Investigator RC1 Legal Ombudsman.

Investigator RC1 Legal Ombudsman.

If any of our readers are assigned to an RC1 Legal Ombudsman investigator boy are you in a great deal of trouble?

When you have a case as strong as this one is and you are the victim of a probate Scam you really hope that the country’s main legal regulator would be there for you in your time of need, just don’t think it will ever be the legal ombudsman’s service.

The investigator had a simple job looking into the once top-of-the-line James Beresford and blew it big time so much so they could not even get their time-lines straight or what a Tomblin legal order was all about, it was embarrassing to listen to them groveling to protect actions of a bunch of English probate Scammers.

Tomlin Orders, what are they?

Tomlin order is a court order in the English civil justice system under which a court action has stayed on terms that have been agreed in advance between the parties and are included in a schedule to the order. As such, it is a form of consent order.

The Tomlin order permits either party to apply to the court to enforce the terms of the order, which avoids the need to start fresh proceedings.

The terms of the schedule do not form part of the court order and so may remain confidential, and they may include matters outside the jurisdiction of the court or the scope of the case in hand.

R1 Legal Ombudsman service.

This R1 investigator of the Legal Ombudsman service seems to think it is whatever the probate lawyer wants to do is just fine, no problem here, if he wants to drop the price by £500,000 what is the big deal?

The said investigator goes on to say to the victim of this Scam, the lawyer was within his rights to kick you out of the working guest house with guests in their rooms as the judge on Sept 21 stated you can’t go in that property ever again.

The only thing is Beresford did this in Spring 2020 and the Tomlin order was Dec 2019 when Lord Hodge (Liverpool probate court) stated the victim could live and work in the property till it was sold!

This investigator then stated we were badgering her and she really wanted to end the conversation, this is the utterly shocking level of investigating you can expect from this sort of investigator that can’t even get correct timelines, and instead of making amends simply dug the hole for themselves even deeper! They stated it was recorded, I bet it disappears like every other file and judgment in the case

It seems this probate scamming network knows no bounds and that’s why there are so many probate victims, the only solution is by statute and the mess the country is in at present is the great white-collar crime that has so many fingers in the pie that it is downright scary.

But we soldier on regardless warning others of this minefield of innocent victims.

Owning high-value property and assets in this country is becoming a very dangerous past-time, with so many excess deaths it wonders why so many lawyers are getting very rich these days if they know regulators such as this one appears to be looking after their best interests all the time.

Of course, they are as useless as the SRA but don’t take our word for it look here on Trustpilot.

Read what their own staff says about working there, here.

STOP PRESS 17.31 PM 07-02-2023 request to edit post done within 2 hours.

To be very clear Dr. Jones is not an author to this website but may when he has more time to spare in the future, his case was merely the first of many and we share information with him and with all other probate Scam victims that we are currently helping. This case started in 2015 it takes a long time for us to get it off the ground but rest assured we have hundreds on our books for future investigations.

We were alerted that this investigator’s employers at the legal Ombudsman sent Dr jones a strongly worded letter to remove the name of the said investigator from this Probate Fraud website which shows care of duty to their agent to a point but where is their duty of care to the said consumer Dr. Jones and the entire loss of his £1m estate to date? 

Does it seem law professionals can be outed on a regular basis by these said investigators but if they do a really bad job they can’t be named themselves, where is the natural justice in that sorry state of affairs, that in itself shows the service is not fit for purpose?

Also by its very nature proves that is showing all the vested interests here are really running scared that the Dots are starting to join up and that probate fraud is a much larger problem than anyone in the legal profession wants to shout out loud.

It is an absolute fact that various law firms in the UK are abusing their clients, cheating them of their family wealth and whatever they gain in profit costs the HMRC huge losses in LOST capital gains taxes, yet will help solicitors of covering up these alleged crimes not to mention everyone’s human rights of freedom of speech.

It now appears rouge agents have started to infiltrated the legal Ombudsman services as Trustpilot and other review sites consumers are already claiming, so please don’t try and shoot the mesenger here.

No one from wishes to upset anyone working for the legal ombudsman’s service where they have to show a level of investigatory skills but when some of them totally fail in their applied duty of care why have they have the absolute right to anonymity again proves they are not fit for purpose.

It seems by the published Ombudsman caseload files it’s always the little players finding themselves at fault while the big players very rarely are found out, if ever.

Lots of Members of parliament and the house of lords members are taking a huge interest in this website for obvious reasons as they can soon and very easily be the next victims of these types of  PROBATE SCAM’S.

To the LEGAL OMBUDSMAN/MANAGER REVIEWING THIS WEB PAGE – Was the said investigator correct to state in writing that any solicitor can ignore a TOMLIN ORDER Yes or No?

Perhaps you should investigate it yourself and see why we felt it necessary to publish what we did at the time.

Three strikes out policy – let us be clear to everyone reading this thread. James Beresford and Charlotte Pritchard of BLM and CLYDE and Co, Cavendish Residential, and PCS Ltd broke the TOMLIN ORDER at least once perhaps more but the two first named broke it 3 times and Beresford broke and undertaken to Lord Hodge of Liverpool NOT to sell it under 750k as a legal undertaking (injunction) and all the above still sold it for 490k in July 2020.

If it was anyone else we would all still be jailed for contempt of court and the investigator stated it was not a big deal!

The above information, all of it, is currently in the public domain – none of this is top secret other than trying to keep these scams under the consumer’s radar.

There is an absolute reason for publications in the general public interest and as we are independent freelance investigative journalists, we reserve the right to publish anything we deem fit for publication ONLY if it’s in the public interest to do so.

No guess’s on postcards required who might have alerted the said original investigator to this article is there, it seems there are VERY strong personal and invested interest links at play here.


More information for our loyal readers regarding the OLC.

Guiding principles;
The Legal Services Act 2007 allows the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC)to publish reports of investigations or Ombudsman decisions if it considers it “appropriate to do so in any particular case”. I

n considering what the OLC considers to be “appropriate” for publication, it has been guided by the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act, which include:

Protecting and promoting the public interest
Protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; and
Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse, and effective legal profession

In reaching a decision about our approach to the publication we have looked at evidence generated through research, extensive consultation, and analysis of data generated by the Legal Ombudsman since the scheme started in 2010. We have aimed to strike a balance between being open and transparent without having a disproportionate impact on the profession.
Full details below;





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *