Stefano Lucatello Kobalt Law LLP Wasted my time and money London, Other

Mr Peter Harris of Bristol has posted untrue, libellous and defamatory comments about me and my current Law firm Kobalt Law LLP, aswell incorrect and untrue facts relating to my previous law firm The International Property Law Centre LLP.

Mr Harris was a client of my previous law firm, which closed on the 31.1.12, as my previous partner, Max Gold and I sold that practice to another local law firm in Hull.

The firm was not in liquidation, bankrupt or in any kind of difficulty whatsoever and there were never at any time bankruptcy proceedings against me or Max Gold or The International Property Law Centre or Kobalt Law LLP.Mr Harris was represented by my previous law firm and received very good and clear advice as to what he was buying in Turkey and the content and nature of the papers he was about to sign.

He was also given clear advice about the effects of not registering his Turkish purchase contract in Turkey, with the Notary Public in Turkey and that this would have protected him in case of failure to deliver by the builder, which is what eventuially happened.

He refused to take up this advice or choice because of the extra costs.

He was then unable to recover much of the money he had paid to the builder, as he had no grounds to do so under Turkish Law as he had not registered his contract.

He then threatened my previous firm with a negligence action and took the matter to the LEGAL OMBUDSMAN.

That organisation asked us to respond to his false allegations and we did do so in full in October 2012. The investigator considered Mr Harris's arguments and our responses and rightly ruled in our favour, saying amongst other things that..."Upon investigation of Mr Harris's complaint I can see that the firm wrote to Mr Harris on 19 November 2007  setting out to him the types of contracts that were available to him.The firm told Mr Harris that he could have the contract notarised, however, they would not do this unless he specifically instructed them to do so. I have seen no eveidence of Mr Harris instructing the firm to have the contract notarised. As such, I believe that the firm have acted reasonably in this matter as they provided Mr Harris with the required indformation and he made an infoirmed decision about how he wanted to proceed.

Based on the above I am recommending to the Ombudsman that no remedy is awarded in this matter"

In her conclusions the Investigator says ...."It was reasonable that the firm did not get the contract notarised as Mr Harris did not instruct them to do so despite being given information by the firm about different types of contract......"

The Investigator then went on to say...."Mr Harris has complained that the seller is refusing to pay him the award made by the court in their order of May 2012. I cannot attribute the seller's refusal to follow the Court order to the firm"[  MEANING The International property Law Centre LLP].

Mr Harris is therefore totally wrong and has no grounds to make such allegations and accusations of  such a defamatory and libellous nature against me and my firms.Had Mr Harris followed our clear instructions and paid the notarisation fee he would have recovered all his monies and costs.

He was unhappy with this ruling and so appealed to the Legal ombudsman personally [ Mr John Norton]. Mr Norton again considered all the facts, arguments and written evidence and our file papers. His conclusion amongst other things states as follows;...."I have carefully considered Mr Harris's detailed comments in respoinse to the recommendation report. I am satisfied that the report is a reasonable summary of the position and the recommendation is one which I have decided to adopt. My decision is therefore that your firm provided a reasonable standard of service in relation to matters regarding Mr Harris's purchase of a property in Turkey."

He then continues...." I realise of course that Mr Harris may find my decision disappointing, however I do not consider there is anything which would lead me to a different conclusion........"

"In cases like Mr Harris's where two parties' recollections of events differs,  I will rely on any documentary or corroborating evidence placed in front of me.I can see, and there appears to be no dispute, that your firm wrote to Mr Harris and outlined the types of contracts that were available to him.

Your letter makes it clear that Mr Harris could consider obtaining a legal undertaking from the sellers, this would be issued by the notary public and signed in front of him, and the sellers would then have to transfer the Title Deed to the property into his name. There was of course a higher cost to this action.

Your firm outlined the costs involved in this and said that you would not approach the sellers to negotoiate on this issueunless Mr Harris notified them otherwise.I have seen no evidence of Mr Harris instructing your firm to have the contract notarised.

On that basis I believe that your firm acted reasonably in this matter, you provided Mr Harris with the necessary information and he was able to make an informed decision as to how he wanted to proceed. I can see no further evidence of discussions in regard to having the contract notarised."

Mr Harris's allegations that my firm sat on his money and did nothing are incorrect and untrue and this is his view nobody else's. Mr Harris's comments are made out of frustrtaion and anger, but he has only himself to blame as he did not take our good advice at the time. Mr Harris's case was pursued as rerquired on his behalf. No lies were ever uttered to him by my staff or by me. International litigation is sometimes very slow and arduous.

The comments he makes in relation to me saying he was not the type of client we wanted are totally out of context. The comments that were made by me, were that because he was so angry with my firm, incorrectly so, there was no point in acting for a person such as him, who had no confidence in what we were doing, and so would never be happy with the level of service provided to him.

He also fails to set out that we returned his 2500, plus an extra 400, as a goodwill interest payment gesture,[ without any admission of liability] when I decided that we could no longer continue to act for him, as a result of his views.

His comments and spurious allegations are defamatory and I will not allow such people to make unfounded comments against me or my staff.

The full decision can be seen on the Legal Ombudsman's website.

I do not take kindly to being called a "slimebag" by anyone and neither do I take kindly to receiving insults of a written nature which are defamatory in content and untrue.

I therefore request that this comment by Mr Harris be immediately taken down, failing which we will issue proceedings against your website owners and Mr Peter Harris. I also expect a written apology from Mr Harris.

Stefano Lucatello Solicitor, Senior Partner Kobalt Law LLP.