28 November 2019. Thanksgiving day and the end of the SRA
This is a Husky named Deli. I am looking after Deli for a week while her parents travel to Hong Kong to visit their son at Uni there. She is a real character. A lot like a wolf. But a super gentle wolf. A regal dog. With great discipline. Born to pull things. She loves me.
It’s thanksgiving day in America today. A special day where Americans give thanks for how lucky they are. It is expressed as a feast, where family and friends join together and eat Turkey, stuffing and cranberry sauce. Not always in that order.
We are spending thanksgiving with the Lebby’s as usual. Mason is there, back from his University. I saw him earlier. He has grown about 2 inches and he speaks really well. We had a lovely half hour chat with him. It will be so cool when you meet again with him and catch up with all they years where you were not able to meet thanks to the decision by British family law. And specifically, Charlotte Adler, Michele O’Leary and Tom Amlot, all of whom are famous in America now for their conduct. Mason and you got on so well when you were here. Do you remember the two girls, Taylor and Ryan? Here’s Taylor today at Thanksgiving. She is 8 now. And she plays in the World 8 and under golf championships. Ryan is almost ten and she is a good golfer too. All the people there today remember you from your visit to California and are rooting for you. You made a lot of friends when you were here.
I am afraid my efforts with the Solicitors regulation Authority have come to nothing. Much as I expected and was assured would be the case. I had hoped they would consider the various contradictions between their published ethical list and the conduct of these three aforementioned to warrant a disciplinary investigation. At the very least to explain to you why the court felt it is best that you do not see your father and so I submitted a formal complaint. After 66 days had no reply I sent a reminder. I directed my complaint against Adler’s solicitor, Tom Amlot. For the breaches he is guilty of. I couldn’t file against Adler herself because of the complaint’s system. But obviously behind every decision, the real culpability is with Adler.
Although I knew the SRA were unlikely to do anything, I am copying the exchange of letters so you know I tried every possible avenue to see you. Even the regulatory body did nothing except assure me they would ‘Keep Amlot’s details on file in case they get more reports of this kind.’
I am off now for Turkey and stuffing and such now. Deli is coming with and will play with Scruffy, who is a bit in awe of her. I think I will overeat as is obligatory at thanksgiving.
Here’s my complaint detail to the SRA with their reply following:
SRA Complaint form:
“My complaint against Tom Amlot begins in 2013. I was living in my home on the Thames Riverbank, raising my 4-year-old son in a parental agreement with the mother. Charlotte Adler, a member of family law. On fathers-day, June 16th, 2013, in a surprise ‘ambush’ separation, Ms. Adler was able to remove my son from my home, while I reeled from the shock of the fathers-day announcement. Shortly after, I requested details of where my son was. She refused to provide the address. She then wrote demanding £100,000 before I could see my son. Or even know where he was.
At that point I retained a solicitor. Graham Coy, of Mundays in Cobham. He advised me to make an emergency application for visitation. And not to pay the £100,000 demand. At that point Ms. Adler retained Tom Amlot.
For the record. I owned 3 properties. Valued collectively at £2.5 million. Mr. Amlot’s first contribution to resolving the visitation matter was to strenuously oppose one night every fortnight that I requested in the visitation hearing. Bear in mind I was the stay at home parent, with the child all the time while the mother was hard working family-law solicitor who saw the child at most 10% of the time. He immediately identified my extreme want factor in visitation with my son, whom I wanted to be returned to live with me.
Mr. Amlot retained a QC for a preliminary hearing for visitation, and aggressively pursued costs at this hearing. He successfully defeated my application for 1 night every fortnight with my son. This was assisted by Ms. Adler telling the Cafcass official, Mr. Osei Aygemon, that I was unfit to be with my son. A lie. That caused harm to a child. The outcome was I never had the regular visitation in the early period post separation. A deliberate tactic by Mr. Amlot and Ms. Adler.
The net outcome was that the acrimony between my son’s parents was greatly increased by Mr. Amlot’s decision to oppose 2 nights a month visitation. Meeting such fierce resistance from Mr. Amlot that I was left with a £40,000 legal bill in trying to see my son in the first year. Ms. Adler’s written confirmation to me, made Without Prejudice was, “Give me the money and you can see him as often as you want. If not, this will just go on.” I did not pay her the demand, and in turn Mr. Amlot invented a claim for beneficial entitlement. Three months after leaving, and winning the visitation hearing to prevent my son’s visitation with me, Mr. Amlot and Ms. Adler hired a process server to ambush me in the street. I was physically and emotionally harmed in this aggressive service that 1.) Should have been effected on my solicitor, and 2.) was a baseless claim that increased animosity between my sons parents, contrary to his best interests.
This beneficial entitlement claims originated from Mr. Amlot. It had no foundation in fact. It was transparently a lie told to leverage my want factor for the child, and to encourage me to ‘take a commercial view’ and settle for the new demand amount of £150,000. I did not agree to this obvious blackmail. And in due course the matter came to a disputed hearing. Mr. Amlot, much to my surprise, managed to switch judges on the morning of the hearing. I arrived expecting the judge set down for the hearing, DDJ Burles. Instead, one Michele O’Leary switched to take the case. My barrister, Richard Castle announced at that point that “If we get O’Leary we will lose”. It transpired he had a personal history with her. A detail known to Mr. Amlot’s barrister, Simon Webster. By switching judges to one guaranteed to award Ms. Adler the win, Mr. Amlot increased the animosity between my son’s parents still further. Abusing him in this process.
The instances of deceit that followed in this case are too numerous to detail here. Clearly perjury followed. That is now a matter of record, evident in the transcripts. DDJ O’Leary committed a series of errors that amount to nothing less than larceny. Awarding my £2.5 million home to my ex, who had no claim to anything relating to ownership of my property, owned since 1986, when she was 14. By preventing any witnesses from speaking including the financial adviser who had memos of the very details the court was there to decide, DDJ. O’Leary ran roughshod over any notion of a proper, legal hearing. All of which is evidenced now in the judgment.
My application for permission to appeal was heard by President Munby. (2015). He found the judgment to be flawed and granted the appeal.
At the appeal, once more Mr. Amlot relied on deceit, knowing his claims to be untrue, to ensure no appeal could be heard. Increasing the animosity between my son’s parents still further. In the interim Mr. Amlot worked like a rabid dog to argue every hour of time I was able to spend with my son. I saw little or nothing of my son, and since 16 February 2016, I have not been able to even talk to him on the phone. For 9 months I was not able to even write to him as Ms. Adler simply refused to provide me with the address. 9 months. This from members of family law.
Along the way, my home flooded. In Feb 2014. Mr. Amlot advised Ms. Adler in such a way that 1.) Ms Adler called my Insurer and had my policy cancelled. And 2.) They ensured that my home was never repaired after the flood. Leaving me homeless. Without insurance.
Ms. Adler and Mr. Amlot then secured the services of DDJ O’Leary once again to force the sale of my properties, using costs calculations that were wrong. Costs were awarded against me based on these incorrect valuations of my property that did not reflect the fact that it had not been repaired post flood. The costs against me had 8% added on. In total the costs I have faced because Mr. Amlot is so determined to win money out of my want factor in seeing my son is now in excess of £500,000. I have had many email exchanges with Mr. Amlot in which he makes it quite plain that he does not advise his client to let me see my son. In the costs hearing Mr. Amlot won the forced sale of my property. He also won ‘sole conduct of sale’ on one unit. I was required to keep paying the upkeep of the properties (Which were rental properties providing my income) even after Mr. Amlot won the forced eviction of my tenants, ending my income. The empty property then stood empty while Ms. Adler had sole conduct of sale for almost 3 years. While I had to keep paying the costs. A £500,000 mortgage place ongoing maintenance given the lengthy period of time.
