Complaint determination c9017 - Shazia Riaz - Machester Legal Services

Dr Ian Leigh Deputy Immigration Services Commissioner
22 March 2018 5th Floor
21 Bloomsbury Street
London
WC1B 3HFMs S Riaz
Manchester Legal Services Ltd
Windrush Millennium Centre
70 Alexandra Road
Manchester
M16 7WD
By Recorded Delivery and e-mail
Tel: 020 7211 1568
caroline.cummins@oisc.gov.uk
Your Ref.:
Our Ref.: C09017
Dear Ms Riaz,
Complaint Determination
The Commissioner has asked me to notify you of his determination of the complaint made by
Mr Shahid Qureshi about Manchester Legal Services Ltd. A Statement of Complaint was
sent to Manchester Legal Services Ltd on 30 June 2017.
If you would like to discuss the content of the determination, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely
Caroline Cummins
Caseworker

Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
The Complaints Scheme (Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Immigration and
Asylum Act 1999)
Determination of Complaint reference C9017
Complainant: Mr Shahid Qureshi
Immigration organisation: Manchester Legal Services Ltd OISC reference number
F200600169
Complaint summary:
Mr Shahid Qureshi instructed Manchester Legal Services Ltd to submit an Administrative
Review against the Home Office’s decision to refuse him indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
When the application for an Administrative Review failed he instructed Manchester Legal
Services Ltd to lodge a Judicial Review claim on his behalf. Mr Qureshi contacted the
organisation on numerous occasions over a number of months to find out at which court his
Judicial Review claim form had been lodged. After failing to receive this information Mr
Qureshi submitted his complaint to the Commissioner about the poor service he had
received from Manchester Legal Services Ltd.
The Immigration Services Commissioner’s determination
The complaint is substantiated against Manchester Legal Services Ltd. The breaches in this
determination will be recorded and considered alongside the organisation’s current
application for continued registration.

Detailed Determination
Relevant Commissioner’s Code of Standards considered
Substantiated
1. Code 3. Organisations and advisers must only act according to, and within, their
authorisation.
2. Code 11. Organisations and advisers must not mislead their clients or prospective clients.
3. Code 12. Organisations and advisers must always act in their clients’ best interests
subject to regulatory and legal requirements.
4. Code 14(a). Organisations and advisers must show due respect, politeness and courtesy
to all.
5. Code 14(c). Organisations and advisers must not mislead the Commissioner,
government departments or any other statutory or judicial body.
6. Code 23. An organisation must provide all prospective clients with a client care letter.
7. Code 53. In respect of each client or prospective client, advisers must maintain an
adequate record of all interactions.
Material Facts
8. Mr Qureshi sought advice and assistance from Ms Shazia Riaz of Manchester Legal
Services Ltd as he wished to challenge a decision by the Home Office not to grant his
application for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK. Manchester Legal Services Ltd
submitted an Administrative Review application to the Home Office challenging their
decision but this application was unsuccessful and the Home Office maintained their
original decision to refuse Mr Qureshi’s application for ILR.
9. Mr Qureshi claimed that he subsequently instructed Ms Riaz to lodge a Judicial Review
claim on his behalf but was never told at which court the JR had been lodged. Ms Riaz
however claimed that while she had sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Home Office
she had not lodged a Judicial Review on Mr Qureshi’s behalf.
Submission from Mr Shahid Qureshi
10. Mr Qureshi sought immigration advice and assistance from Manchester Legal Services
Ltd with an application for an Administrative Review against the Home Office’s decision
to refuse his application for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK. Mr Qureshi had
submitted the ILR application himself. The adviser who assisted and advised Mr Qureshi
was Ms Shazia Riaz.
11. Mr Qureshi claimed that the Home Office refused the Administrative Review application
and that Ms Riaz then submitted a Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter to the Home
Office. Subsequently, as no response was received from the Home Office, Ms Riaz
lodged a Judicial Review (JR) claim form.
