‘Please try again later’ SRA tells online renewal applicants

The following headline has just to my attention:

"Government rejects SRA bid to increase fining power from £2,000 to £250m"

So we have not only an incompetent regulator, but potentially a vicious one, which thought it was perfectly acceptable to have the capacity to bankrupt say the partners of a traditional High Street Practice.

The SRA is part of the Law Society, and its Board can be removed by the Law Society if certain conditions are met.

Coupled with the shambles evident from writing off huge sums of money is anybody seriously suggesting that this state of affiairs ca be allowed to continue?

Madam President please would you and the Council get a grip!!

Does anyone know – who actually regulates the regulator? There must be someone – and what powers that they have to deal with such appalling lapses. Anyway, what’s the betting that Adam Sampson won’t fall on his sword – he appears far too busy criticising solicitors to see what’s going on in his own backyard. With regard to the SRA in general, the phrase “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” comes to mind.

Off topic, but given that the story about the government rejecting the SRA's attempt to increase its fining powers has yet to surface in the Gazette, I make no apology. The story is in Legal Futures. The SRA comment is that:

"Our average costs for an SDT case are around £8,000, so when you consider the time it can take for a tribunal appearance to be heard, firms would be far better off being fined directly by us if the fining powers were increased."

If that is the kind of logic which the SRA applies, it's just as well that the government rejected its wish to increase the amount it can fine firms from the current £2,000 to £250 million.

SRA should abide by the principles it requires of us and give a full and honest account to the profession of why it failed to anticipate and prepare for the "surge" of activity and stress-test the system beforehand to ensure it could cope with the demand that has arisen (or, if these things were done, why the system failed, nevertheless). Given the volumes of card payments being processed successfully on a daily basis by the nation's retailers, one would have thought the technology to cope with "volumes" is by now well-established.

If not involved directly in this process I'm sure I would be enjoying the show but rather than behave like Statler Waldorf & Co and whinge from a balcony its now time to take to the stage ourselves. I agree with others who suggest more direct action. I've lodged a formal complaint - thought best not to do it via the website though.

Solicitors rise up what have you to lose except your Thematic Diversity Pilots!

There are 11,000 firms.

There are 500 people at the SRA.

Lodging a complaint may get your firm moved to the top of the SRA list for a visit? Paranoia I know but this lot are a law unto themselves....

Quit ya bellyaching. My firms application involved 2 solicitors and yet took only 1hr 45 mins to complete. It was particularly enjoyable as the time taken was also spread over lunch so I had plenty of time to eat my sandwiches between each screen refresh.

I was very impressed with the game set up by the SRA called "Find the Application Form Screen" which was very amusing indeed.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I just nearly headbutted my own Computer Screen!!!

Must we part of an increasingly dystopian profession because of the antics of a regulatory monster created by our own professional leaders!!!

I recall from John Rawls classic "A Theory of Justice" that some parts of hs theory were reducible to mathematical formulae.

It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between the the size of the SRA's budget and the resultant shambles.

How about a Thematic Shambles Calculator?

Its becoming late in the day before I drift off to the nearest wine bar but the blogs above have provided some humour to lighten what would be an otherwise darkened mood.

This disturbing blog raises a number of issues.

First how can the SRA withold information about anything from a paid up member of the Law Society?

How can a commercial interests defence be used against a solicitor?

The most telling point is the laughable comment that this wonderful project would save valuable time!

At a time of austerity , at a time of sqeezed profit margins , it is a matter of deep concern that any project on this scale was sanctioned at all!

The searchlight of membership scrutiny must be aimed at the dark inner workings of a body seemingly reckless with the hard earned resources provided by the profession.

Both the Council and the SRA have much to answer in terms of competence and a democratic deficit.

If members concerns continue to be ignored with the usual arrogant disdain then these individuals should not be surprised if the media outside the profession are made privy to this shambles

Every time an article appears relating to this shower of incompetent journeymen we read dozens of emails hurling abuse at what we see as a wholesale assault on our profession from within. We do not actually do anything about it however. I spent years of study , A levels, degree, the hateful Part Solicitor's Final exams and then 2 years as an Articled Clerk. All of this just to qualify. Solicitor, Associate, Salaried Partner and then Partner. I'm presently fighting against a Government, The Daily Mail, an economic recession and , well, only the promise of more of the same to come.

Can we at least organise a petition to The Law Society to intervene? We're being crucified here by our own regulators and we're doing nothing about it.

Why not ask the Gazette why it keeps removing it?

I don't see why you don't challenge the refusal to produce the contractual documentation. Producing such documentation does not necessarily involve harming anyone's commercial interests and, if that is the basis for the refusal, a proper explanation for it needs to be given, including an adequate explanation of why it is felt that disclosing the documentation would or might harm anyone's interests. Otherwise, any contract which the Society enters into with a third party could be withheld from disclosure. Simply refusing to provide material by reference to para 14.9 surely does not amount to a proper refusal notice under para 15: it is implicit in para 15 that some attempt is made to explain the reasons for invoking the relevant part of para 14. The documentation may or not be of a confidential nature, but 14.9 (which is the sub-para relied upon by the Society) does not permit refusal to disclose simply on the basis of confidentiality.

