Litigant Record VI — Part 1

 Judge's Word vs The Record

Oversight Loops and Discretionary Silence

This record is not about disappointment.

It is about exposure.

What follows shows how judicial conduct did not just undermine fairness — it redefined it.

Outcome was staged, but safeguarding denied.

Silence was not passive. It was strategy.

This is not a repeat of earlier records.

It is the next phase — the phase where authorised suppression becomes architecture, and protection is refused without reason:

• Bankruptcy Threat Weaponised
• Substitution Without Disclosure — Trial Shifts Before It Begins.
• CCJ Suppressed — Outcome declared, protection denied.
• Legal Ombudsman — Fairness performed, redress simulated but rarely delivered.
• Office for Legal Complaints — Governance untouchable, accountability absent.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority — Deflection by design, misconduct untested.
• Oversight Loops — Every gate leads only to another gate.
• Silence as Evidence — MPs copied but never reply.
• Justice staged, safety denied.

This is not collapse. It is containment.

It is safeguarding engineering to protect the defendant and shield the system itself from scrutiny.

Litigant Record VI will Document:

• Oversight loops and referral standoffs — where every gate leads only to another gate.
• Discretionary silence and procedural drift — where delay becomes denial.
• Emotional impact of being told to “keep them in the loop” — after the loop has already closed.
• Public witness — 1,955 views in 17 days confirms engagement, not invisibility. The record is being read.

The next capsule shows how containment was weaponised in practice — bankruptcy used as a shield.

From systemic silence to lived contradiction

The oversight loops are not abstract. They are felt in the courtroom, where substitution without disclosure, dismissal without explanation, and procedural obstruction shape the trial itself. What follows is not theory. It is the lived evidence of how judicial conduct narrowed fairness in practice.

Bankruptcy Threat Weaponised

The defendant did not just threaten bankruptcy. He was advised to use it.

“Back off now or I will go bankrupt.”

That threat cut two ways:

• If I had stopped before trial, he would have walked away with the money he stole, the false qualifications he claimed, and the death trap he left behind.

• If I had walked away, he would also have avoided a CCJ being placed on the public record — the only proof that could keep others safe.

Bankruptcy was used to shield an offender with nothing to lose.

The legal system knew this. It advised him to use it.

And it ensured his victims would never receive restitution.

Substitution Without Disclosure

Trial Shifts Before It Begins

The trial was listed for 2–3 August 2023, with a named District Judge assigned.

His directions were issued on 12 April 2023.

They included a contingency: “This case may be released to another Judge.”

But no formal notice of substitution was issued.

No updated order.

No explanation.

On 31 July, I was notified only of a 30‑minute delay. No mention was made of a judicial substitution. Yet by then, the court — or my solicitor — must have known the Judge assigned to my trial was being replaced. Why was I told of the trivial but not the consequential?

This selective notice was not courtesy withheld.

It was disclosure denied.

It was concealment dressed as procedure.

On the morning of 2 August, my barrister told me the assigned Judge had been called away to preside over an urgent family matter.

We were waiting on a replacement.

I was told this happens often — not to worry.

When the trial began, the barrister asked:

“Have you had the opportunity to review the case files in preparation for today’s trial, sir?”

The Judge replied:

“I have read all relevant material.”

But “relevant” is subjective. It allowed the judge to exclude documents he personally deemed unnecessary. In practice, every document submitted is potentially relevant, because each forms part of the record. If the judge filters, the question becomes: whose definition of relevance is being applied?

Our barrister’s repetition made this clear. He asked four times if I had heard the exchange. It was almost as if he wanted me to register the judge’s phrasing, anticipating that “relevant” could later be contested.

As the trial unfolded, our lived experience confirmed that ‘relevant’ was indeed redefined at convenience — all the documents and factual evidence that mattered to my case were sidelined.

When was this Judge assigned?

Was it hours before? Minutes?

Why was I — the claimant — not informed?

This isn’t just a missed courtesy.

It is a procedural gap that undermines confidence in fairness.

It is substitution concealed, aligned with the defendant’s interests, and justified only by silence.

Clear Imbalance — Injustice in Plain Sight

The judgment reframed factual statements as “allegations” and narrowed scope to damages only.

The Statement of Costs — properly filed and sealed — was excluded as “tampered.”

This contradiction meant damages were addressed without costs, fairness without balance.

