Responding to Competitors’ Allegations: A transparent overview of Lawgistics’ recent SRA investigation

articles

Motor Industry Legal Services Ltd (MILS) efforts to stop Lawgistics offering a subsidised litigation service are unsuccessful on every level.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In light of recent discussions in the industry press and various posts on social media regarding the legal challenges Lawgistics faced, we believe it is both fair and transparent to provide our members and the wider motor trade community with detailed context and clarity on these matters.

As a respected provider of legal services in the motor trade sector, it is imperative for us to maintain openness and address any concerns head-on. The following article offers an in-depth overview of the allegations, our comprehensive response, and the conclusive findings from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation, ensuring our members are well-informed and reassured of our legal compliance and ethical standards.

In a recent and significant legal development, Lawgistics Ltd and Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade CIC faced allegations from MILS LEGAL LTD trading as MILS about potential breaches of the Legal Services Act 2007. The core of the dispute centred around MILS‘ allegations that we and the CIC were potentially conducting reserved legal activities without proper authorisation, prompting a detailed investigation by the SRA.

MILS’ Allegations

MILS raised several concerns regarding our operations, primarily focusing on the legality of our service offerings:

  • Breach of Legal Services Act 2007: MILS accused Lawgistics of conducting reserved legal activities such as the conduct of litigation without proper authorisation from the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority (SRA) or the Bar Standards Board (BSB), alleging this to be in violation of the Legal Services Act 2007.
  • Inadequate Regulation: MILS expressed concerns that Lawgistics Ltd and Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade CIC were not appropriately regulated for the legal services we were offering, noting that neither entity appeared on the register maintained by the SRA.
  • Misleading Advertising: The letter suggested that our advertising of litigation services was misleading, potentially breaching the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes.
  • Ultimatum to Cease Litigation Services: MILS demanded that Lawgistics stop offering and providing litigation services immediately, underlining the gravity of their allegations. They explicitly threatened to escalate the matter by filing a formal complaint with the police and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) should we fail to comply.
  • Demand for Immediate Compliance Confirmation: The letter ended with a stark ultimatum, insisting that Lawgistics confirm its cessation of the disputed services without delay. MILS underscored the urgency of their demand by threatening legal action and reporting to regulatory bodies, emphasising the serious legal consequences we could face for non-compliance.
Our Firm Response

In a firm and legally astute response to the allegations raised by MILS, we defended our operational integrity and legal compliance. Key highlights of our response include:

  • Clarification of Legal Acts: We corrected MILS’ reference to the Courts and Legal Services Act 2007, pointing out that the relevant legal framework is actually the Legal Services Act 2007, demonstrating our attention to detail and legal acumen.
  • Reference to Baxter v Doble Judgment: We acknowledged our awareness and understanding of the Baxter v Doble judgment, noting that we had already considered its implications on our operations. We emphasised our proactive engagement with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, barristers, and insurers to ensure compliance.
  • Legitimacy of Operating as a CIC: We addressed the legal standing of the Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade CIC, citing Section 23 of the Legal Services Act 2007, which permits CICs to conduct reserved legal activities, thereby legitimising our operations.
  • Rejection of Unfounded Allegations: Our response robustly dismissed the allegations as baseless, asserting that they stem more from commercial insecurity than from a professional duty to uphold legal standards.
  • Call for Professional Courtesy: We concluded by urging MILS to cease misrepresenting our services and to maintain professional decorum, reinforcing our own commitment to ethical practices and mutual respect in the industry.

However, despite our comprehensive letter explaining our position, MILS still chose to proceed with their threat and reported us to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). This action led to a formal investigation by the SRA which we approached with the utmost seriousness and cooperation, confident in our compliance and the legitimacy of our operations.

SRA Investigation Findings

After an extensive seven month investigation, the SRA’s findings brought clarity to the matter:

  • The SRA does not regulate CICs, as this falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, which had accepted the CIC’s application.
  • According to the Legal Services Act 2007, CICs are permitted to engage in reserved legal activities without the need for SRA authorisation.
  • Lawgistics had followed the advice provided by the SRA’s Ethics department and had adjusted our operations appropriately in response to the Baxter v Doble judgment.
  • The SRA concluded the matter with no further action, thereby affirming our legal compliance.
Conclusion and Future Outlook

The resolution of this matter by the SRA highlights our unwavering commitment to operating within the legal framework and maintaining high ethical standards. This outcome not only vindicates our practices but also reinforces our position as a reliable and law-abiding provider of legal services in the motor trade sector.

As we continue our journey, we remain dedicated to providing our members with the highest level of legal expertise, confident in our robust compliance with legal regulations and our ability to navigate complex legal challenges.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Joel CombesManaging DirectorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

License to Copy

Companies use software to find where their images are being used, and this is how and why you would then receive a letter.

Commission Disclosure Court Cases – Playing the Long Game

For our member, there were no costs as they did not have to employ an expensive solicitor.

Mercedes diesel software update leads to NOx sensor fault

Our member now faces a repair bill of almost £700 plus VAT for the cost of a new NOx sensor, which they say is consequential to the Mercedes software update.

Misleading adverts results in £58,000 fine

The result should serve as a warning to all traders to ensure vehicles are accurately described.

Image use without permission

To be entitled to use the image, you must obtain consent which usually means paying a fee.

Mis-selling finance claims – Ignore at your peril!

Data subject access requests and various letters quoting CONC and the Consumer Credit Act are being received requesting lots of documentation to be provided.

What’s your representative APR?

If your motor finance provider suggests using 9.9% APR as a representative APR, you need to ensure that 51% of your finance deals are at 9.9%

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.