No proper effort was made to sell. As is evidenced by the fact that my property became the longest running stale listing on right move. My claim that Mr. Amlot and Ms. Adler did this deliberately to maximise financial hardship on me, to ensure I could not retain legal council to defend against this fraudulent larceny, is born out in fact. I could no longer retain any lawyer, as I had no funds and it turns out lawyers will not work unless they are paid. And so I no longer have any representation. Important because of the accounting for the sale. Her award was for 50% of 2 properties. Plus costs. This award was based on a price set by DDJ O’Leary in which it is accepted that there is no Insurance liability owing by Ms Adler on the property. In the course of the hearing Ms. Adler perjured herself by claiming she owned the freehold to my home, entitling her to believe she had a claim to beneficial entitlement. It was that claim that enabled her to deal with the Insurer to ensure my property was not repaired. However in so doing, she breached the fiduciary responsibilities inherent in that ownership. If, as the court said is true, she was the owner, then she is liable to the terms and conditions of that ownership. (Specifically to make up any shortfall in Insurance out of her own resources.) That amount is now north of £1 million pounds. If a fair accounting process followed the sale, then her 50% award after discharge of costs will in fact be a negative figure. The amounts used for the valuation and the cost award are £705K for the one with a 500K mortgage and a £300K loan for making habitable. And the second flat, which has no mortgage, was valued at £680K. With a sales trigger price at £540,000
The O’Leary judgment set trigger amounts for the sale. Here is the actual judgment point:
The properties shall be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable on the open market and as is agreed between the parties SAVE that it is directed that the applicant shall be entitled to accept any offer and consequently that a sale may proceed for Flat A at £705,000 or above for Flat B at £540,000 or above.
The properties shall be marketed for sale by no later than 15 October 2015.
Flat A owes £500,000 on mortgage. I kept paying the mortgage for over 2 years post judgment. While the flat was empty thanks to the forced eviction of my tenants. My out of pocket expenses there is £100,000. Leaving aside the loss of income I would have had. I spent £300K making the property habitable post flood. However I did not do the most expensive repair necessary, the retanking. That is around £500,000 (London Basement company quote.) Because of this flood risk, the realistic sale price of Flat A will be well below the amount it owes. Knowing this Mr. Amlot and Ms. Adler attempted to sell the middle flat the one with no mortgage. However they could not achieve the sales trigger price. So, instead they simply accepted an offer more than 10% lower that the figure set by the court. I wrote to the conveyancer when I heard about this attempt to distance themselves from the debt on 7a.
The court awarded her 50% of a and of b. Mr. Amlot’s apparent intention is to sell flat B, take all that money and let Flat A be sold as a distressed property at below the trigger price and below the amount it owes. In which case I will face the harm to my credit rating as it is all in my name.
I say Mr. Amlot has repeatedly breaches the ethical code of the SRA. And continues to do so eve today, in writing to me with a threat that unless I accept this low offer and remain silent, he will go back to court and get an order to sell below the court target amount.
At this stage, I have long since given up on any prospect of justice from Britain’s family court. I have no confidence that my son will be allowed to see me again. I understand that malicious Mother syndrome is at play with a member of family-law. And that parental alienation and child abuse feature strongly in every legal aspect of this sorry conduct by members of the law society.
I no longer even live in the UK, such is my concern over being attacked again by these two. My home, that could have sold at £2.5 million in 2016, when I had a buyer, is now so worthless I end up with not one penny from 30 years of hard work. All thanks to the deviance of members of family law openly flaunting any number of breaches of the ethical code I have read published on your web site.
I will close by copying the letter I sent to ‘Harriet’, the conveyancer appointed by the court in the sale of my properties, who mailed me with news that the ‘sole conduct of sale’ beneficial owner of my home, the one I bought in 1986, had sold at below the trigger price set by the court. And without resolving the fiduciary failures attached to her claim of being freeholder at the time of the flood.
That letter to ‘Harriet’ Is my last correspondence. I am simply ill from the conduct of your members. They have gotten away with despicable conduct. Child abuse and larceny. And on behalf of my son, who will one day require an explanation about what happened, I
request that you investigate Tom Amlot. I will gladly provide copies of all the correspondence to which I have referred. I believe at that point you will be interested in the conduct of Ms. Adler, Michele O’Leary and Graham Coy.
I have no legal representation, however I have disclosed the story to my mortgage lender, Barclays, with whom I have been a premier customer for some forty years. I hope they will follow up on offences relating to the Insurance, in which Ms. Adler, the self-proclaimed freeholder, was bound to include the Lender in the policy cover. She did not. And she was able to manipulate the claim as she did. Harming Barclays in the process as they now have an asset that is worth less than they lent because it was not insured as it was required to be. Such is the web of lies you r members have spun in the matter of Adler vs Broulidakis, set down for DDJ Burles in April 2015. But heard by last minute switch Judge Michele O’Leary, who is also an excellent twitterer.
In the event that you do receive my complaint, I am currently ‘traveling’ in the USA as a consequence of this judgment, but can reliably answer e mails. And if required to attend any hearing arising from these members conduct, I can be relied on to attend with my evidence.
12 August, 2019.
Thank you for your letter, which I have received since you used the correct e mail address, detailing your proposed sale of my property 7B Riverbank. I am grateful for this news.
As you may recall when I agreed your firm as conveyancers, 7B Riverbank is subject to a forced sale by a court order which I say is a fraud. I am concerned that you appear not to know the specifics by which I agreed to the choice of your firm for the sale of the two court awarded properties. I was very clear at the time and that is in writing. So imagine my surprise to hear you hope to sell my property below the court ordered minimum price.
The words in the judgment relating to this forced sale, in which I am excluded from any rights in the sale, are copied here:
The properties shall be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable on the open market and as is agreed between the parties SAVE that it isdirected that the applicant shall be entitled to accept any offer and consequently that a sale may proceed for 7A Riverbank at £705,000 or above for 7b Riverbank at £540,000 or above.
Once there is an offer at £540,000 or above, I will be obliged to proceed as per the courts order. Until then, it would breach the Order by (the fun-loving, champagne guzzling) family-court deputy-district switch judge Michele O’Leary who made this order, being in full awareness that her judgment was based on disputed valuation numbers.
My property flooded. (in 2014). Repair estimates following the Insurers own surveyor’s statement were in excess of £500,000. (The AXA Insurance. In writing by the surveyor they sent post flood.) The fraudulent trustee freeholder (Charlotte Adler, also the winner in my family court application to see my son on weekends which resulted in me not seeing my son, until I paid her a ransom demand) ensured the Insurance did not repair my property after the particularly heavy flood. When the Thames burst its banks in February 2014. This was intended specifically to cause maximum financial hardship for me while she prosecuted her wholly unsubstantiated, dishonest ‘Beneficial entitlement’ claim that I had ‘promised her’ half of my wealth. In the course of which she ran me up a legal bill in excess of half a million pounds.