12. After requesting the Royal Mail tracking number for the JR numerous times, Mr Qureshi
claimed that he eventually received this from Ms Riaz. On checking the Royal Mail
website he was relieved to find the package had been received by the court and therefore
he believed that the JR claim form had been lodged. After two months passed however
Mr Qureshi became concerned when he had heard nothing from the court about his
application. Mr Qureshi contacted the court and was told that the court had no JR
application in his name and that either the court had mislaid the documents or, if the court

had responded to Manchester Legal Services Ltd, the documents had been mislaid by
Ms Riaz.
13. Mr Qureshi was told by the court to ask his representative to lodge another JR claim
form. Mr Qureshi claimed he tried calling and e-mailing Ms Riaz about this but received
no reply. He subsequently made an appointment to see Ms Riaz in her office but claimed
she arrived 1½ hours late. Mr Qureshi claimed that Ms Riaz informed him that she was
going to send another JR claim form and documents to the court the following day.
However the following day Ms Riaz told Mr Qureshi the application form had changed so
it may take some time for her to prepare it.
14. Although Mr Qureshi subsequently received a copy of the JR grounds from Ms Riaz, he
claimed that he had not received the Royal Mail tracking number for the package or
confirmation that Ms Riaz had sent it, and to which court, despite Mr Qureshi requesting
this information numerous times.
15. Mr Qureshi also claimed that since instructing Ms Riaz he has had great difficulty in
contacting her in that he would leave phone messages for her but she did not reply and
nor did she reply to his e-mails.
16. Mr Qureshi claimed he did not receive a client care letter from Manchester Legal
Services Ltd.
17. Mr Qureshi claimed that he paid Manchester Legal Services Ltd fees as follows:
£350 to Ms Riaz for the advice and assistance provided in respect of the Administrative
review application;
£80 for the Home Office Administrative Review application fee;
£350 to Ms Riaz for the advice and assistance provided in respect of the Judicial Review
proceedings;
£180 for the Judicial Review application fee; and
£14 for a second JR application fee due to the first having been lost by either the court or
Manchester Legal Services Ltd, and the application fee having increased in the
meantime.
18. Mr Qureshi subsequently provided a copy of the two invoices he had received from
Manchester Legal Services Ltd which showed that he had been charged £450 on 31 July
2016 and £490 on 26 September 2016.
19. During the course of the investigation into his complaint, Mr Qureshi has provided the
Commissioner with a copy of the following:
 E-mail correspondence between him and Ms Riaz and Kenzel, a member of staff
at Manchester Legal Services Ltd;
 E-mail correspondence with the Administrative Court;
 Recordings of phone conversations between him and Kenzel;
 Financial information relating to payments made to Manchester Legal Services
Ltd;
 The Administrative Review application and the decision letter from the Home
Office refusing the application;
 A Judicial Review claim form and typed grounds for review received in the post by
Mr Qureshi in June 2017; and
 Call records from his mobile phone provider between January 2017 and June
2017.
20. Mr Qureshi’s primary concern was that he did not know if his JR claim form had been
lodged and, if it had, which court it had been lodged at. This was, he claimed, because
despite numerous requests made to Ms Riaz she had not provided Mr Qureshi with this

information or the Royal Mail tracking number to allow him to contact the court and ask
them to expedite the matter. In this regard, the Commissioner asked Ms Riaz to provide
this information to Mr Qureshi as a matter of urgency and to confirm to the Commissioner
that she had done so.
21. In light of Mr Qureshi’s complaint, the Commissioner was concerned that Manchester
Legal Services had represented Mr Qureshi in JR proceedings which is work they are not
authorised to do under the terms of their registration.
Communication regarding the issue of Mr Qureshi’s Judicial Review claim form
22. Prior to receiving the response to the Statement of Complaint and the case file, the
Commissioner sought to establish whether a JR claim form had been lodged by
Manchester Legal Services Ltd on behalf of Mr Qureshi notwithstanding that their
registration with the Commissioner did not permit the organisation to undertake this work.
During a phone conversation between Ms Riaz and the Commissioner’s caseworker, Mrs
Caroline Cummins on 20 July, Ms Riaz stated that she had not lodged a JR claim form on
Mr Qureshi’s behalf. She stated that she had submitted an Administrative Review
application to the Home Office which had been refused. She also stated that there was
no application pending for Mr Qureshi. When asked whether she was still representing Mr
Qureshi, Ms Riaz stated she was not and had ceased to represent him on 15 May 2017.
23. Ms Riaz stated that on 15 May, Mr Qureshi attended her office for a meeting; this was the
only time she had met him, all other communication had been by e-mail or on the phone.
Ms Riaz stated that prior to the meeting Mr Qureshi had been rude to her and her staff
during phone conversations and that this behaviour continued during the meeting on 15
May. Ms Riaz stated that she told Mr Qureshi his behaviour would not be tolerated and
was informed that he was no longer being represented by the organisation. He was also
asked not to contact the office or any staff.
24. Ms Riaz was asked whether she or anyone from her office had sent a completed JR
claim form and typed submissions entitled ‘Shahid Sabir Grounds for Review’ to Mr
Qureshi by post on 21 June. Ms Riaz said that these documents were not sent by her or
anyone else from her office to Mr Qureshi.
Summary of Manchester Legal Services Ltd’s response to the Statement of
Complaint
25. Ms Riaz provided the response to the Statements of Complaint (SoC) on behalf of
Manchester Legal Services Ltd. Ms Riaz agreed that she had assisted Mr Qureshi with
an application for an Administrative Review against the Home Office’s decision to refuse
his application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. When this application was refused,
Ms Riaz claimed that the next course of action, which had been agreed by Mr Qureshi,
was to lodge an appeal with the Tribunal ‘as the Tribunal has the right to decide if the
person has the right of appeal in the circumstances.’
26. Following further discussion with Mr Qureshi however he decided that a pre-action
protocol letter be sent instead. Ms Riaz claimed she informed Mr Qureshi that she was
unable to deal with the Judicial Review (JR), which she confirmed in writing and referred
to evidence of this on the case file.
27. With regard to the Royal Mail tracking number she provided to Mr Qureshi, which he
believed related to his JR, Ms Riaz stated that it appeared the tracking number was given
to Mr Qureshi in error and it related to a letter received from the court, which was
unrelated to his case and in fact did not relate to any matter being dealt with by
Manchester Legal Services Ltd, but had been placed on Mr Qureshi’s file in error.

28. In respect of the meeting which was held on 15 May 2017 in Manchester Legal Services
Ltd’s office, Ms Riaz claimed that Mr Qureshi created a scene and had to be escorted
from the premises.
29. Ms Riaz claimed that the item of post Mr Qureshi received in June, which he claimed
contained a JR claim form and grounds for the JR, was not sent by her as she had not
dealt with a JR on Mr Qureshi’s behalf.
30. In respect of Mr Qureshi’s claim that he had great difficulty in contacting Ms Riaz, that
she would not respond to phone messages he left for her and nor did she reply to his e-
mails, Ms Riaz referred to evidence on file from Allday PA, a company which take calls
on her behalf. Ms Riaz referred to the messages being of an abusive nature. Ms Riaz
also referred to other calls which had been recorded in Manchester Legal Services Ltd’s
day book rather than the case file.
31. Ms Riaz disputed Mr Qureshi’s claim that he did not receive a client care letter from the
organisation, stating that such a letter was sent to him to which he confirmed his consent
by e-mail.
32. Ms Riaz also disputed the breakdown of fees Mr Qureshi had provided and instead gave
an alternative breakdown:
£450 – receipt and bank transfer on file showing payment made on 31 July 2016;
The £80 fee for the Administrative Review was paid by Mr Qureshi direct to UKVI which
is evidenced on the case file;
£350 – was broken down as £325 as the fee for lodging the appeal with the Tribunal and
£25 postage charge; invoice dated 26 September 2016 and receipt of the following day
refer;
The £490 fee was made up of £140 for the Tribunal fee together with the £350 fee above
was paid by Mr Qureshi by bank transfer for which a receipt is included on file; and
The fee of £14 was for copying and posting documents on file including bank statements
and other supporting evidence.
33. Ms Riaz maintained that no JR had been lodged on Mr Qureshi’s behalf, that she had
only undertaken work permitted within her registration with the Commissioner, and that
she had made clear to Mr Qureshi what the limits of her registration allowed her to do.
