Report comment

@Ecohouse Victim; Commented on: 19 June 2018 15:25 GMT:

"...as opposed to the perspective of clients who have suffered a devastating loss purely for trusting a solicitor firm to protect their interests, provide the agreed service and undertake the agreed due diligence. .."

This I don't understand. If they failed in due diligence and were Negligent, then you would ordinarily be compensated. You always have the option to sue them for damages.

"...but Insolvency Service evidence of fraud is conclusive - "

I think that this is the first time that you have mentioned the Insolvency Service? Is that the case? Also I would respectfully point out to you that there is a difference between purported evidence of Fraud (i.e. by you) and actual evidence that the Insolvency Service or SFO or CPS would have taken action non had it been sufficient under the POOA 1985; Section 10.

"...you can't start spouting off that fraud can't apply when you know nothing at all about the case. The SRA wanted this case to appear like a failed investment scheme because they would have no obligation to compensate the solicitor's clients if that were true - .."

Which is as it stands what it is without evidence or prosecution.

"...a very clear case of investor's funds not being used for their intended purpose to construct Ecohouse units ; i.e. fraud. ..."

It still isn't Fraud until it is prosecuted as such and convicted as such.

Also there is all manner of distinctions between a principal and client of a Solicitor being fraudulent and that Solicitor being implicated, and you have also provided no evidence of Aiding or Abetting a Principal either.

Scruff.