Problem solved - Applied to cross qualify as a barrister.

Alan Foster says that he asked 'What abortive costs have been incurred in the process?' and received the reply:

'This information is being withheld under section 14.9 of the Code. This section [sic - paragraph] of the Code allow us not to release information if to disclose it could harm our commercial interests or those of anyone we may have a commercial relationship with.'

This cannot sensibly be an appropriate response to Mr Foster's request. Disclosing the abortive costs would not harm the Society's commercial interests: it might cause embarrassment to the Society (and might not do much to enhance the Society's reputation), but that is not a proper ground (under the Code) for refusing to disclose information. Neither would it harm the interests of the third party supplier(s). If costs were wasted as a result of a failure by the supplier, the supplier is hardly in a position to complain about the disclosure of that information: any harm to its commercial interests in caused by its own failure to perform its contractual obligations adequately, not by the disclosure of the information relating to any resulting costs. The quantum of the any abortive costs can hardly be said to be confidential, because it is not information provided to the Society by the supplier.

Having chosen to adopt its Code, the Society must abide by the guidance published by the MoJ in May 2012:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi/foi-s43-exemptions.pdf

The Society's refusal to disclose the information is, in any event, defective, in that no proper reasons are advanced for the assertion that disclosing the information could harm its (or anyone else's) commercial interests.

Oh dear oh dear
Here we go again
When are the members of the Law Society going to come together to get "shot" of this organisation?
How much longer are we going to put up with the total waste of space and the enormous cost we have to suffer at their hands.
Forgive me for being so direct but I have had enough
I invite all members to propose a motion for the AGM to disband the SRA as soon as possible

You mean you're acting for the vendor and have given the purchasers' solicitors an undertaking that the mortgage granted by your client will be redeemed, but the mortgagee is failing to confirm to the LR that the mortgage has been redeemed?

The short answer is notify your professional indemnity insurers of a potential claim against you and get advice from them (or solicitors instructed by them) on what you should do. They may want you to write to the mortgagee, warning that you will hold it responsible for any claims or losses to which its conduct may expose you. You could, perhaps, also offer (to the purchasers' solicitors) to provide a stat dec confirming that the redemption monies were remitted to the mortgagee on 8 June 2012 and that you have pressed the mortgagee to effect an electronic discharge. That might be accepted by the LR under Rule 114(4) of the LR Rules 2003.

This might provide some help:

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-31-discharges-of-charges

What form of undertaking did you give to the purchasers' solicitors? Depending on the wording, you may not be in breach of it anyway: the undertaking may only require you to confirm that electronic notice has been given to the LR and you cannot give that confirmation until the mortgagee confirms it to you.

Anyway, bounce it to your insurers for some advice and guidance. It's what you pay them for.

I do think that there should be a motion suggested by Richard who gave his bname to disband the SRA.

I can only think that the powrers that be think that if the SRA were disbanded that our fantasically competent government would impose an even bigger completely detached regulator.

You know the government would even go for the public vote on that awful solicitors aren't they.. better than some politicians I would say.

I would have thought that the apparent inadequacy of the system for renewing practising certificates should be pretty low down on solicitors' list of things to worry about. Yes, it's pretty poor that the system doesn't seem to work very well; and yes, it's remarkable that the Society/the SRA seem to have no intention of kicking up a fuss with (or suing) those who devised the system. But those are not exactly compelling reasons for getting rid of a regulator.

Of greater concern is the Society's refusal to provide proper information about the contract for the supply of the system and the level of wasted expenditure (if any) which the defects in the system have caused. That refusal demonstrates a failure to engage properly or openly with what now seem to be known as 'stakeholders'. Having adopted a Code of Practice on freedom of information, the Society cannot simply hide behind the bald excuse of 'commercial interests' each time a problem arises with something. If the Society believes that someone's commercial interests might be damaged, it is incumbent upon the Society to identify those whose interests might be damaged and provide a proper explanation of its reasons for believing that the commercial interests of those persons might be damaged.

If the explanation for the refusal to disclose is simply 'we might look incompetent or the supplier might look incompetent', that is not a good reason for refusing disclosure: the essence of freedom of information is to ensure accountability, so that those who make mistakes can, if appropriate, be held responsible for them.

I am a sole practitioner and also a 3 day a week consultant to my former firm. I retired as a partner there in 2002 and set up my own practice. After freelance consulting with them, I became a salaried consultant recently. The IT system can't cope with bulk PC renewal (former firm) and me only registering my sole practice so I do the lot and reclaim my PC fees. That 's not too bad but for 10 years I have chosen not to hold client money. I ticked the box on my application to say that and got a pop up that the SRA believed I did hold client money! Another 10 minutes of an extra box to fill in to say "No means no".
Still, Firefox did enable the SRA to take my fees.
Quite separately, I have always wondered how much it cost for the SRA football to be designed, to replace the rather dignified Law Society Coat of Arms on letterheads etc.?????

The SRA website still not working the MY SRA part that is.....

You could not make this up.. Someone is having a laugh - surely !

Maybe in these forums we could organize an online petition calling for a break away organization that could be called The Solicitors Association - or similar to BMA in name - to represent us if say 60% of solicitors agreed.