The un-repaired property remains a significant flood risk. There is an outstanding Insurance liability This is particularly relevant to the honest disclosure necessary for the sale of my properties.
7B is tied to 7A Riverbank, in a ceiling and floor relationship, both form a part of the award to family law member Charlotte Adler by family law member, switch-judge for the day, Michele O’Leary. All costs in repairing the damage to 7A become shared by 7B. As is common in freehold leasehold arrangements.
In other words, any buyer of 7B must be aware that their share of freehold and obligations under the freehold make them liable for the costs of 7A Riverbank. I would expect that as a conveyancer you know this and have made them aware.
In the wider context of the forced sale, 7A Riverbank needs to achieve a sales trigger price of £705,000 in accordance with Flaherty’s judgment.
I say, this is as unlikely now as it was when I disclosed the realistic condition and valuation of my properties to O’Leary in 2015. 7A already owes the mortgage company £500K and myself £300K. And the blown tanking will cost more than £500,000 to restore it to its pre-incident condition as it was insured for, and as I had paid the AXA premiums for 27 years to provide policy cover for.
I suggest you verify my disclosure by calling the AXA Insurance and check the validity of my claim, and particularly, the Insurance fraud by family-law member Charlotte Adler, who was investigated for fraud in the course of these proceedings.
You may also check that I had a valid policy cover (with the AXA) paid for and in place that would have covered the flood, in my name, had Adler not phoned and dishonestly forced the broker to cancel it. Had she not caused my policy to be cancelled, I would have had policy cover in my name, and the property would have been restored to its pre-incident condition. This is conduct unbecoming of a member of family law. In fact it is simply criminal. Your client is for this reason liable for cancelling the policy in my name, and ensuring, quite deliberately, that the property was not restored to its pre-incident condition. At the same time she was bound by a fiduciary responsibility to act in my best interests, whilst trustee freeholder of my property.
The difference between the sale price of 7A Riverbank and the amounts it owes (£800,00+) must come from the sale of 7B Riverbank, which is mortgage free. I bought it in 1986. When Adler was 14. It is that property which has the highest value.
The Trustee Freeholder (Charlotte Adler) defrauded the Lessee (myself) by cancelling my policy, and then, following an investigation by the AXA for fraud, coming to an agreement with them to not claim for the restoration of the property as per policy. The property was not restored to its pre-incident condition. It was left uninhabitable post flood, while I received not one penny from Insurers and while Adler continued serial failures in the fiduciary responsibilities attached to being the freeholder. Which includes bringing proceedings against me in the first place for this so called ‘beneficial entitlement’ which reads like an amateur B movie reject plot with more holes than a Gorgonzola. Even our mutual friend, Suki Johal, a DDJ and family law Barrister, weighed in to confirm Adler’s claim that Suki was the only person who ever heard mention of this nefarious claim to an invented promise, was untrue. O’Leary knew that a DDJ and family law barrister had not supported Adler’s lie and still she persisted with this bogus case.
The non-payment of insurance following the flood meant I had to pay many hundreds of thousands to make the property habitable and presentable for sale, albeit without repaired tanking. All of which is a matter of record and accounting procedure that is available for any litigation that may follow. Over £300,000 shortfall in insurance, that as per the freehold wording, is to be made up ‘out of the freeholders own resources.’
That money outlaid to make 7A saleable, along with the mortgage payments, (another £100,000) must be repaid to me before any further disbursements. The simple math’s at the price you propose selling for will not work.
The judgment values the trigger price for sale based on the judge’s certainty of property valuations. It was also the valuation used in the costs-award that followed a costs hearing using these exact figure we now know are as incorrect as I said they were at the time of the hearing.
For the judgment to be credible in any way, 7A must sell at no less than £705K and 7B at no less than £540K. Any shortfall must be attached to liability. As O’Leary made this judgment who else could be more liable? Michele did have the correct information available to her, but chose instead to go with the request of her family law colleague, Charlotte Adler, who is known as a liar even within her profession, where she was at one time (2012) expelled as an equity partner from her then firm TWM for dishonesty. Not that easy to do. Getting expelled by your partners for dishonesty. Clear your desk right now and get escorted off the property never to be spoken to again.
The valuation numbers for 7A and 7B that O’Leary used in awarding costs against me in that hearing, in favor of her family- law colleague, Charlotte Adler, the fraudulent freeholder and lying claimant, were transparently wrong. There is a clear paper trail of the deceits used in the award of costs where even her barrister friend, Simon Webster has plainly and deliberately made an untrue claim in his costs application in writing, not-with-standing that the claim itself is based on valuation amounts that events have proven wrong, precisely as I made clear would be the case.
Mathew Spring of PHB LLP, who represented me in the property aspect of this claim in family court is familiar with the facts I am repeating here. Although we have not spoken for some time following his inability to proceed in my matter without advance payment, I am copying Mathew in this correspondence, as well as the SRA, in the event that the names in this letter ring any bells there. I am available to disclose any of 17 serious breaches that occurred in the matter of Adler vs Broulidakis, heard by switch judge Michele O Leary in April 2015, leading to the judgment that the President of family-law declared was flawed. At no charge. Just in the hope that they will not be able to continue ruining children’s lives and getting paid for doing it.
Unfortunately, after losing £500,000 in legal costs to family-law in the hope of seeing my son again, I cannot afford litigation to progress accountability of the miscreants in this corrupt court hearing by a family-court judge who knowingly and deliberately ended my relationship with the child I raised for four years.
My son Byron, whom I love dearly, miss daily, and have not seen or spoken to since 2016, February 16th, because of this disgraceful ‘judge’ who went on to allow Adler to get away with a 9-month period in 2016 during which time, as one of many examples of ethical breach by a member of family-law, despite repeated requests, I was not even provided with my sons address for correspondence, as their own family-law requires.
Imagine if you will how cruel and inhumane this is for a 7-year-old boy to suddenly stop seeing the weekly letters from his father assuring him of ongoing love and hope for a future together, left only with the consolation that in some future therapy he will be a poster boy for Dr. Ira Turkats ‘Malicious Mother syndrome’ and not just another statistic of British family courts parental alienation and child abuse by several of its own members. A family court service where CAFCASS CEO Anthony Douglas reports is batting at 100% in judgments leading to parental alienation and child abuse whenever children cases are disputed in family court. Who would have guessed a member of family law would have been unaware of this when she elected blackmail litigation with her son’s future as the carrot.
This is a special breed of deviant family-law friends, who are never found accountable for anything despite a career lifetime of lying professionally. Adler can even win sole conduct of sale on a property she has no financial interest in at all, beyond having been invited to stay rent free as a guest, happy to borrow many thousands in unpaid loans, and then, after having lied again to win sole conduct of sale, fail to sell for 3 years, (Picking up the 8% interest on costs awarded to her by O’Leary) causing me to keep paying the £500,000 mortgage on 7A, before selling it well below the already ridiculously low price set by the court. Without even notifying me.
Secure knowing the financial harm they have visited on me – above three million pounds and rising – means I cannot afford legal representation to even secure proper accounting in the proceeds of sale. I can’t even afford to remain in my home country after having my home force sold and receiving not one penny from this process.