At the same time, procedural rules bent in favour of the Defendant.

This was not neutrality.

It was prejudice in plain sight.

It was protection staged for the defendant, denial enacted against the claimant.

Judicial Conduct and Procedural Exposure

The judge was parachuted in with limited time to absorb the evidentiary arc. Yet before the trial began, he already knew what would be removed. Evidence was dismissed as “tampered.” Expert input refused as “flawed.”

This was not scheduling.

It was scope shaping.

That is not timing.

It is structural distortion of fairness.

Tampering as a Convenient Label

Principle: Courts take allegations of tampering seriously, but it is not routine to dismiss evidence outright without scrutiny. Normally, questions of tampering would trigger examination, cross‑examination, or expert review.

Practice: A judge parachuted in with no preparation may lean on shorthand labels — “tampered,” “expert inspections flawed” — to exclude quickly. When “tampered” becomes a convenient label, material is sidelined without testing. The claimant is left wondering whether exclusion was evidentiary or tactical.

Risk: Judicial authority carries weight, but authority does not replace explanation. When a judge says “tampered” and moves on, without inquiry or reasoning, it exposes the lack of transparency in our courts.

Sealed documents were filed on 26 July 2023 at 14:19, with explicit instruction from my solicitor that they were not to be opened until all matters save for costs had been dealt with.

When the Judge confirmed, “I have read all relevant material,” he produced the sealed envelope — already torn open — and declared it “tampered.” Without explanation of how or by whom it had been opened, he threw it aside, ruling that it could no longer be used as evidence.

The inconsistency was undeniable: if all material had been read, who broke the seal?

That safeguard exists to prevent bias. Yet it was breached, sidelined without explanation, without investigation, without apology. I was expected to take the Judge’s word as final.   That is not impartiality. It is concealment.

Selective Reasoning and Minimisation

Key evidence was excluded.

Expert testimony was categorised as flawed.

The Defendant’s liability was reduced despite a ruling in my favour.

This was not evidentiary balance.

It was reputational shielding.

This conduct cannot be treated as isolated. If fairness was redefined here, then every case presided over by this judge must be reviewed — to test whether prejudice was exception or pattern.

Oversight is not optional. It is constitutional.

Post‑Trial

After being awarded £40,926.00, I was advised to offer the Defendant a £2,000 payment plan.

“I know it’s disappointing… but at least you may get something back.”

—(Claimants barrister 3 August 2023)

That was not consolation.

It was foreknowledge.

It implied the system had already adjusted its expectations.

This was not justice.

It was reversal of responsibility.

It was responsibility inverted — protection extended to the defendant, with the burden laid on the claimant.

Appeal Limitations

Appeals are allowed only on points of law. Judicial prejudice in fact‑finding becomes untouchable.

That is not a flaw in outcome. It is a flaw in the architecture.

When Winning Isn’t Protection

Judicial Discretion and the Illusion of Fairness

This capsule begins not with defeat, but with victory. A £40,926.00 judgment in my favour.

And then:

• A judge who showed prejudice against the claimant.
• Advice to compromise with the Defendant after winning.
• A system that issued an order but refused to enforce it.

This was not justice.

It was an orchestrated judgment without enforcement, engineered to serve the defendant and the court but not the harmed.

When the Judgment Date Precedes the Judgment

The Trial Court Order was dated 2 August 2023, the day the trial began.

The judgment was delivered on 3 August.

The document was sealed on 8 August and received on 12 August.

Yet the payment deadline was set as 17 August, calculated from a date that precedes the ruling.

This was not clerical error.

It was chronological contradiction.

For any party before the court, it is a contradiction. For Litigants in Person, it becomes a loophole that invites delay, denial, and dispute.

Filtered Twice — Allegations, Tampering, and Tilt

Factual statements were reframed as “allegations.”

Costs were excluded as “tampered.”

Damages were addressed without costs.

Expert reports were discarded — the Judge’s stance was that “experts can sometimes get their inspections wrong.”

This was not fairness.

It was balance tilted by design.

At the same time, rules were bent in favour of the Defendant.

“The Defendant was in person, and I bent the procedural rules in his favour in order to assist the Court.” —(District Judge, 3 August 2023)

That is not impartiality.

It is systemic discrimination.

