Report comment

@Ecohouse Victim; Commented on: 18 June 2018 08:06 GMT

"...Point 4. makes no reference to insurance whatsoever, so the point you make is a total irrelevance. .."

I think you may be better off saying 'total;;y irrelevant' but there you go as they say.

"...Your rantings do not represent reasonable nor logical debate. .."

Have a look at the concept of 'risk' in insurance terms and Demand and Supply in Economics. You might want hem to move on to the concept of monopolistic behaviour.

"...The SRA's lack of conviction relates to their ineffectual SDT prosecution against the solicitors involved in the £33 Million Ecohouse fraud, none of whom were struck off. .."

That is probably because they were not fraudulent. Presumably if you want on with your eyes open then as risk equals reward in financial services terms (a well known concept), you lost yup our money honourably and decently.

"...850 victims who did not receive justice due to SRA duplicity and deceit ( cheating victims out of justice as a consequence of the SRA's attempts to avoid claims against the SRACF by not alleging dishonesty for fraud). .."

Probably as I say because there was no fraud.

"...It is small wonder that SRACF levies are on the increase when these crooks are permitted to remain in practice. ..."

You undermine your argument. The reason that the Solicitors PII didn't pay out was because they as I say don't pay out and don't protect the Solicitors.

If you sadly invited in a Brazilian Ponzi House Building Scheme that Private eye since at least 2014 were warning the public about then that unfortunately is your loss. The SCF is there to pick up the tab for really fraudulent behaviour where a Solicitor walks with the client account usually (or similar).

I do sympathise with you though.

Scruff.