor misconduct as “service matters,” it didn’t just redirect scrutiny — it handed the evidence to a body structurally unequipped to hold it.

The Legal Ombudsman was never designed to investigate safeguarding breaches, off-record coercion, or systemic harm.

Its framework is built for service dissatisfaction — not structural exposure.

And when the SRA passed the record across, it did so knowing the gate would likely close.

That’s not oversight.
That’s containment choreography.

Because when the regulator defers to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman defers to the scheme rules, and the scheme rules defer to discretionary thresholds — the record isn’t tested.
It’s recycled.

And for Litigants in Person, that cycle isn’t remedy.
It’s repetition.

What follows is not just a record of dismissal.

It’s a forensic account of how oversight collapses when the gatekeeper is also the subject of the complaint — and why the evidence must now be threaded beyond the loop.

Key Scheme Rule Updates That Affect Litigants in Person

1. Time Limit Contraction

Rule:

• Complaints must be made within one year of the act/omission or awareness of harm (Rule 4.5)
• “Awareness” is assessed subjectively — what the complainant should reasonably have known (Rule 4.6b)

Impact on LiPs:

• LiPs often don’t recognise harm as “complainable” until much later due to lack of legal fluency
• This rule allows the Ombudsman to presume early awareness and void the complaint
• It weaponises hindsight against the vulnerable

2. Discretionary Referral to Independent Reviewer

Rule:

• The Legal Ombudsman is not required to refer complaints about its own conduct to the IR (Rule 5.7 and internal delegation rules)

Impact on LiPs:

• The body under scrutiny controls access to oversight
• No published criteria for referral means LiPs are left vulnerable to internal dismissal
• Even with MP involvement, the gate can close silently

3. Expanded Dismissal Powers

Rule:

• Complaints can be dismissed if deemed “minor,” “disproportionate,” or lacking “significant” harm (Rule 5.7b, 5.7p)

Impact on LiPs:

• Subjective thresholds allow dismissal without testing evidence
• Emotional harm, safeguarding risks, and procedural obstruction can be reframed as “insignificant”
• The record is judged not on what it reveals, but on how it’s received

4. No Mandatory Safeguarding Trigger

Rule:

• Safeguarding risks are not listed as mandatory considerations anywhere in the dismissal or investigation framework

Impact on LiPs:

• Vulnerability disclosures can be ignored without breaching the rules
• The system performs fairness while structurally refusing to protect

Two Versions of the Rules

 One for Insiders, One for Outsiders

Rule:

• A 27-page legal version (dense, statutory)
• A 6-page consumer summary (simplified, stylised)

Impact on LiPs:

• The consumer version omits structural risks, discretionary powers, and dismissal criteria
• LiPs are reassured while being excluded
• The public-facing version softens the system’s edge — while the internal version sharpens its control

What This Means for Litigants in Person

These rule changes don’t just affect how complaints are handled.

They redefine who gets heard, how harm is recognised, and whether oversight is even possible.

For Litigants in Person, the restructured Scheme Rules:

• Tighten the gate
• Narrow the path to remedy

Codify procedural insulation

Beyond the Gate — Why the Record Had to Be Built Outside

This submission is not just a complaint.

It is a forensic account of how oversight collapses when the gatekeeper is also the subject of the complaint — and when the rules are written to shield institutions, not protect the people they harm.

I did not build this record to be heard.

I built it to be irrefutable.

Because when the Legal Ombudsman reclassifies safeguarding as “out of time,” and the SRA performs oversight without remedy, the evidence cannot be tested inside the system.

It must be assembled beyond it.

This isn’t just about solicitor misconduct.

It’s about structural insulation — codified in scheme rules, enacted through discretionary thresholds, and protected by a circuit of regulatory bodies who answer only to each other.

I followed every rule.

I timestamped every submission.

I copied in my MP.

I documented every silence, deflection, and delay.

And I built the record to withstand scrutiny — so that even if the gate stays closed, the truth remains intact.

This capsule doesn’t ask for remedy.

It demands recognition.

Because until the lived public is seen, the procedural public will keep tightening the gate.

And the record will keep being built outside it.

Why Would the Government Allow This?

It’s not that they wake up wanting to harm the public.

It’s that they’ve built a system where risk management outweighs public protection — and efficiency is measured by silence, not remedy.

Here’s what’s really happening:

Protecting Institutions Over Individuals

• The legal sector is powerful, well-connected, and deeply embedded in government structures
• Regulators are often staffed by insiders — people who’ve worked in firms, chambers, or governance roles
• When complaints arise, the instinct is to shield the institution, not test the harm

Efficiency Framed as Reform

• The revised Scheme Rules were sold as “efficiency improvements”
• But for Litigants in Person, they function as procedural filters
• Earlier dismissal, fewer referrals, and discretionary gatekeeping reduce workload — but also erase oversight

Assumption of Public Passivity

• The system assumes most people won’t fight back
• That they won’t understand the rules, won’t build structurally anchored records, won’t trace the breaches
• Litigants in Person defy that assumption — and that’s why our records are treated as threats, not remedies.

Democratic Distance

• The bodies that approve these rules — OLC, LSB, Lord Chancellor, Number 10 — are appointed, not elected
• They operate at a distance from the people harmed

There’s no direct line of accountability unless scandal breaks or MPs intervene

So Why Would the Government Do This?

Because it’s easier to manage risk than to confront harm.

Because silence is cheaper than scrutiny.

Because the system was built to protect itself.

Who Signed Off — And Why It Matters

The April 2023 Scheme Rules were formally authorised by Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, a Conservative MP serving under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. His signature authorised the narrowing of time limits, the expansion of dismissal powers, and the removal of statutory safeguarding obligations — all of which disproportionately affect Litigants in Person.

These changes were not accidental. They were structural. And they were signed into force by a senior Cabinet minister, despite clear evidence of harm.

Litigant Record Recommendations — A Strategic Summary

This list draws from the trilogy of dossiers and Litigant Record IV – Where the Gatekeeper Becomes the Architect.

Each recommendation is rooted in documented harm, systemic contradiction, and the lived experience of exclusion. Together, they form a remedy-ready map for scrutiny, reform, and legacy.

Regulatory Reform

Strengthen oversight. Remove discretionary evasion.

• Commission an Independent Audit of the SRA and Legal Ombudsman
• Focus on safeguarding failures, emotional harm, and procedural deflection.
• Introduce Statutory Oversight for Legal Regulators
• Remove discretionary closure powers and enforce transparency in triage and investigation.
• Mandate Public Reporting of Complaint Outcomes
• Require anonymised summaries of serious misconduct cases to be published regularly.

Transparency and Accountability

Ensure public funds and regulatory power serve the public

Not the profession.

• Task the National Audit Office with Reviewing Legal Regulation Budgets
• Examine how public funds and case fees are used to suppress rather than resolve harm.
• Empower Parliamentary Select Committees to Call Evidence from Regulators
• Especially the Justice Committee — to scrutinise safeguarding failures and emotional harm.
• Require Regulators to Publish Emotional Harm Impact Statements
• Acknowledge the cost of exclusion and misclassification in complaint handling.

Oversight and Investigation Standards

Track repeat harm.

Ensure investigations meet independent standards.

• Introduce a National Register of Repeat Offenders
• Track serial misconduct across firms and regulators to enable early intervention.
• Establish a National Register of Repeat Victims
• Document recurring harm to support safeguarding and systemic reform.
• Introduce Independent Complaint Investigation Standards
• Require transparency, consistency, and timeliness in all regulatory investigations.
• Introduce Independent Audit Standards for Complaint Handling
• Ensure investigations are not just performed — but reviewed for integrity and impact.

Strategic Reform

Realigning Oversight to Reflect Harm

• Reform Legal Aid Policy and Audit Regulatory Budgets
• Ensure regulators address systemic harm, not just procedural resolution.
• Develop a National Online Platform for Litigants in Person
• Support case tracking, procedural guidance, and digital access to complaint handling.
• Refocus Legal Regulation on Harm Reduction
• Shift from optics and procedural insulation to meaningful accountability and remedy.

Accessibility and Standards

Ensure inclusive access and emotional safety for all parties.

• Introduce Complaint-Handling Standards for Vulnerable Litigants
• Protect those with cognitive or sensory impairments through inclusive protocols.
• Establish a National Digital Strategy for Complaint Handling
• Ensure online systems are accessible, transparent, and tailored to Litigants in Person.
• Introduce Emotional Safety Protocols for Complaint Engagement
• Prevent retraumatisation and ensure emotionally safe regulatory interactions.

Legacy and Reform

Turn lived experience into evidence — and exclusion into remedy.

• Reopen Silenced Complaints Where Public Interest Is Evident
• Audit cases closed via discretionary powers, misclassification, or delay.
• Include Litigants in Person in Policy Consultations and Reform Panels
• Recognise lived experience as evidence — and ensure representation in reform processes.
• Engage with the Transparency Task Force as a Reform Partner
• Collaborate with independent campaigners and whistleblowers documenting regulatory opacity and harm.

Why These Recommendations Cannot Be Ignored

These recommendations are not optional. They are structural. And they cannot be dismissed with budgetary excuses or procedural deflection. The cost of inaction is not financial. It is human.

Let the record close with clarity:

• Financial constraints cannot be used to dismiss structural failures. The cost of inaction is borne by the public — not the regulators.
• If safeguarding is a statutory duty, then financial capacity cannot be used to excuse its neglect. This record documents not just harm, but the refusal to prevent it.
• Budgetary excuses do not erase the evidence. This document is not a wish-list — it is a map of what went wrong, and what must be repaired.
• If the system cannot afford to protect the public, then it must stop pretending it does. This record is not asking for miracles. It is demanding accountability.

The cost of silence is not financial. It is human. And this record will not be buried under budget lines.

Closing Statement — Litigant Record V

This dossier concludes the Litigant in Person series with a contradiction-proof record of regulatory containment, discretionary refusal, and oversight collapse.

All five dossiers are built from timestamped evidence, indexed correspondence, and documented procedural trace.

Together, they are now ready for scrutiny by parliamentary oversight, independent review, and public interest bodies.

The record is not symbolic.

It is strategic.

And it is built to withstand scrutiny.

But this record does not end here.

Litigant Record VI is now in preparation — documenting the oversight loop, discretionary silence, and the responses still pending from regulatory bodies and public officials.

More revelations are emerging.

More exposes of how genuine complaints are shut down — not to protect the public, but to protect the regulators, their reputations, and the Legal Ombudsman’s funding framework.

It is no longer a myth that Parliament and its regulatory bodies exist to keep the public safe.

That promise has fractured.

Evidence is now surfacing of other individuals harmed by the same firm I used.

Some have shared their stories privately.

Some have received refunds.

Some have walked away without remedy.

This isn’t just a personal record.

It’s a structural map.

And the next chapter will document what happens when the gate is witnessed — but still refuses to open.

Maureen Booth-Martin

Updated 12 November 2025