The SRA were also investigating Mr Schwartz about another matter, and practicing certificate conditions were imposed on Mr Schwartz. This decision is available here
- Mr Schwartz shall act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which have been approved by the SRA.
- Mr Schwartz is not to be a recognised sole practitioner, manager or owner of an authorised body.
- Mr Schwartz shall not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise payments in or out of any client or office account or any transfers from any client or office account.
- Mr Schwartz shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for them.
This is presumably why he is now signing particulars of claim as a Civil Enforcement Limited employee. It's obviously quite amusing the SRA think CEL is a fit and proper employer, considering the way they conduct litigation.
Mr Schwartz is still under investigation for other matters which are being considered by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Any decision will eventually be published on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website here.
Despite this, Mr Schwartz is still ignoring practice directions. His company is sending out wholly deficient letters before claim which give the defendant no idea what the claim is about.
The defendant therefore has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, or in short, anything useful at all.
This is in clear violation of the pre-action protocol
3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—Mr Schwartz's company CEL then ignore any attempt by the defendant to find out what the charge is about, and go on to file a claim. This time, the actual particulars filed arrive within 14 days, and are slightly more revealing. They are again identical to all other claims, but this time the badly mailmerged new particulars do reveal the date, vehicle and carefully selected words from the supposed signage.
(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.
This is of course, yet another signature to add to the Michael Schwartz collection.
Any defendant who has received wholly deficient letters before action and particulars of claim like this can refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulator Authority for consideration in the upcoming tribunal. Any other matters concerning Mr Schwartz can also be raised.
If you think this is how solicitors and parking companies should conduct litigation then please ignore this blog. Otherwise, please ask the government to investigate by signing Barry Beavis's petition.
The Parking Prankster