Re: Your letter dated 12 July 2025 – allegations of “identity fraud” and “blackmail”
I write further to the above referenced correspondence. Your allegations are unsupported and have caused
avoidable distress. This letter clarifies the facts, identifies breaches of your professional obligations, and
sets out the remedial steps required.
- Required Actions (deadline: 19 August 2025)
These steps vindicate my legal rights; I seek no financial gain.
By 5 p.m. on the date above, please:
- Withdraw in writing all allegations of fraud and blackmail.
- State the UK GDPR Article 6 basis for retaining my ID documents/deedpoll and provide your
retention schedule.
- Destroy or return all copies of my ID documents/deedpoll that you are not obliged to retain under
statute or SRA rules and confirm the legal basis and retention period for anything retained.
- Provide a written apology for the distress and wasted time caused.
If you do not comply by the deadline, I will:
Refer the professional conduct issues to the SRA.
Escalate my service complaint to the Legal Ombudsman on 11 September 2025 (for the avoidance
of doubt, my request to witness a deedpoll constitutes a service within LeO Scheme Rule 2.4
‘prospective client’); and
Lodge a data protection complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
- Factual Clarifications
Address element in deedpoll – “xxxxxx” is the house name element of my complete postal address
“xxxxxxxy xxx xxx,” as shown on HMRC correspondence and utility bills. HMCTS guidance
requires only an address “sufficient for service of documents.” Using the house name alone in narrative
clauses is accepted shorthand and cannot be construed as deception.
Typographical correction – A handwritten change was made at your caseworker’s suggestion before
witnessing. Correcting an obvious slip fails both limbs of the dishonesty test (R v Ivey).
Meeting conduct and “panic” allegation – I waited over an hour past our appointment without apology.
The resulting frustration—exacerbated by communication difficulties—was mischaracterised by you as
“panic.” Expressing justified frustration is not dishonest.
Independent deedpoll execution – On 25 June 2025, an independent firm of solicitors first examined my
passport and birth certificate and satisfied, then redrafted and witnessed the deedpoll. Their unqualified
acceptance underscores the legitimacy of the document and the unreasonable nature of your suspicions.
Underlying evidence (passport copy, utility bill, deedpoll, timeline) is available to the regulator or upon
reasonable request.
- ProfessionalConduct Breaches
Your latest letter alleges, “We now treat your Google review and the demand for £150.00 as a blackmail
and extortion to achieve your identity fraud plan,” and warns, “We intend to seek action against you, and
you will hear from us and/or the relevant enforcement agencies in due course.”
These unfounded criminal accusations are plainly intended to silence me and chill my right to seek redress.
For Code purposes I was at least a prospective client under Legal Ombudsman Scheme Rule 2.4, so the
conduct duties below apply.
This behaviour breaches both the Code of Conduct for Solicitors and the Code of Conduct for Firms:
para 1.1 – treat clients and others fairly.
para 1.2 (Firms) – do not abuse your position.
para 1.4 – do not mislead recipients of correspondence.
It also violates core SRA Principles:
Principle 2 – uphold public trust and confidence
Principle 4 – act with honesty
Principle 5 – act with integrity.
The SRA has issued two explicit warnings that capture your conduct:
- Conduct in Disputes (Oct 2022) – prohibits “unjustified or illegal threats in correspondence”.
- Offensive Communications (Nov 2024) – covers “offensive, threatening or harassing
communication” in any medium.
The regulator has recently disciplined solicitors for similar baseless threats, emphasising that such
behaviour undermines public trust and can amount to a SLAPP-type abuse. Legal Futures; Law Society
Communities; The Times
Accordingly, your allegations constitute an abuse of position and a breach of your professional duties. I
invite you to withdraw them immediately and avoid further regulatory risk.
- Data-Protection & AML Position (Deadline 19 August 2025)
- Scope of retainer – My instruction was strictly limited to witnessing a deed poll, with no wider
legal advice or drafting; such witnessing is not listed in Regulation 12(1) Money-Laundering
Regulations 2017 (MLR). Consequently, the Reg 40 five-year record-keeping obligation is not
triggered. Legislation.gov.uk; The Law Society
If you consider any wider “legal services” limb applies, produce the evidence at 2(a)–(c) below.
- If you contend Reg 12 applies, please supply by 5 p.m. 19 Aug 2025:
a. The precise Reg 12 limb relied upon (e.g. 12(1)(a) “legal services” or 12(1)(b) “trust/company
services”). Legislation.gov.uk
b. Contemporaneous attendance notes / engagement terms showing advice beyond mere
witnessing. Solicitors Regulation Authority
c. Your AML risk rating (high/medium/low) and the single factor that elevated the risk, if any.
Solicitors Regulation Authority
- Lawful-basis transparency – If you rely on any UK GDPR lawful basis (e.g. Art 6(1)(c) legal
obligation, Art 6(1)(e) regulatory task, or Art 6(1)(f) legitimate interests), state which one, the legal
instrument creating that duty or task, and—if Art 6(1)(f)—provide your Legitimate-Interest
Assessment (purpose, necessity, balance). ICO; ICO
- Retention schedule – Confirm the statutory or policy-driven retention period for any copy of my
ID/deed-poll you will keep and supply the relevant extract of your firm-wide data-retention policy.
(The Law Society notes firms must justify any six-year default.) The Law Society
- No further processing beyond a compatible purpose – My documents must not be reused for staff
training, marketing, software testing or any other purpose unless it passes the Article 6(4)
compatibility test or you obtain a fresh lawful basis and notify me. ICO; ICO
- Subject-Access Request (SAR) – Treat this letter as a SAR under Art 15. I will supply any ID
reasonably required. If you rely on DPA 2018 Sch 2 para 2 (crime-and-taxation) or any exemption,
identify it and explain the prejudice you believe disclosure would cause. ICO; ICO
- Legal professional privilege (LPP) – If you assert LPP over any AML or risk file, state whether the
privilege is mine or yours, provide a document schedule, and explain why redaction cannot cure
disclosure. The Law Society
- CDD initiation clarity – Confirm whether you began Customer-Due-Diligence checks at any point. If
so, explain why such checks were initiated given the limited witnessing request. Remember: once
CDD starts, Reg 40 record-keeping must still be justified on a statutory basis. Legislation.gov.uk; ICO
- Minimisation alternative – If you rely on any alternative lawful basis, privilege or statutory
retention duty, identify it, cite the legal authority, and justify why a less-intrusive measure
(redaction or secure destruction) is inadequate. ICO; ICO
Good-faith clarification
These requests are made solely to vindicate my legal rights; I seek no financial gain.
- Harassment safeguard
Should you send any further correspondence that either (a) repeats or adds to the unfounded criminal
allegations already made, or (b) threatens criminal or regulatory action without evidence, that will amount
to a course of conduct under s 1 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and will be reported to the police
and SRA.
For the avoidance of doubt, even a single grossly offensive or threatening letter can attract liability under
s 1 Malicious Communications Act 1988 or s 127 Communications Act 2003 / Online Safety Act 2023.
I look forward to your confirmation of compliance with Section 1. Required Actions by 19 August 2025.
Yours faithfully,