The outcome of this judgment by Michele O’Leary has been:
1) I get nothing (£O) for my £2.5 million valued home. After 30 years of hard work. Because someone lied saying I promised it to them in some unspecified place and some unclear time without one single email or witness to confirm one single shred of supporting evidence to a claim that followed a blackmail demand. And despite writing a will in which she declares all her assets with no mention of any interest in my properties, all in my sole name.
2.) I get nothing for loss of my income generating business, averaging £6k pm until the flood. No income and no home to live in. No compensation for the loss of earning this fraudulent claim has caused.
3.) I get nothing for the £300,000+ I spent on making my property habitable. Because I cannot afford to pay a lawyer to go to court, or bring proceedings against the miscreants for any number of offenses that would, in any fair and equitable judiciary, lead to prison time.
4.) I lose my credit because the mortgage is not properly discharged, as it would be by the proceeds of 7B. Meaning, even if I could raise the deposit for a new home, I cannot get a mortgage.
5.) I have not seen or spoken to my son since Feb 16th, 2016. Every effort to arrange unfettered visitation is obstructed. Even his godfathers recent attempt to see him, flying to London for this purpose, was obstructed.
6.) The AXA insurance claim owes some £800,000 on the flood claim arising from Adler cancelling the policy in my name. And then deliberately fouling the claim leaving the property, 7A Riverbank, unsaleable in over 3 years of trying. While I remain liable for all the costs. Having only recently ended mortgage payments when those costs post judgment reached another £100,000 of money I was required to pay by court order while sole conduct of sale was awarded to Adler, who was incentivized not to sell by a very generous 8% interest on the costs Michele awarded her in court.
7.) I am afraid to even enter the UK after the historical aggression by Adler and Amlot which includes hiring a goon to attack me outside my home. In the guise of being a process server. Effecting service on me personally, and causing physical harm, instead of delivering the summons to my family law solicitor, as any member of family law not looking to create maximal animosity would know is the appropriate procedure.
8.) Selling 7B as you propose, without accounting for the proceeds of sale or linking it to 7A, means Amlot/Adler and O’Leary have succeeded fully in ensuring I get not one penny to pursue legal redress. Not one penny to contest visitation with my son. And I lose my credit when 7A goes into foreclosure. And with that, my son’s prospects of ever seeing me again take one more step backwards.
I assure you that the O’Leary order that was signed reads; 7B Riverbank at £540,000 or above. The properties shall be marketed for sale by no later than 15 October 2015.
Until that sum is achieved I consider it a breach of a court order should you continue with this sale. While it is true that O’Leary, Adler and Amlot have breached their own court order multiple times in these proceedings without any redress, on this occasion I will insist we all respect the letter of O’Leary’s judgment. (Even though Sir James Munby, who reviewed her judgment took about three minutes to declare it flawed and award what is called ‘Permission to Appeal’.) Funny that the President of family law found O’Leary’s judgment flawed and even then, no accountability has followed. It is almost like family-law operates on its own set of exemptions from law.
If you presented a story like this to HBO for a TV drama series, they would likely say it was far too implausible for any audience to believe any judiciary could get away with this conduct. O’Leary was dealing in alternate truth long before Trump. Just not as intelligently. The very act of agreeing a sale price outside of the trigger price in the court order without the courtesy of notifying me, the owner since 1986 of a property Adler is not named on in any way, until O’Leary declared she was in fact the owner, is itself a breach of an existing court order by members of family law.
Please consider this my notice that I do not agree to vary the Order of Michele O’Leary valuing the trigger for 7B Riverbank at £540,000. Or 7A for £705,000.
7B Riverbank is a property I have owned since 1986, with no mortgage. Which was valued at £750,000 when I could have sold it but for being denied any involvement in the sale after O’Leary awarded ‘sole conduct of sale’ to the lying lawyer Charlotte Adler, contender for parent-of-the decade following his six-year ongoing abuse of our son.
The sale price you are considering for my property is little more than 50% of what I could have sold for, but for O’Leary preventing my selling my own property, as well as below the amount that I am owed in the total award of the two properties in the O’Leary judgment.
The value of the judgment is in the figures that were agreed and form the direction from which there can be no variation without the admission that they were wrong in the first instance, as I made plain was the case.
None the less, disregarding my own credible disclosure as the owner of the properties for 27 years, in her court, O’Leary made a very specific award of two properties to family law member and litigant, Charlotte Adler.
The property sale award for Adler by switch judge O’Leary is for two apartments; 7A and 7B. But, visibly flood damaged 7A is likely to show a loss on the sale. It may be that O’Leary’s trigger valuation of £705,000 is not achieved. It is possible that in fact, O’Leary was as wrong in her numbers as I pointed out during the hearing. In which case, someone has made a mistake that will cause a loss of many, many hundreds of thousands of pounds. A loss running into seven figures. Money that will never be available for my son’s future. It is now, as I said then, an error. Who is accountable? I wonder if there is anyone at the SRA who can answer this question?
The fact that team Adler lied repeatedly, and were validated by O’Leary writing a series of lies in her so called ‘judgment’, a typo strewn masterpiece of prejudice and profiling delivered by email 3 months late, declaring she now had time because she was ‘on holiday’ and ‘what else are holidays for.’ Michele’s folly is self-evident to anyone reading the conduct of these individuals during that hearing. The President of family law read O’Leary’s judgment and arrived at the same conclusion. These are not small mistakes at odds with the prevailing truth. This is a clear a fix as you would expect to see in a mafia corruption movie.
That shortfall in the total judgment award is tied to the sale of 7B. After 3 years with no sale, I was unable to continue paying the mortgage, losing a further £100,000 I paid to keep my properties available for sale following O’Leary’s fully thought-through judgment left her colleague Adler with sole conduct of sale. That mortgage amount must be repaid to me in accordance with O’Leary’s judgment. Has the sole conduct of sale lawyer, Adler, informed you of this? Or indeed any of the facts pertaining to the responsible sales accounting for the proceeds of 7B Riverbank?
The overall shortfall on the sale of both 7A and 7B must be calculated on the totality of both. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no possibility that 7B can be sold at a give-away price with my consent.
By all means call the judge who made this judgment to confirm if you have any doubts. I have attached a picture with her address and public profile for you. It is always interesting to see how people who rule on children’s lives present themselves. If you do call her, I propose you congratulate Michele on the excellent job she does representing children’s lives as a deputy district switch-judge. In my case, a 100% win for members of family law that conformed to all of the SRA guidelines for members of family law apart from the 17 instances that didn’t, but be sure not to mention that. Judges should always be allowed some wiggle room when it comes to lying. That is the clear inference for the letter I received from the ministry of justice when it comes to accountability in family court.
I no longer even live in the UK, after Judge O’Leary declared me ‘mentally-infirm’ 13 times in a 12-page judgment, made me homeless, took 100% of my income generating business, awarded a ludicrous sum of costs against me based on demonstrably untrue declarations by Adler and her family-law capo, Tom Amlot, ensuring that my son never saw me again.
Sam is the same son I raised as a stay-at-home mom, there for him 100% of the time through his first four years, enabling as close to an ideal upbringing as can be imagined, while his Father worked in family-court charging £500 an hour to separating parents, trained by a system that places monetary gain above children’s right to see both parents, building a resentment that her son was so close to his father, while he was out destroying families for money which led to a dark, dishonest, child abusing decision, placing conscienceless greed above all, and especially, respect for the ethical code published on the SRA website.
Michele too remains a credit to British family-law and deserves full recognition for her service to children fortunate enough to have their futures determined in her court.
Family law. Nice people to do business with if you’re a young child just wanting his father. North of three million is a real win. Especially from a musician. Imagine how many 18-hour studio days I had to perform to have a net worth of this amount. Disappeared in the blink of a lie.
It is not necessary to reply to this email, other than to confirm receipt. I confirm you do now have the correct email for contacting me.
With kind regards,
cc. Solicitors Regulation Authority (Contact center.)
This is the letter I sent to my mortgage lender when I could no longer continue paying the mortgage.
Mortgage Operations PO Box 8XX75
25 February, 2019. Dear Sir,
Ref: Andrew Broulidakis
I write reference my mortgage account number 92XXXXX1876 for 7a Riverbank, East Molesey, Surrey. KT8 9BH.
I am no longer able to pay my mortgage and I would like you to take into consideration the cause before I invite your reply on how best to proceed.
In 2005, when I agreed to this £500,000 mortgage for 7a Riverbank I owned the freehold and three leaseholds to a property at 7 Riverbank. The value of the property in 2016 was £2.5 million. Freehold with three leaseholds. Three flats all generating rental income. My primary source of income. All titles were then, as today, in my sole name.
However. In 2003 I made a poor choice in romance. I invited a financially challenged young lady, 14 years my junior, an entry-level newly qualified divorce lawyer named Charlotte Adler, to live in my home. For free. The relationship lasted ten years where it became apparent I was living with a dishonest fraud.
In 2013 after we separated, despite being a family law member with her own law firm, she retained a city divorce lawyer with a reputation for aggressive litigation and sued me. Following on from her blackmail threat that I would not see our 4 year-old son again unless I paid her £100,000.
The litigation claim was something I had not heard of before. ‘Beneficial Entitlement’. She claimed that shortly after I met her I ‘promised her 50/50 like we were married.’ We never were married. The claim was an unsubstantiated clear fiction. In 2015 a family court judge heard this case, entirely inappropriately as it was a civil claim, a claim against property, not a family matter, however she is a member of family law, and irregularities followed. As is not uncommon in family court.
In a court judgment in 2015, one family court member, Michele O’Leary determined that another family law member, Ms. Adler, should win:
1.) 50% beneficial entitlement to two of my properties, 7b Riverbank (A flat owned since 1989 with no mortgage worth some £750,000) and 7a Riverbank. The flat mortgaged with yourselves. To £500,000. (Valued at £900,000 in 2016.)
2.) The family judge Michele O’Leary, a judge suspiciously switched on the first morning of the hearing, with DDJ Burles, the judge set down for that hearing, awarded huge legal acrimony generating costs against me, some £150,000, in addition to which she added interest at 8%. Despite family court guidelines for judgment advising that punitive awards increase animosity between parents, harming children’s interests to the extent that Cafcass CEO Anthony Douglas describes precisely this type of judgment as child abuse. Which of course it is. I have not seen my son, 9 now, since 16 February 2016. And that relationship is now seemingly ended by this court judgment despite the fact that I am verifiably, a proficient loving parent. This judgment ended my residential opportunity in the UK and I now live in the USA.
3.) Judge O’Leary’s award of costs at 8% and sole conduct of sale to Ms. Adler effectively added up to 100% of the equity of my home. There was no legitimacy to either the claim or the judgment. It simply indemnified Ms. Adler from liability for the fiduciary failures leading to the down valuation on the property in which Ms. Adler presented property valuations that the court accepted, that hindsight shows quite clearly, were as wrong as I claimed they were at that time. The judgment enabled Ms. Adler to simply allow the properties to stay empty, causing me maximum harm in disabling attempts at custody for my child, while she profits from 8% interest on the costs award.
4.) The court ordered the forced sale of my properties. I was ordered to end the tenancies, which was also my primary source of income.
5.) I was forbidden by court order from even entering my property 7b Riverbank. If I wanted to visit the UK to see my son, I had to pay to stay in a Hotel. Without the funds from the sale of my home, I am unable to pay a family law solicitor to continue the fight for custody or even holiday visitation. And without any funds, or hope of any legal accounting for the money I have outlaid in a flood damage claim, I am unable to continue paying the mortgage.
6.) My properties 7a and 7b Riverbank, awarded to Ms. Adler, in a sale where she won ‘sole conduct of sale’ on 7b have not sold. Not even at the fire sale prices ordered by the court. The court set the sale trigger price at 7A Riverbank at £705,000 or above for 7B Riverbank at £540,000 or above. The properties shall be marketed for sale by no later than 15 October 2015.
There is a further legal irregularity to consider for its impact on the security of the mortgage in my name.
In 2003, shortly after we met, Ms. Adler became the trustee freeholder in my property making her the Freeholder and Lessor of 7 Riverbank. As a trustee freeholder the Buildings insurance policy was in her name. (Although I paid it and controlled all the practical details.) Thereby she was bound by the provisions of the Freehold title, fiduciary responsibilities that included naming the lender on the policy cover. As an interested party.
In 2013, post separation, instead of acting to my instruction in accord with the trust agreement and returning the freehold title, she instead claimed that the Freehold was hers. This was a lie, by a member of the law society. That was accepted as fact by another member of the law society, despite that members judgment stating that the Freehold was in fact mine all along after using the contrary version to arrive at this contrary judgment. In other words, the judge made a black and white 180 degree about turn on the very evidence she used to award the judgment. As clear a fix in family court as has even been seen. One member benefitting another.
As a result. I am now unable to continue paying the mortgage. I no longer have a home in the UK. I no longer have any of the rental-income business I spent 30 years building. I no longer see my son. I attribute all of this to a criminal fraud by the members of family law who I have named. You as the lender are, like myself, a victim of this deliberate fraud.
I have, since 1986, been a responsible property owner and had numerous mortgages, all of which have been paid off. Never once late on any payment. I have also been fully insured throughout. Since 1986. Acting responsibly on the advice of an Independent Financial advisor, who is also privy to the facts disclosed in this letter, should you require any verification.
Soon after separation with MS. Adler, who chose fathers-day to leave with my son, in October 2013 when Buildings insurance renewal became due, I paid for my annual buildings insurance policy. The broker was Fairweather Insurers, providing a buildings and contents policy with the AXA Insurance. A policy identical in the extent of its cover as advised by a professional IFA, to the policy I had in Insurance cover for my home since 1986. That is 28 years of cover when the flood of February 2014 occurred.
Some three weeks after I paid for the policy renewal with the AXA, to support her ‘beneficial entitlement’ litigation by claiming to be the freeholder, in a clear breach of the trust agreement, Ms. Adler called Fairweather brokers and prevailed on them to cancel my policy cover. My buildings and contents cover for the year 2013 to 2014. A policy cover in which you, Barclays, were named as an interested party in the Policy. As I was obligated to do in the terms of our financial agreement.
Three months later, On 8 February 2014, in a newsworthy event, the Thames flooded and my home was severely damaged. The tanking was breached and one entire level of 7a was ruined. If Ms. Adler had not cancelled my policy with the AXA, I would have had Insurance. And that would have repaired the property. Restoring it to its pre-incident condition. I would not then be writing this letter today.