Procedural Bending — Abuse Beyond Discretion

The Defendant became a Litigant in Person just prior to the Trial date, only after his solicitor withdrew, following the severity and high volume of defects recorded by the Single Joint Expert (SJE) appointed by the court.

It is recorded that the Judge bent procedural rules in the Defendant’s favour, stating it was “to assist the Court.”

Judicial discretion to assist a LiP in any courtroom setting is limited to explanation and procedural flexibility.

It cannot justify:

• Excluding sealed costs.
• Discarding factual evidence that harmed the Defendant.
• Or bending rules only for one side.

Using LiP status as cover for imbalance is not impartiality.

It is defending.

What These Actions Are Showing

• Institutional convenience: By saying it was “to assist the Court,” the Judge positioned the bending of rules as serving the system, not fairness between parties. It implied that making allowances for the Defendant simplified the Court’s process — perhaps avoiding adjournments, delays, or complications.

• Impact on imbalance: Whatever the Judge’s intent, the effect was that the Defendant received latitude, while the claimant’s evidence was excluded or minimised. The “assistance” to the Court came at the expense of impartiality.

• Contradiction: Judicial discretion is supposed to be limited to explanation and procedural clarity, ensuring both sides can follow. Here, discretion was stretched into bending rules for one side, justified not by fairness but by institutional efficiency.

Accountability Contained — The JCIO Oversight Loop

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office was created to investigate judges — but only their behaviour, not their decisions. Its remit is narrow: conduct in court, not rulings or case management.

Complaints vanish into confidentiality unless sanctions are imposed. Oversight of the JCIO itself is limited to procedure, not substance. The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman can only check how the JCIO handled a complaint, not the conduct itself.

That is why I did not complain.

It was not fear.

It was futility.

A complaint would be absorbed into another loop, another gate, another silence.

By documenting here, in LiP VI, the evidence is public and therefore cannot be buried.

Constitutional Risk — Justice Withheld

When the shared England and Wales jurisdiction allows CCJ erasure without redress, it exposes a deeper imbalance.

Wales, long treated as the poorer relation, is left structurally unprotected.

Not at the expense of my children and those who follow.

I am not allowing it.

Forensic Concerns Embedded in the Order

The order itself carried contradictions:

• Issued in dual formats, appearing both as a judgment and as a general form.

• No mention of CCJ registration, or the Registry, no confirmation of automatic entry, and no guidance on enforcement.

• Payment directed to the claimant’s home, not to a solicitor or enforcement agent, placing burden and risk on the harmed party.

• No enforcement path specified. — no warrant, no bailiff, no registration mechanism.

• No confirmation of interest accrual, leaving liability unclear if payment is delayed.

• No breakdown of costs. — damages exceeding forty thousand pounds were awarded without justification or itemisation.

These omissions are not opinion. They contradict the procedural requirements of a CCJ order, leaving enforcement unclear and fairness compromised.

Why This Matters

The absence of CCJ registration is not clerical oversight. It is a public protection failure.

The lack of enforcement clarity leaves Litigants in Person exposed, forced to chase outcomes without procedural support.

The date mismatch undermines trust in the judicial chain and creates space for the defendant to dispute timing or evade liability.

This was not culpability.

It was safeguard denied.

That is why registration of CCJs must be mandatory in every case — without discretion, without exception. Only then can further injustice be prevented.

What These Contradictions Show

This is now a forensic marker. A contradiction that cannot be ignored.

It threads together:

• The timeline anomaly.
• The enforcement ambiguity.
• The emotional impact of chasing justice while the system drifts.
• The structural risk to Litigants in Person when orders are vague, misdated, and untested.

This is not oversight. It is systemic obstruction embedded in the system itself.

When Victory Masks Vulnerability — A Judgment Without Protection

This capsule begins not with defeat, but with victory. A judgment approaching £41,000 in my favour. A courtroom win.

And then:

• A judge whose dislike for me was palpable, despite no prior contact before or after the trial.
• A barrister suggesting I offer a payment plan to the Defendant — advice I had never heard before, and advice that shifted responsibility back onto me after victory had already been declared.
• A system that issued an order but refused to enforce it.

This was not justice.

It was a Judge who wielded his power to coordinate the outcome of the trial—exposing authority as performance, not protection.