The Commissioner’s further investigation
34. Having considered the response to the SoC and the content of the case file, the
Commissioner sought further information from Mr Qureshi and Ms Riaz, on behalf of
Manchester Legal Services Ltd.
Further information requested from Mr Qureshi on 8 August 2017
35. From the case file he received from Manchester Legal Services Ltd, the Commissioner
provided a copy of the client care letter dated 31 July 2016 and an e-mail from Mr
Qureshi acknowledging the letter and asked if he recalled receiving the letter and sending
the e-mail.
36. In response Mr Qureshi stated he did not recall either receiving the client care letter or
sending the subsequent e-mail to Ms Riaz. Mr Qureshi contacted Hotmail to see if they
could confirm whether he had sent such an e-mail but they were unable to provide such
confirmation.
37. Mr Qureshi was asked if he had received a letter dated 16 December 2016, which Ms
Riaz claimed she had sent him informing him she was unable to assist him with his JR.

38. In response Mr Qureshi stated that he did not receive the letter, which he suggested was
fake. Mr Qureshi also queried why that particular letter had been sent to him by post
when all previous communication had been by e-mail.
39. With regard to the £14 he paid in June 2017, which Ms Riaz claimed related to a charge
for copying and posting documents on file to him such as bank statements and previous
supporting evidence, Mr Qureshi was asked whether he asked for these documents to be
returned to him, whether he understood this was what the payment related to, and
whether he received these documents.
40. In response Mr Qureshi stated that he had been told by Kenzel during a phone
conversation that the JR fee had increased so he needed to pay an extra £14; he made
the payment that day by providing Kenzel with his card details over the phone. Mr
Qureshi claimed he was lied to continuously by Manchester Legal Services Ltd that they
had lodged his JR but would not provide him with details of when and where they had
lodged the claim which he required to enable him to contact the court and ask them to
expedite his claim. Mr Qureshi also stated that the only documents he had asked for
were his JR claim form, and other related documents, which he had been told the
organisation had already lodged. Other than that he did not request any other documents
and nor did he receive any such material. Mr Qureshi stated that the receipt was a fake.
41. Mr Qureshi was asked for his comments on Ms Riaz’ claims that he was rude, abusive
and made threats to her during the meeting he had with her on 15 May 2017, and that he
had to be escorted from the office.
42. In response Mr Qureshi stated that contrary to Ms Riaz’ claim the way events had
unfolded were that on 12 May 2017, he had received a text from Manchester Legal
Services Ltd to confirm his appointment on 15 May at 10.40am. On 12 May he learnt that
his JR had been lost but the court official assured him that if he resent his documents his
case would be expedited. Given Ms Riaz’ history of ignoring his calls and e-mails he went
to her office to inform her of the situation and ask her to lodge the JR again.
43. He arrived at 10.30am and was eventually seen an hour and a half late as Ms Riaz had
arrived at 10.50am and she saw a client who had an earlier appointment than his. Mr
Qureshi explained to Ms Riaz about his JR documents having been lost and she
informed him she would send these the following day. Mr Qureshi described leaving the
office ‘peacefully/amicably.’ He also referred to a notice he remembered seeing stating
that CCTV was in operation, and requested that the footage be obtained and viewed so
that the Commissioner could see what actually happened.
44. Mr Qureshi was also asked for his comments on Ms Riaz’ claim that he was rude to the
staff from Allday PA.
45. In response Mr Qureshi claimed he had always been respectful when he had spoken to a
member of Allday PA staff, and that the staff had informed they would e-mail Ms Riaz to
make her aware of each of his calls.
Further information requested from Manchester Legal Services Ltd on 8 August
2017
46. Ms Riaz was asked whether, apart from the evidence already on the case file, she or
anyone else from her office communicated with Mr Qureshi at any other time. Reference
was also made to her file note dated 17 January 2017 stating ‘many calls between Jan-
May. Constant logged in day book.’ Ms Riaz was also asked to provide a copy of the
relevant entries relating to Mr Qureshi’s calls.

47. In response Ms Riaz stated that the day book included entries which were unrelated to
Mr Qureshi and would therefore need to be redacted before the document was sent to
the Commissioner.