Instead, motivated by malice in a custody dispute, as the owner of a law firm and easily able to manipulate family court, Ms. Adler deliberately fouled the insurance claim she started in her name, as the ‘Freeholder’. On a policy in which she deliberately excluded naming you, Barclays, as an interested party. Abrogating her trustee status as freeholder, obliging her to act on my insistence that she name both the lender (you) and the lessee (me) on the policy.
The fact is the AXA did not restore the property to its pre-incident condition. They entered into an agreement with Ms. Adler, the sole named policy holder, as a result of which I never received one penny for the flood damage.
This followed yet another investigation into Ms. Adler’s dishonesty. Charges that have accompanied her entire career including being expelled as an equity partner from TWM Solicitors in 2012. For dishonesty. This is a career serial liar.
The AXA, using DAC Beechcroft solicitors, suspended all claim activity while they investigated Ms. Adler’s dishonesty. Meanwhile, for all of 2014 post-flood, my property stood empty, standing unheated in flood water, while I waited for the Insurance to restore the property to it’s pre-incident condition.
In the course of the next 18 months, without any insurance payment, I had to make up the shortfall to make 7a Riverbank habitable. In the fiduciary obligations of the Freehold she claimed was hers in family court, there is the Lessor requirement to ‘make up any shortfall in Insurance out of Lessors own resources.’ Expecting that the law would bring her to account for her criminal actions and that I would be paid for the Insurance shortfall as seemed inevitable, I went on to spend some £250,000 in making 7a habitable while I waited for the Insurance to pay. Bear in mind 7a was my home. Post flood I had nowhere to live. And I had family housing needs in addition to myself.
Throughout I kept paying the mortgage and I raised the money by loan to make up the shortfall in Insurance. By June 2016, I had restored the property to a habitable condition. My intention was to keep the property generating rental income while I awaited the accounting for the Insurance claim. I had by this time, 2015, retained a reputable property lawyer, Mathew Spring of Payne Hicks Beech.
I had every confidence that, supported by a professional law firm I would receive the Insurance cover that I had paid for and expected after being fully insured for 29-years to that date. And that the property would be restored to its pre-incident condition exactly as per the policy cover I had all those years. I believed the AXA Insurance would pay as was implicit in the agreement between myself as purchaser of an Insurance product with the AXA, and the AXA as a reputable provider of Insurance products. I played my part by paying in full. I had a reputable property lawyer pursuing the claim. However when the judgment forced me to end my tenancies, my rental income ended and with it my ability to pay my lawyer who very quickly convinced me Payne Hicks Beech had limited interest in working without advance payment to pursue even the clearly fraudulent declarations in the family court hearing before DDJ Michele O’Leary. The author of the judgment that has brought about this situation.
I still kept paying the mortgage throughout, believing that via complaints procedure, the family court regulatory body would censure the deviants in their membership and the Insurance would pay, even if that required litigation by my legal representation. Frankly, I did not believe such obvious transparent criminality, continuing in plain sight, could be shielded under the protection of ‘family-law confidentiality.’
About three years ago the court ordered the flats to be vacated of their tenants and to be force sold.
I made clear that:
- 1.) The post flood remedial works to 7a by Insurance were never done by the AXA. The valuation the court attached to the forced sale of 7a was unreliable, premised on the belief that the Insurance works were complete. Excluding any Insurance blight from the valuation. Getting flood Insurance would be difficult and expensive, affecting the valuation. The family-court switch judge was Michele O’Leary, well-known in family law circles for incompetence in financial matters. Judge O’Leary ruled that I was a ‘liar’. Hindsight makes plain that the liar is that Judge. Whose judgment is the cause of this mortgage default.That opinion by one unregulated person was all it took to discount the lengthy legal breaches by Ms. Adler affecting my ability to keep paying my mortgage. My notice about the flood damage and the responsibility for the repair was ignored by the judge there to make a judgment. Which we now see, with hindsight, was wrong. Either by incompetence, as declared by my family law barrister, or by willful malice, as was my own finding after being called mentally infirm 24 times in a 14-page judgment that was child abuse as clearly as any Jimmy Savile allegations.The witnesses set down in the preliminary hearing to give evidence to this effect were simply forbidden from speaking by this judge. And their statements excluded.Without allowing any contradictory evidence, the judge accepted Ms. Adler assurance that she had fulfilled her fiduciary obligations as the freeholder. That there was no reason to doubt the valuation she attached to my property. The property valuation used for the forced sale was based on fair market price not-reflecting the flood claim issues I have disclosed. For good measure, family Judge O’Leary attempted to indemnify Ms. Adler from any litigation I might bring relating to the flood claim. (Which is evidence of family court collusion that is criminal.) Now, some three years later, the facts of the property value are evident. Exactly as I disclosed at the time to that court. Clearly, Ms. Adler lied in court. Simple perjury. And yet, nothing was ever done, despite the fact that I had a solicitor from a leading London Law firm representing me. Even now that the facts of her perjury are borne out with the benefit of hindsight, nothing is being done. Evidently, because I do not have the means to pay a solicitor.
- 2.) I told the family court that Ms. Adler, the freeholder as she was claiming to be at that time, the sole named policy holder had not named the lender (Woolwich/Barclays) on the policy cover, as is a written obligation. That she had failed to restore the property to its pre-incident condition as required by the freeholder obligations. I made clear that because of the Freeholders fiduciary failures, the valuation of the property would be affected. The judge was made aware that the property was blighted for Insurance as well as likely to attract the attention of any lenders-surveyor examining the details of the flood from 2014. Meaning it was never going to achieve the sales price it would if it was not ‘blighted’ in this way. The judge dismissed me as a ‘liar.’ The property never was repaired. It was presented on the market by Ms. Adler, empowered by the family court judgment, using her choice of agent, Savills. (An irony of commercial placement in a child abusing judgment.)
- 3.) Three years later neither 7a nor 7b have sold. All that has happened is that I have kept on paying the costs of an empty property while Ms. Adler continues to see her costs award grow at 8% PA. It is a fact that the information I provided the court in 2015 was correct. And that is borne out by the fact that the forced sale terms in the judgment are exposed as exactly what I said they would be. The judge has made a financially disastrous ruling that is simply wrong, breaking a number of legal guidelines for family law judges in the process.
I took that transparently deviant family court judgment to appeal. (2015). With Payne Hicks Beach, a leading London firm, with a famous family law department. My ‘permission to appeal’ was heard by the President of family law. Sir James Munby took approximately three minutes to rule the judgment by Michele O’Leary was flawed and allow an appeal. (Sadly, this being family court, the appeal never happened.)
Despite the flawed O’Leary judgment, awarding my home to someone else to the extent that left no equity for myself, I continued paying the mortgage. I gave my best effort to find a way of selling the properties, working with a top-level property lawyer (Mathew Spring of Payne Hicks Beech) who I was convinced would pursue the fiduciary liability of the Freeholder, Ms. Adler. Obligated to make up the shortfall in restoring the property to its pre-incident condition in what has become a claim for losses that can be measured in seven figures.
The court order set 15 October 2015 as the date for the property to be marketed. And that is the date after which Ms. Adler had won her ‘Beneficial entitlement.’ However I was required to keep paying the mortgage and upkeep on empty properties. Throughout 2016, I had zero net income from rentals. My properties became vacant as ordered by the court. My outgoings on paying the mortgage and keeping 7a and 7b in a condition giving them a chance to sell at market value was £25,000.