How a CCJ Is Supposed to Be Registered

1. Judge issues the judgment — at the end of the hearing, the order is made and sealed.
2. Court staff process the order — the sealed judgment is entered into the court’s system.
3. Notification to Registry Trust — the court sends the judgment details to the Registry of Judgments, Orders and Fines.
4. Public record entry—Registry Trust updates the register, making the CCJ visible to lenders, enforcement officers, and the public

This chain is meant to be automatic. It is meant to protect.

What Information Appears on the CCJ Register

When a CCJ is registered with Registry Trust Ltd, the public record shows:

• Defendant’s name and address
• Court name and case number
• Judgment date
• Judgment amount

Satisfaction Status

• Satisfied → the debt has been paid in full (or cleared within one month, in which case it may be removed entirely)
• Unsatisfied → the debt remains unpaid or unresolved.
• Satisfaction date (if the debt was eventually paid)

Retention period: All CCJs remain on the register for six years from the judgment date, whether satisfied or unsatisfied.

Where the Breakdown Happened

The Judge issued the judgment.

The clerk sealed it.

But it never reached the Registry.

• The CCJ was blocked before it could leave the courthouse.
• An order was issued, but protection was denied.
• That is not clerical oversight. It is deliberate concealment — but by whom, and why?

Why Registration Matters

• Public witness: Registration makes the judgment visible to lenders and enforcement officers.
• Enforcement: Without registration, bailiffs may not act, leaving the claimant exposed.
• Accountability: A blocked CCJ means fairness was performed but never enforced.

Is It Illegal Not to Register a CCJ?

• Normal process: Courts are supposed to send CCJ details to Registry Trust Ltd.
• Legal expectation: Registration is the default, ensuring transparency and public protection.
• Exceptions: Only narrow cases — family proceedings, child safety, privacy‑sensitive matters.
• Reality: When a judgment is withheld without explanation, fairness collapses and protection is lost.

Registered Here — But Not Where It Matters

The court told me: “The CCJ was registered here.”

But ‘here’ meant only inside the court’s own system.

Registry Trust never received it.

But it was never made public.

A judgment that cannot be seen is a judgment that cannot protect.

That is not oversight. It is withholding of evidence—the public record withheld from view.

The Contradiction

My lived experience shows the CCJ was not registered.

The system says “automatic.”

In practice, it is selective.

Containment Engineered

The CCJ was not withheld by accident.

It was deliberately contained — to shield the defendant from accountability and to shield the system itself from scrutiny.

An order was issued, but it wasn’t worth the legal document it was written on.

Safeguard erased in the public record.

Justice declared, but accountability withheld.

That is not oversight.

It is systemic sabotage — engineered to protect the offender and preserve the illusion of fairness while victims remain exposed.

Footnote: When the defendant carried out his threat to go bankrupt before the trial, he did not need to follow through in substance. The deliberate block of the CCJ ensured the weaponisation succeeded.

Closing Seal — Exposure, Not Disappointment

This section does not end with defeat.

It ends with exposure.

The contradiction is documented.

The concealment is named.

The weaponisation is revealed.

A judgment that cannot be seen is a judgment that cannot protect.

That is not oversight.

It is denial embedded — and by documenting it here, the evidence is public.

It cannot be buried; it is now part of the record.

Parliament promised oversight and fairness. What is withheld in practice is now documented in public.

The contradiction is constitutional — and it is part of the record.

From exposure to silence, the next capsule shows how restriction becomes the architecture of avoidance.

From Restriction to Silence

The barrier did not end with the CCJ.

When bankruptcy was weaponised, the system did not step in to protect.

Instead, oversight bodies closed their gates.

The Legal Ombudsman was not a path to relief.

Another loop — another wall of silence

The next capsule shows how even Independent Review was denied.

Triple Betrayals

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, Office for Legal Complaints, and Legal Ombudsman were created under the Legal Services Act 2007 to rebuild public trust. Parliament promised independence, fairness, and accountability. The Clementi Review was cited as the blueprint, and the Act was presented as reform.

But the record shows otherwise. The very bodies established to protect the public have become the architecture of concealment:

• The Legal Ombudsman (LeO): Silences complaints, denies Independent Review, and stages fairness without delivering it.
• The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC): Builds and oversees the framework, knows the harm being inflicted, yet remains untouchable.
• The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA): Deflects responsibility, gatekeeps complaints, and shields solicitors from accountability.