48. Ms Riaz was asked whether she had submitted any separate grounds with the
Administrative Review application and, if so, to provide a copy of these.
49. In response Ms Riaz confirmed that she always drafted grounds and provided a copy of
these.
50. Reference was made to Ms Riaz stating that her communication with Mr Qureshi was by
phone or e-mail apart from the meeting in her office on 15 May 2017. An explanation was
sought from Ms Riaz as to the purpose of this face-to-face meeting given that the case
file suggested that she informed Mr Qureshi she was no longer representing him on 17
January 2017.
51. In response Ms Riaz stated that she holds a free advice surgery on Mondays for non-
clients. Mr Qureshi’s appointment was booked by work experience students who were
not aware of him being a client. Ms Riaz stated she did not know who was booked in until
she attended the office that day.
52. After ceasing representation on 17 January 2017, Ms Riaz was asked whether she wrote
to Mr Qureshi informing him of this and that she would be closing his file, and to provide a
copy of the letter if she did.
53. In response Ms Riaz referred to the letter she had sent Mr Qureshi dated 16 December
2016 which informed him that his file was being closed as she was not permitted to lodge
JRs. Ms Riaz stated that two letters were drafted and provided a copy of the letter that
had been sent to Mr Qureshi. Ms Riaz also referred to the certificate of posting that had
been included on the case file. Ms Riaz believed that a further letter after 17 January was
not necessary as the letter of 16 December had informed Mr Qureshi of the closure of his
file.
54. Ms Riaz was asked whether she had received a response from the Home Office to her
pre-action protocol letter sent on 28 September 2016, which she informed Mr Qureshi
she would chase up in an e-mail to him on 16 December 2016.
55. In response Ms Riaz stated that no reply was received from the Home Office and
although it was due to be chased up, due to the circumstances the file was closed.
56. Ms Riaz was asked to provide a copy of the letter sent to Mr Qureshi for which he was
charged a postage fee of £14 in June 2017, confirm what documents were returned to
him, and on what date these were posted to him.
57. In response Ms Riaz provided a copy of the letter sent to Mr Qureshi and the certificate of
posting from 6 June 2017.
58. Ms Riaz was asked whether an invoice was sent to Mr Qureshi in respect of the
statement of account dated 1 October 2016, and to provide a copy if one was.
59. In response Ms Riaz stated that an invoice had not been sent to Mr Qureshi so as not to
aggravate matters adding that Manchester Legal Services Ltd was within its rights to
demand the outstanding payment and to take further action should the payment not be
received.

60. Ms Riaz was asked to forward the actual e-mail communication between her and Mr
Qureshi on Friday 16 December 2016, of which a paper copy was included in the case
file.
61. In response Ms Riaz provided an electronic version of the e-mail communication.
62. Ms Riaz was asked to confirm that the case file she provided was complete.
63. In response Ms Riaz stated that a lot of information is stored in the cloud and if there is
material missing this may be due to the office moving to a paperless system. If there are
documents that appear to be missing, Ms Riaz offered to provide these.
64. Having considered the responses from both Mr Qureshi and Manchester Legal Services
Ltd, the Commissioner sought further information from both parties to assist with his
investigation.
Further information sought from Mr Qureshi on 8 September 2017
65. Mr Qureshi was provided with e-mails, which had been included on the case file, sent
between him and Ms Riaz in September 2016 discussing a possible appeal he wished to
make. Mr Qureshi was asked whether he sent/received the e-mails.
66. In response Mr Qureshi stated that he had not received the e-mail sent by Ms Riaz on 16
September. Mr Qureshi forwarded to the Commissioner all e-mails he had received from
Ms Riaz both before and after this date.
67. Mr Qureshi was provided with an e-mail Ms Riaz claimed she had sent him on 16
December 2016 in which she explained that she cannot lodge the Judicial Review for
him. Mr Qureshi was asked whether he received this e-mail.
68. In response Mr Qureshi stated he did not receive either the e-mail, which he claimed was
a fake, or the letter of the same date from Ms Riaz.
69. Mr Qureshi was asked to provide a copy of bills from his mobile phone provider from
January 2017 to June 2017.