Throughout 2017, I had zero income from rentals. My properties were vacant as ordered by the court. My outgoings on paying the mortgage and keeping 7a and 7b in a condition giving them a chance to sell at market value was £25,500. The process repeated throughout 2018. I had zero income from rentals. My properties were vacant as ordered by the court. My outgoings on paying the mortgage and keeping 7a and 7b in a condition giving them a chance to sell at market value was £21,900.
I have acted in good faith in paying almost £100,000 since 15 October, 2015, even after seeing the judgment forcing the sale of my home, quite wrongly giving 100% of the equity to a member of family law, to keep the remote possibility of a buyer appearing.
I did not take the decision to breach my mortgage agreement lightly as you can see by how long I have kept paying even after it made commercial sense to do so. However, as at 25 February 2019, I cannot continue paying into what I hope you will agree, is a hopeless situation.
I have been a Barclays customer since I first began working some forty year’s ago. I have had a mortgage since 1986. I have not one credit default in my life. Nor have I had one single ‘issue’ in any aspect of banking. I have always had an excellent relationship with Barclays. In the event that you want any corroboration on my relationship with Barclays or an estimation of my good character, I have copied my former bank manager in this letter, who is aware of my property ownership in this matter.
At this time, I have no option than to declare Ms. Adler, the member of British Family law, and her accomplices, her solicitor, Tom Amlot and family law barrister working as a deputy district judge Michele O’Leary, have prevailed entirely in a fraudulent process that leaves me unable to continue paying the mortgage on my former home.
I am notifying you that because of the judgment in family court 7a Riverbank is awarded by court order to Charlotte Adam (Formerly Adler.) I can no longer raise loans to keep on paying the mortgage on an empty property in which I have no interest and where I have no prospect of winning anything in litigation as I cannot afford to pay a property lawyer to pursue what is clearly gross fiduciary deviance causing financial losses in seven-figures, I cannot expect legal representation towards any accounting that would enable me to pay my mortgage. My lawyers, Payne Hicks Beech, have not succeeded at any level in giving me confidence that there is a better way forward than ending my payment of the mortgage. It is a fact that I have not received one penny following the Flood of 2014, despite paying out £250,000.
It is a hopeless situation in which deceit and avarice have prevailed. Quite clearly, family law members, solicitors and barrister members of family law have manipulated the arcane legal edifice called family law to cause this situation where, after working hard and paying taxes for 35 years to own a £2.5 million home with a £500,000 mortgage, I walk away with nothing as a loan defaulter. I do not even live in the UK anymore after the door stopping harassment I have faced from family law members, along with being left homeless following the flood and the failure to repair my home by Insurers.
In the event that you, as the lender on my property, that has been awarded, quite fraudulently by one family law member to another in a transparent deceit which has compromised our mutual interest, have any interest in pursuing any of the information I have disclosed, I can assure you of my best efforts in supporting your investigations. A fraud has occurred in which you, the lender, are involved. My claims in this letter are not exaggerated in any way and can be borne out by documentary evidence and independent third-party witnesses.
Perhaps, after some forty years of good business between us you, Barclays, will consider taking a supportive view and raising my matter with your legal department? No doubt, if the property is repaired exactly as per policy cover that existed for that incident in 2014, then its market value will be above £800,000. There is a Lessor who is 100% responsible for the fiduciary obligations to make up the shortfall in Insurance to see that this work is done.
I will be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this letter. Please email me to this effect
E mail: email@example.com USA Phone: (+1) 949 XXX XXX
CC: My IFA CC: Chris. My former Barclays Bank manager
And after 66 days with no reply. I wrote a reminder. And received a reply to that copied here:
Re: Complaint against Tom Amlot of Alexiou Fisher Philipps LLP
Thank you for your undated report received on 11 September 2019. I am sorry for the delay in responding.
We have looked carefully at everything you have sent us and cannot identify a breach of the SRA’s standards or requirements. I have also considered your report alongside all the information we hold about Tom Amlot and Alexiou Fisher Philipps LLP. I have not seen evidence of seriously or persistently poor levels of competence which demonstrate behaviour falling below expected standards.
Our understanding of your concerns
Your allegations against Tom Amlot of Alexiou Fisher Philipps LLP are as follows;
- Tom Amlot strenuously opposed your visitation rights to see your son;
- Tom Amlot retained a QC for a preliminary hearing for visitation and aggressively pursued costs at this hearing;
- Your ex-partner’s written communication to you was “Give me the money (£100,000) and you can see him (son) as often as you like;
- Tom Amlot made a baseless claim for beneficial entitlement on behalf of his client to encourage you to take a commercial view and accept a new demand amount of £150,000;
- DDJ O’Leary committed a serious of errors that amount to nothing less than larceny;
- DDJ O’Leary made a series of Orders in favour of your ex-partner which have been detrimental to you;
- Your ex-partner and Mr Amlot used DDJ O’Leary to force the sale of your properties using costs calculations that were inaccurate. As a result, costs were awarded against you based on these calculations;
- Your ex-partner and Mr Amlot deliberately delayed the sale of your properties to maximise the financial hardship on you;
Before commenting on the specifics of your report, it may help if we explain the role of the SRA. The SRA is the regulator of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, protecting consumers and supporting the rule of law and the administration of justice. The SRA does this by overseeing all education and training requirements necessary to practise as a solicitor, licensing individuals and firms to practise, setting the standards of the profession and regulating and enforcing compliance against these standards. As part of this role we investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of solicitors or their firms. Misconduct investigations are based on evidence and are undertaken when it is in the public interest to do so. Where there is evidence of misconduct and it is in the public interest to do so, we can impose a disciplinary sanction and/or apply a regulatory control to restrict a solicitor’s practice.
We cannot provide legal advice. Nor can we become involved in legal disputes or court proceedings.
A separate regulator, the Legal Ombudsman, is responsible for considering complaints concerning the quality of work done by a solicitor for his own client and the standard of client care provided. They can also look at the costs charged by a solicitor. Unlike us, where they are satisfied that the solicitors have fallen short of their obligations, the Ombudsman has the power to order compensation, direct a reduction or refund of the costs charged and/or order the solicitors to take certain steps to remedy any failing. However, seeing that you are not a client of Alexiou Fisher Philipps LLP, it is unlikely that they will deal with your complaint.
I have carefully considered the information provided and do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to support Tom Amlot and Alexiou Fisher Philipps LLP have breached the SRA’s standards or requirements. Based on the present information, I cannot see any evidence that suggests they have sought to take unfair advantage of you.
The issues you have raised relate to your legal position. Please note that we cannot provide legal advice nor become involved in legal proceedings. Unfortunately we cannot comment on your allegations in respect of visitation rights, pursued costs, the right to beneficial entitlement and the alleged calculations used regarding the sale of your properties and the subsequent costs that you were ordered to pay. These are all legal issues. It is suggested that you seek independent legal advice upon your personal position
Moreover, we do not have authority to challenge or overturn Court Orders and decisions. Therefore, if you are dissatisfied with conduct of DDJ O’Leary and/or his decisions, we would suggest that you seek independent legal advice. Unfortunately, as this is a legal issue, it falls outside of the SRA’s remit.