Together, they are not safeguards. They are betrayals. Each one was created to restore confidence in the legal system, but in practice they dismantle it.

This is not failure.

It is strategy with intent.

The cadence continues: from betrayal to suppression, the architecture of silence is revealed.

Closing Cadence — From Triple Betrayals to Suppression by Design

The Ombudsman silences.

The OLC shields.

The SRA deflects.

Three pillars of the same architecture: silence, deflection, and untouchable governance.

This is not failure.

It is construction.

And when silence, deflection, and untouchable governance stand side by side, the outcome is inevitable: containment by control.

Capsule 1 — The Legal Ombudsman

Warning: If you decide to make a complaint against a solicitor or firm, the Legal Ombudsman is not structured to protect the public. It was created to simulate fairness, not deliver it.

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) was established under the Legal Services Act 2007 as the independent scheme for resolving complaints about solicitors and firms. Parliament promised that it would provide a clear route to challenge poor service, improve standards, and rebuild public trust in the profession.

• Origins: The Act created the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) to govern the Ombudsman. The scheme was formally launched in 2009 and began accepting complaints in October 2010.
• Purpose: To investigate complaints about poor service, simulate redress up to £30,000 but rarely deliver it, and feed lessons back to the profession.
• Governance: The OLC appoints the Chief Ombudsman and oversees operations, but it is not a complaints route for the public.

The discrepancy is stark:

• Independence? The Ombudsman sits inside the same architecture it claims to oversee. Its governance is shielded from direct accountability.
• Fairness? Complaints are reframed, minimised, or dismissed. Evidence is voided by presumption.
• Relief? Access to Independent Review is denied. Safeguarding disclosures are ignored. Closure is performed, not earned.

The Legal Ombudsman does not protect the vulnerable. It protects the profession. The government built this structure to attempt to rebuild public trust, but in practice the Legal Ombudsman has done little more than annihilate it.

Every record submitted carries personal and sensitive information. It is offered in good faith, with the expectation of safeguarding. Yet previous interactions with the Ombudsman and the SRA show how even data protection can be mishandled.

That is why governance matters — and why the Office for Legal Complaints must be tested.

Just to clarify: The Legal Ombudsman has awarded compensation in some cases, but the data shows it’s limited and often obscured.

Official Data on Awards

• The Legal Ombudsman publishes decision data quarterly, showing outcomes for complaints against legal service providers.
• In these records, the field “ombudsman remedy required” is often marked as zero — meaning:

• • No award was proposed, or
  • The decision was equal to or less than what the firm had already offered before investigation.

This means that even when compensation is technically “awarded,” it may not exceed what was already on the table — making the Ombudsman’s intervention procedurally hollow.

What Counts as Award

According to their own guidance, the Ombudsman may direct:

• Compensation for financial loss
• Refunds or cost reductions
• Non‑financial remedies (e.g. apologies or corrections)
• Compensation for emotional impact

But they also state clearly: “We won’t direct a remedy if we can’t be confident on a fair number.”

In short, the Ombudsman only awards compensation if the complainant can prove measurable harm.

So unless the complainant provides clear, quantifiable evidence, the Ombudsman often declines to commit to anything — even when poor service is acknowledged and evident.

Readers can verify this in the Legal Ombudsman’s published decision data, available on the Ombudsman’s official website under Decision data.

Capsule 2 — The Office for Legal Complaints

The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) was established under the Legal Services Act 2007 as the governing board for the Legal Ombudsman. It was created to oversee the Ombudsman’s framework, not to protect the public. Its remit was never to hear complaints directly. Instead, it was legally authorised to:

• Oversight of operations: Set the framework, approve budgets, and monitor performance.
• Appointments: Select the Chief Ombudsman and senior leadership.
• Governance: Ensure the Ombudsman complies with statutory duties and report upwards to the Legal Services Board (LSB).

The flaw is structural:

• Framework without safeguards: The OLC structured the Ombudsman’s foundation, knowing how complaints would be filtered and controlled.

• Knowledge without accountability: Through reports and statistics, the OLC sees how many complaints are dismissed, delayed, or denied — yet it does nothing. The failures are visible, but accountability is withheld.

• Oversight without access: The public cannot complain to the OLC about the Ombudsman’s failures. The only external routes — Independent Reviewer — Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) or Judicial Review are structurally inaccessible to Litigants in Person. The Ombudsman itself controls whether a complaint is passed to Independent Review, meaning the safeguard can be denied before it begins.

