Brightstone Law LLP

“ROBERTO FRANCIS, Head of Litigation commenced possession proceedings in May 2022 with false statements on the Claim form e.g. pandemic had no impact…

on me after he was given access to my account containing sensitive info re: my mental health. I never gave my consent for MHB to share my personal info with other companies [breach of Data Protection Act 2018]. Further, BSL completed the Claim form knowing MHB never complied with Pre-Action Protocol Solicitor INEZ HASSAN assisted the Lender by filing/serving 2 'PAP Checklists' without requesting/being granted permission by the Court. The 1st 'Checklist', fraudulently completed on 22.06.22 by MHB employee, K. FITZPATRICK [responsible for starting the malicious claim]. 2nd 'Checklist' completed by K. LEGG on 10.08.22 which IHN filed on 20.08.22, 3 days before 2nd hearing leaving me no time to file evidence in response. Checklist used as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage. After completing 6 Apps for Contempt, BSL served a High Court writ of Possession without following correct legal process, resulting in ILLEGAL EVICTION being carried out in Nov. '24. Every solicitor involved with this fraud, no longer work at BSL At the hearing on 23.08.22 BSL defrauded me by intentionally deceiving the Judge, concealed the truth, failed to disclose docs & deliberately misled the Judge with false statements to advance an ulterior motive [one other than to obtain due legal process] manifestly unfair to me - a litigant in person due to legal aid being unavailable & law firms full to capacity - a problem which affected millions of UK residents whose lives were not only impacted by the lockdowns, but the huge rise in repossessions & evictions which followed, drastically increasing demand for legal aid which, for many was completely unavailable BSL used the processes & procedures of the Court in a way which is significantly different from their primary purpose: to administer justice with fairness & impartiality in order to resolve disputes between two parties. BSL's ulterior motive: to obtain a possession order using any means necessary which they did by deceiving the Judge to bring an end to proceedings which was not properly available giving rise to abuse of process The following sections from the Application for Contempt relate to solicitor INEZ HASSAN Sec. 5 "Pursuant to rule 81.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, 'nature of the contempt' is required to be included in the application" a) interference with the due administration of justice & using the processes & procedures of the Court for the purpose of obtaining some collateral advantage: abuse of process b) breach of a Court Order c) deliberately made false statements in documents verified by a Statement of Truth d) breach of specific Civil Procedure Rules: CPR Part 55, CPR PD 55A, CPR 83.26(5); and Rules set out in FCA's MCOB e) filed/served replacement documentation without requesting or being granted permission by the Court [tampering with evidence to advance ulterior motive] Sec. 10 "Date & terms of any undertaking allegedly breached" 1) 22.06.22: in her signed statement verified by a Statement of Truth, IHN exhibits a fraudulently completed PAP Checklist dated 22.06.22 2) 17.08.22: IHN’s signed statement verified by a SoT, IHN unlawfully replaced original Checklist with another [dated 10.08.22] 3) 20.08.22: without requesting/being granted permission by the Court, IHN filed/served evidence after tampering with it, incl. replacement Checklist 4) In both statements IHN breached CPR 55.10(3A): failed to state ‘full’ address of property 5) At both hearings IHN breached PD 55A p.5.5 & PD 55C p.6.1(a)(ii): failed to bring 2 copies of Checklist & 2 copies of Notice re: Coronavirus 6) Both hearings IHN breached CPR 55.10(4)(a) & (b): failed to produce copies of notices & evidence to prove they were sent 7) IHN failed to act with honesty & integrity - failed to comply with legal & regulatory obligations 8) March '23: Execution of Warrant, breached CPR 83.26(5): failed to serve notice "Dwelling Houses Regs 2010"

“Set up to get Probate of my late Mother's Estate, was told on the 15th June it had been agreed.I contacted them to ask what do I have to do next, via…

email as communication was agreed via email due to me not being local.Not a word.Didn't reply to emails, had problems getting through as not answering the phone.Then someone called me back saying they were having a meeting about my case as the solicitor is leaving, they still didn't contact me back when promised. I'm still waiting.This from March to July 2020

• Communication

“Worst company ever, represent companies who are a shambles.

Ignore 3rd party solicitors communications. Disgraceful. The SRA need to investigate these people! BEWARE AT ALL COSTS!!!!!

“Very good Lovely people from the receptionist and the solicitor made very much at ease and everything is very good explained .

Recommended Brightstone Law .

• Recommended