With regards to your allegations regarding visitation rights, costs sought by your ex-partner and the right to beneficial entitlement, a solicitor is under a duty to follow the instructions given to them by its client and to act in their best interests. Also, solicitors are entitled to take their clients’ accounts of events as true and to advance their clients’ cases on that basis. Therefore, if the firm can demonstrate that they were acting in accordance with their client’s instructions and in their best interests, they are unlikely to breach our Rules, even though you may not necessarily agree with the advice they have provided.
Will keep a record
We will keep a record of the report you have made. While we are not taking action on this occasion, the information you have provided may be useful to us in the future. It allows us to fully understand general standards at the firm and may be cross referenced with any similar reports about the same firm/ solicitor. Accordingly, we will now proceed to close your file.
Investigation and Supervision
Solicitors Regulation Authority
0121 329 6455
And finally: My reply to the thoughtful Mr. Virk.
Dear Mr Virk,
7 November, 2019.
Thank you for your first reply to my letter of complaint. Originally sent 88 days ago. Copied again for ease of reference.
May I begin with your summary of my complaint. You have elected to summarize a series of points worded in an unmistakably convenient way to present an impression that I say is quite misleading, and one that omits key points which, without doubt, breach the SRA ethics code you publish. Which is why I am disappointed with your conclusion that;
“Based on the present information, I cannot see any evidence that suggests they have sought to take unfair advantage of you.”
I am expected to accept that you believe they took fair advantage of me? And of my son.
Aside from those omissions from your list of points enabling you to arrive at this conclusion and choosing to word the points you have included in a misleading fashion deviating from the specific cause of offense, please consider this one fact:
Challenging a father applying for weekend visitation shortly after separation by offering straight up blackmail terms, and then relying on ‘ambush court conduct’ entirely consistent with the blackmail terms, to prevent a child from seeing his father for even one night a week is, in your view, taking fair advantage?
Even though you know from my disclosure that by preventing the regular contact at that crucial time shortly after separation did achieve the desired outcome which is that I no longer see my son. That I suggest to you, is not taking ‘fair advantage’. The two words better applied are ‘Child abuse’. Beyond any doubt if you ask my son his opinion on this, he would say that you have chosen a most unfortunate pair of words to describe his misfortune in the course of his exposure to the conduct of Tom Amlot.
On the positive side, I do appreciate the humanity in your explanation of the limitations of your role, for which I am grateful.
I do accept that you have looked at Tom Amlot’s previous record with complaints and found it clear. I am genuinely surprised. I know of three instances personally. I presume many people do not bother with filing complaint with your organization after the heartbreaking outcomes that follow poor family court judgments and manipulation of that arcane system by unscrupulous members. I also know from two legal professionals, both senior ‘name’ members of family law, about his previous form, conforming to my own experience of his regard for ethical conduct. I do however accept at face value your assurance that there is no record of Tom Amlot’s previous ethical conduct aberrations available to you.
While I am grateful for your well composed letter and the time you put into my matter, I cannot agree that you may effectively close the file in full and final consideration of my sons issue, on the basis that ‘They have not taken unfair advantage of me.” Bearing in mind this complaint affects my young son, the ‘unfair advantage’ is as much his misfortune as it is mine.
I would like you to reply to just one point that you have omitted in your summary along with your very informative explanation of the SRA role, which is not at all clear when reading the ethical code published on your web page. (One point only, although I see several more that should be included.)
Between February 2016 and December 2016, my request for the physical address of my son, his whereabouts, was denied to me. This is after his Mother married a member of family- law and they moved into a new home. My letters to my son were returned with ‘return to sender address unknown.” Because, as you will understand, solicitors moving address always fail to leave a forwarding address for post.
Having learned in this way that my son was not receiving my letters, I wrote to Mr. Amlot and Ms. Adler. The fact is, it took nine (9) months to provide me with this information. This is a matter of record that can very easily be confirmed.
Please will you confirm that the SRA ethics guidelines do not require members of family law to provide the whereabouts of a child to his legal guardian and father upon request. That nine months is a reasonable time period for a child to wonder about why his father stopped writing? And a reasonable amount of time for me to wonder why family law do not require their own members to disclose the whereabouts of a child to his parents for 9 months.
I suggest that within your terminology, this nine month delay between my request for my sons address and his mother’s reply takes unfair advantage of the opportunity to cause me upset at not knowing where my child was. And more significantly, I invite you to consider the motivation behind causing a 6 year old child this level of anxiety simply to win at all costs, drawing a child into the financially motivated dispute against his father. These details are included in my letter to your office although they are excluded from your summary of my complaint. I believe this may be ethically deviant.
If you can confirm that I am wrong, that this does not warrant any further comment from the SRA I will accept you have considered my matter and closed the file having made your determination that Tom Amlot is not in breach of any articles published on your website. Although I will recommend that you re-write the ethics code published on your website to avoid the very clear contradictions between the content there and your reply to me in this letter.
On a personal level, I thank you again for the thoughtful element within your reply and feel you will be heartened to learn that my efforts to see my son continue undiminished even five years later, I continue to write to him weekly. I expect that in time he will be heartened to know that I finally did get a reply from the SRA. And for that, please accept my grateful thanks.
Blog word count: 12,100
Blog views: 995,660
MY AMAZON AUTHORS PAGE:
Where you can order my books and also send copies to friends.
LETTERS TO BYRON in chronological order:
The first of the LETTERS TO BYRON: The PILOT
2nd GRAHAM COY
3rd: TOM AMLOT
4th: Thanksgiving day
5th: MICHELLE O’LEARY. The switch Judge
6th : Raining in California
8th: December Rain
9th: Brexit and Greek war
10th: Winnie the Poo
11th: December kayaking
12th: Family law and Mark Zetin
13th: Xmas day 2018
14th: Maria and Anna
15th: New years eve 2018
16th: Your first smile
17th: Your Uncle GEORGE
18th: The Mighty PACIFIC
19th: WEBSTER and Summer HOLIDAY 2019
20th: Breach of Privacy offense
21st: MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
23rd: A short note
24th: MUSIC and KINDNESS
25th: Robin Hood
26th: SRA ethical code
27th: NINE YEARS LATER
28th: Valentines day
31st: Quick Note
32nd: Johannesburg 2019
33rd: Still in Johannesburg
34th: More Johannesburg
35th: Last Johannesburg for now
36th: Traveling. Upgrade
40th: CABO ST LUCAS
41st: 1 April. Wallace’s Birthday
42nd: SANTA BARBARA
43rd: Short letter
44th: PINEAPPLE EXPRESS
45th: KIRA visits
46th: Goodbye uncle Lazaros
47th: Easter Monday
48th: OJAI Tennis
49th: Short letter
50th: PARENTAL ALIENATION FACTS
51st: Cartagena memory
52nd: NEW RECORD
53rd: Last letter to 9 yo
54th: First letter to 10 yo
55th: D Day – 75 years
56th: LA QUINTA
57th: MASON GRADUATES
60th: Chris and Golf
61st: Chris visits Byron in London
63rd: PHYLLIS’ LETTER TO BYRON
64th: GUN CRAZY AMERICANS
65th: MISS YOU
67th: Mason leaves for college
69th: Day after 911
70th: PAPOU. CALLING CHRIS
71st: Two Women
72nd: ANOTHER YEAR
73rd: PLANNING CALIFORNIA VISIT 2019
74th: KAYAKING WITH DOLPHINS
75th: M and M
76th: HALLOWEEN 2019
77th FINGER EXERCISE
78th: First late letter