This makes the OLC effectively untouchable. It governs the Ombudsman but does not answer to those harmed by its decisions. The body that built the framework knows the harm being inflicted — yet shields itself from accountability.

The OLC was presented as a safeguard. In practice, it is a wall: governance staged but never tested. It is the second betrayal — the architecture of oversight built to protect the Ombudsman, not the public.

Capsule 3 — The Solicitors Regulation Authority

Warning: If you raise concerns with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, you will also not find protection. You will find deflection.

The SRA was formally established on 29 January 2007, following the recommendations of the 2004 Clementi Review and the passage of the Legal Services Act 2007. It was created as the independent regulatory arm of the Law Society, separating regulation from representation to rebuild public trust in the profession.

• Origins: Clementi identified a conflict of interest — the Law Society both represented solicitors and regulated them. Parliament adopted his recommendations, mandating separation.

• Purpose: To regulate solicitors and firms in England and Wales, enforce ethical standards, investigate misconduct, and maintain public confidence.

• Structure: Operationally independent but formally linked to the Law Society, overseen by its own Board and Chief Executive.

The fracture is clear:

• Acknowledgment without accountability: Complaints are received but not investigated. Evidence is reclassified as “service issues” and redirected elsewhere.

• Conditional abdication: The SRA states: “It will only act if another body — the Ombudsman or the courts — first records serious concerns.” —(Email dated 06/11/2025 12:17)

• Gatekeeping by proxy: Responsibility is always elsewhere, leaving the complaint outside every gate.

The SRA does not regulate to protect the public. It regulates to protect the profession. 

Standards exist, but enforcement collapses. Oversight is staged, but accountability withheld.

This is not regulation.

It is containment.

The SRA’s silence and deflection prove its main objective is to shield solicitors from scrutiny, not to protect the public and the most vulnerable.

It is the third betrayal: a regulator that performs oversight while refusing to act.

Capsule 4 — Who Created the Legal Services Act 2007

• Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Legal Services Act in October 2007.
• It was introduced by the Labour Government under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) steering it through Parliament.
• The Act was based on the recommendations of the Clementi Review (2004), which highlighted conflicts of interest in how the legal profession was regulated.

Its purpose was to:

• • Reform regulation of legal services.
  • Increase consumer protection and access to justice.
  • Create new oversight bodies:

• • • Legal Services Board (LSB) — overarching regulator.

• • • Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) — governing board for the Legal Ombudsman.

• • • Legal Ombudsman (LeO) — independent complaints scheme.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) — separated from the Law Society to regulate solicitors.

Capsule 5 — Courtroom Distortion

The irregularities are mirrored:

• Relief promised, denial delivered.
• Transparency staged, concealment enacted.
• Justice invoked, restriction imposed.

Courtroom distortion is not separate from regulatory distortion — it is its mirror. The Ombudsman silences complaints, the SRA deflects responsibility, and the OLC shields governance. The court echoes them all: silencing evidence, deflecting responsibility, shielding itself from accountability.

This is not error.

It is deliberate construction.

The courtroom does not stand apart from the regulators — it stands beside them, performing the same containment scripted as justice.

Capsule 6 — Regulatory Obstruction

The indiscretions are complete:

• Independence promised, abdication delivered.
• Fairness staged, denial enacted.
• Oversight invoked, accountability refused.

Regulatory denial is not separate from courtroom denial — it is its partner.

The Ombudsman silences.

The SRA deflects.

The OLC shields.

Together they perform the same containment the judiciary enacts in court: evidence excluded, balance and fair justice denied, accountability erased.

This is not error.

It is construction.

Regulators and courts stand side by side, performing blocking acts in different arenas, but serving the same purpose: to protect the profession, not the public.

Capsule 7 — Suppression by Design

The courtroom silences evidence.

The regulators silence complaints.

The Office for Legal Complaints shields governance.

Each performs curtailment in its own arena, but together they form one architecture.

Silence, deflection, and untouchable governance are not accidents — they are the blueprint written into law.

The Legal Services Act 2007 promised reform.

It delivered restraint.

Parliament created bodies that appear independent, but in practice they operate as mirrors of each other, enacting blocking measures under the guise of remedy.

This is not failure.

It is inevitability.

