Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

@Anonymous @11:35 8 February. I wondered too about £2077 not being 1%. In her mitigation over costs, Ms Scott told the tribunal that she lost her job shortly after whistleblowing in January 2015, whereas the two partners at the practice continued to run the firm until intervention in January 2018.

The costs would have also included the costs of the intervention itself. Ms Scott could not be responsible for those as she was never a partner in the firm and was not responsible for the dishonesty of those partners. Also, she had not been working at the firm for three years at the time of the intervention.

Ms Scott also admitted her wrongdoing but the partners attempted to lay the blame on her for their own wrongdoing, thereby extending the SRA investigations. It was also probably the reason why the SRA did not intervene earlier. I believe that delay in intervention affected more of De Vita Platt's clients than it otherwise would have.

Your details

Cancel