70. In response Mr Qureshi provided a copy of the mobile phone bills for the requested
period.
71. With regard to his meeting with Ms Riaz on 15 May 2017, Mr Qureshi was asked to
provide a screen shot of the text message he had received confirming details of the
meeting. Mr Qureshi was also asked who he had spoken to when he arranged this
appointment, and whether he received confirmation by any other method e.g. letter, e-
mail etc.
72. In response Mr Qureshi provided a screen shot of the text message which shows it was
received on Friday 12 May at 3.10pm. Although the message does not identify who the
person is who sent it, Mr Qureshi stated that he spoke to Kenzel to arrange this
appointment.
73. Mr Qureshi was asked about text messages Ms Riaz claimed she had sent him on 30
May 2017 and 13 June 2017 informing him that the organisation had terminated
representing him and that he should refrain from contacting the office. Mr Qureshi was
asked to confirm whether he received these text messages.
74. In response Mr Qureshi claimed he had not received either of the text messages.

75. Mr Qureshi was also asked whether he gave his consent for the Commissioner to
disclose the recordings he made of phone conversations he had with Kenzel.
76. In response Mr Qureshi consented to the disclosure of the recordings.
77. In addition, Mr Quershi stated that on 15 March 2017 he phoned Manchester Legal
Service Ltd and spoke to a gentleman he had not spoken to previously and that this
person gave him the mail reference number KX82527887GB. Mr Qureshi explained that
he had saved this number on to his phone’s ‘notes’ application on that date and provided
a screen shot of this. Ms Riaz had been reluctant to provide this number but when she
realised someone had provided him with it she e-mailed it to Mr Qureshi on 16 March.
78. As further evidence of Mr Qureshi’s belief that Manchester Legal Service Ltd were
dealing with his JR, he claimed that on 9 May 2017 Kenzel phoned the court to obtain an
update on his JR. Mr Qureshi subsequently received a call from Kenzel asking for his
Home Office reference number as the court had requested it. Mr Qureshi tried to send an
e-mail to Kenzel with the information but it failed to send and remained in his outbox; Mr
Qureshi provided the Commissioner with a screen shot of this.
Further information sought from Manchester Legal Services Ltd on 8 September
2017
79. Ms Riaz was asked to provide the Commissioner with the contact details of Allday PA as
he wished to contact them about Mr Qureshi’s communication with them.
80. In response Ms Riaz stated that she considered the request unreasonable and highly
inappropriate and refused to provide the contact details stating the call answering service
covered her medical reporting services as well as her immigration service. Ms Riaz
added that call records are not disclosed without the express consent of the directors
which she would not be giving. Ms Riaz also questioned the Commissioner’s
caseworker’s lack of awareness of the Data Protection Act in making such a request.
81. Ms Riaz was asked to provide a copy of the CCTV footage from 15 May 2017 showing
Mr Qureshi’s departure, as he disputed her claim that he was escorted from the office
claiming that he left peacefully and amicably. Should Ms Riaz not have access to the
CCTV footage, the Commissioner requested the contact details of the owner or landlord
of the building from whom he could request the footage.
82. In response Ms Riaz stated she was astounded by this unreasonable request. She
explained that the CCTV was on a 7 day rolling period after which the footage was
recorded over. The building landlord did not have CCTV covering the car park area that
included Manchester Legal Services Ltd’s office and has no knowledge of the incident.
Ms Riaz added that she could provide witness statements from people present at the
time of the incident but would refuse to provide these if the Commissioner intended to
show them to Mr Qureshi as this would put the witnesses ‘in a predicament as Mr
Qureshi’s temper can be volatile.’
83. Ms Riaz was provided with an e-mail chain between her and Mr Qureshi during the
evening of 15 May 2017, which he had provided the Commissioner with. Given Ms Riaz’
description of Mr Qureshi’s behaviour during the visit to her office earlier that day Ms Riaz
was asked to explain the purpose of her e-mail to Mr Qureshi and what form she was
referring to as her attendance note recording the meeting earlier in the day stated she
informed Mr Qureshi she was no longer dealing with his matter.