When suppression is embedded in statute, enacted by regulators, and mirrored by the courts, the outcome is certain: justice withheld intentionally. But why?

Referral Request Mischaracterised

Readers of LiP VI will recall: the Legal Ombudsman was not established to protect the public, but to preserve the system itself. This is not just my experience — multiple complaints have documented how the Ombudsman shields solicitors while leaving consumers exposed.

Independent advocates confirmed I could complain formally — but only if the Ombudsman permitted referral to the Independent Reviewer. In my case, they refused.

That refusal had two consequences:

• Delay, refusal, and safeguarding omissions were documented as procedural failures.
• The complaint was blocked from leaving their offices, denying independent review.

With that route closed, escalation beyond the Ombudsman was required.

This pattern is not confined to my own case — Ombudsman records show similar failures in other disputes.

Case in point: In one wills dispute, a vulnerable beneficiary was left without £60,000 due to solicitor failings. The Legal Ombudsman documented the procedural errors but did not enforce accountability. The harm was visible, yet the solicitor was shielded — reinforcing that the Ombudsman’s framework protects the system, not the public.

See Legal Ombudsman case studies on beneficiaries (Legal Ombudsman, “Mythbusters: Beneficiaries”), and Ombudsman’s Corner (Dec 2023).

And Litigant Record V (2021–2025), documenting the April 2023 Scheme Rule changes and their impact on all members of the public — Litigants in Person and represented clients alike — who seek remedy but find the gate closed.

In short: for Litigants in Person, the tightened rules punish late recognition; for represented clients, they block referrals and cap remedies. Together they expose that all members of the public are at risk.

The Outcome for the Vulnerable Beneficiary

Sadly, the outcome was not restorative in the way one would hope. The Legal Ombudsman admitted the solicitor acting as executor had mishandled the estate, leaving the beneficiary without access to around £60,000. Yet the framework ensured that harm remained uncorrected:

• Acknowledgement without accountability → Failings were noted, but no disciplinary action was taken. The matter should have been referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, yet the Ombudsman failed to do so — with no justification offered.

• Compensation capped → Under the revised Scheme Rules introduced on 1 April 2023, redress was limited. Even if offered, it could never match the scale of harm inflicted.

• Safeguarding ignored → Vulnerability was acknowledged in narrative but not acted upon in remedy.

• Solicitor shielded, beneficiary exposed → The system recorded the harm but refused to enforce accountability, leaving the vulnerable unprotected.

This was not remedy. It was containment — harm visible, and justice withheld.

With Independent Review refused, the next safeguard was referral to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. For complaints about government departments and statutory bodies, the PHSO is Parliament’s independent mechanism for investigating maladministration — delay, refusal, or safeguarding omissions.

Access, however, is not direct. It requires referral through a Member of Parliament. My next step was therefore to contact my MP.

But who is the PHSO, and why does their role matter?

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) is Parliament’s independent mechanism for investigating maladministration — when public bodies fail to act properly, delay, refuse, or misapply rules.

How they were established

• 1967: Created under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act to oversee government departments.

• 1973: Remit extended to the NHS, creating the Health Service Ombudsman.

• 1993: Powers consolidated under the Health Service Commissioners Act. Today, both roles are combined in one office: the PHSO.

What they do

• Investigate maladministration in UK government departments, agencies, and certain statutory bodies.

• Examine NHS complaints in England, including hospitals, GP practices, and health services.

• Report findings to Parliament, helping improve accountability and public service standards.

Access Rules

• Complaints about government departments must pass through the “MP filter” — only a Member of Parliament can refer them.

• Complaints about the NHS can be made directly, without MP referral.

Why this matters for LiPs

The Legal Ombudsman is itself a statutory public body. In principle, its maladministration should fall within the PHSO’s remit. Yet no written record explains why it is excluded. That contradiction is part of the evidence.

For the public, maladministration means when a body “messes up” — delays, refusals, wrong rules, or no reply. Agencies like DVLA, HM Passport Office, Ofsted, Ofgem, and Companies House are covered. The Legal Ombudsman is also a public body, but its failures remain outside oversight. That exclusion is not absence — it is avoidance

For a full list of UK government departments, agencies, and public bodies, see GOV.UK Department agencies and public bodies... 

This contradiction left only one remaining route:

Contacting my MP to request referral.

NEXT:
Litigant VI — Part 2

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