Report comment

The SRA Chief Exec doesn't want fraud bankrupting the compensation fund. This is why dishonesty is not being alleged in fraud cases. According to the SRA website, the SDT panel cannot strike off a solicitor if dishonesty is not alleged by the SRA.

The SRA failing to intervene in cases involving fraud or mass misappropriation is also on account of the SRA's conflicted position and their wish not to infer dishonesty (resulting in PII indemnity refusal), resulting in a consequential claim against the SRACF.

From the perspective of victims of the Ecohouse fraud, it is not the burden of proof that is resulting in solicitors not being struck-off for fraud and misappropriation of client funds, it is the SRA wishing to evade an allegation of "Dishonesty" which results in PII cover being declined, which in turn results in claims falling back to the SRA' s compensation fund.

The SRA is being driven by money as opposed to bringing justice. In the Ecohouse fraud case £33,000,000 was misappropriated from clients, yet the SRA did not even allege dishonesty. The SRA didn't intervene despite receiving multiple complaints about the solicitor firm, who's partners had permitted mass misappropriation of client funds to occur. The SRA permitted the misconduct to continue for a further 11 months before even threatening intervention, but never did intervene. There is no question that the SRA's neglect resulted in the fraud being far worse and destroying many more lives. The SRA has a duty to intervene in a firm to protect the firm's clients at the slightest suspicion of dishonesty.

The SRA's failure to intervene, failure to make the correct allegations and failure to strike off solicitors that are culpable for an immense fraud are patent examples of REGULATORY FAILURE. The SRA is consistently failing to protect consumers, failing to prosecute adequately and matters will become considerably worse if any of their proposed policy changes are approved.

Protection is woefully inadequate as things stand and rules for claiming from the SRACF are draconian, pedantic and onerous on claimants. The rules are intentionally stringent so as to dissuade victims of misconduct from submitting claims. Where the Ecohouse fraud case is concerned, 91% of victims of the fraud did not make a claim against the SRACF, despite having no other route to redress - this is exactly what the SRA wants - this is a disgraceful testament to the SRA and proves that it is failing to protect consumers.

The SRA has its own dishonesty tests which it purports to use to make determinations, but the SRA appears to have circumvented that process completely in the Ecohouse fraud (several dishonesty tests are satisfied). As another poster stated, the SRA's decisions appear preordained and the decisions are not based on the correct application of "Due process".

As another poster stated, the SRA's dubious track record from 2009 should be scrutinised in a Government inquiry - perhaps it might reveal the true extent of the SRA's deceit, perversion of the course of justice and immorality.