Report comment

@Scruff's two most recent comments below :-

Sorry to disappoint scruff, but the fraud is proved by the Insolvency Service, The Met Police and PWC, even if your own logic is unable to reach that determination despite £33 Million being released illegitimately with nothing to show for it. Your comments again demonstrate your ignorance of the case. Some of us on the other hand have been dealing with the consequences of the matter on a weekly basis since late 2014.

Prior to the Private Eye article, investors had no inkling that there was any issue with the scheme. After all, they had appointed a solicitor firm to protect their interests and conduct due diligence for them as detailed in the escrow agreements they signed.

The insurers refused indemnity due to the obvious dishonesty of both partners of the firm, paying no heed to the SRA's unrepresentative allegations. The solicitor firm was releasing client funds illegitimately over a prolonged period of 2.5 years, aiding and abetting a fraud. Even after the firm had been reported to the SRA in December 2013, the misconduct (misappropriation) continued right under the SRA's nose in total defiance of regulatory principles and accounting rules.

The firms failure to report it's misconduct and the shortfall in client account funds is an act of dishonesty in itself because they misled the SRA into thinking that everything was in order at the firm, even after they had been reported for illegitimate release of client funds. Whether the solicitors used the funds for their own purposes or not is immaterial, it still constitutes misappropriation and fraud because the funds were taken without client consent by virtue of the fact that the firm had not fulfilled the required trigger conditions for their release. The illegitimate release of client funds occurred multiple times for each of their 850+ clients in an act of wilful and prolonged misconduct. The firm knew that they were guilty of wrongdoing, but still continued, which satisfies any subjective dishonesty test.

The PII firm were well within their rights to refuse indemnity because both partners of the firm had acted dishonesty. The complaint reports made against the firm would confirm the solicitors dishonesty, but the SRA refuse to release them on the grounds of confidentiality, despite their being little or no confidential content in the reports. Another excuse the SRA use is that it might affect the regulators ability to perform their regulatory functions, which is complete poppycock.

In summary, the SRA cannot possibly justify their failure to allege dishonesty, nor their failure to intervene on the mere suspicion of dishonesty. Their failure to allege dishonesty prevented the solicitors from being struck off. Their failure to intervene resulted in a far more serious fraud because the misappropriation continued for a further 11 months.

Nobody invested after the release of the Private Eye article - indeed it was that article that brought the fraud to the attention of Gordon's solicitors, who then started ringing up investors hoping to represent them in the possible recovery of their losses. There were multiple instances of misrepresentation of the scheme by the Ecohouse director (solicitor) and no easy way for an investor to detect a possibility of fraud given the degree of deceit involved.

I did not register on this site to have a go at solicitors or to put solicitors down - quite the contrary, despite what you might reasonably expect under the circumstances. My intentions are to expose to the profession the deficiencies in the regulatory system, regulatory failings, the SRA's conflicted position, incongruous behaviour, inability to deliver justice, dismantling of consumer protection, deceit and concealment. The SRA's behaviour is not limited to just the Ecohouse fraud.

Thanks for encouraging me to reveal more about the SRA's duplicity and treachery towards legal service consumers.