84. In response Ms Riaz stated that the e-mail chain was not the one she had on record. She
then asked whether Mr Qureshi had been asked to explain the discrepancy between the
fees he claimed he paid and the actual fees he had paid.
85. Ms Riaz was provided with an e-mail chain between Mr Qureshi and Kenzel on 5 June
2017 regarding the reference number for an item of post, of which an extract had been
provided in the case file. Ms Riaz was asked to explain what item of post was being
referred to in the e-mail chain as the item of post she sent on 6 June was sent by 1st
class post and would therefore not have a reference number.
86. In response Ms Riaz stated that she had clarified previously that the reference number
was linked to a letter unrelated to Mr Qureshi and was sent in error by the court.
87. With regard to the reference number of the item of post Ms Riaz said did not relate to Mr
Qureshi i.e. KX825278874GB, the Commissioner provided Ms Riaz with an e-mail chain
he had been provided with by Mr Qureshi, and asked for her comments on the fact that
the e-mail at the bottom of the chain from Mr Qureshi specifically asked her for the
reference for his Judicial Review, which she provided but did not suggest his reference to
the JR was incorrect.
88. In response Ms Riaz made no comment.
89. Ms Riaz was referred to her e-mail exchange with Mr Qureshi on 16 December 2016. On
comparing the electronic e-mail to the copy of the exchange which was included in the
case file, the Commissioner noted that there was a material difference in that the word
‘the’ in the hard copy becomes ‘her’ in the electronic version. Ms Riaz was asked to
explain how the same e-mail would contain the different spelling of the same word.
90. In response Ms Riaz stated that she uses a network printer and if two people print at the
same time then errors are common in the print.
91. With regard to Mr Qureshi being charged £14 for postage to return documents to him in
June 2017, Ms Riaz was asked to explain on what basis this charge was made as the
actual cost was £1.30 and the organisation’s fee scale stated ‘Standard postage charges
are applicable to cover normal postage in a matter.’
92. In response Ms Riaz stated that £14 was the organisation’s standard charge, that the
organisation does not charge clients the exact rate and that this is normal for businesses
who work for profit.
93. Ms Riaz was asked to forward to the Commissioner a number of actual e-mails of which
a hard copy had been provided on the case file:
Tuesday 2 August 2016 from Mr Qureshi to Ms Riaz regarding the client care letter;
Friday 16 September 2016 to Sunday 25 September 2016 regarding Mr Qureshi’s
appeal; and
Monday 3/Tuesday 4 October 2016 between her and Mr Qureshi.
94. In response Ms Riaz stated she had forwarded the e-mails on file, that she does not keep
e-mails indefinitely on her lap top and that she had changed lap tops. Ms Riaz also stated
she deleted e-mails due to storage.
95. Ms Riaz was asked to e-mail the Commissioner Word versions of the letters she sent to
Mr Qureshi on 31 July 2016 (client care letter), 16 December 2016 (both versions, as the
one on the case file differed from that subsequently provided), and 6 June 2017. Ms Riaz
was also asked to e-mail the Commissioner Word versions of her file notes.

96. In response Ms Riaz considered that the paper copy of file notes were sufficient and that
unless the request for the files notes to be e-mailed could be justified she would not be
providing these.
97. Ms Riaz was asked why she had posted her letter of 16 December 2016 to Mr Qureshi
when she had sent any previous correspondence by e-mail. Ms Riaz was also asked to
provide the original certificate of posting for this letter as the copy provided was quite faint
98. In response Ms Riaz explained that the letter was supposed to be sent by recorded
delivery but this had not been done and instead it was sent through the normal post. Ms
Riaz also stated that the original certificate of posting had been shredded as the
organisation was trying to move to a paperless system.
99. Ms Riaz was asked to provide extracts from the day book in which calls from Mr Qureshi
were recorded, which had indicated previously would be forwarded.
100. In response Ms Riaz stated that the e-mail she received from the Commissioner’s
caseworker in response to her providing other documents gave her the impression that
the call logs were no longer required.
101. Ms Riaz was asked whether a letter, e-mail or other method of communication was
sent to Mr Qureshi to confirm his appointment on 15 May 2017, and to provide a copy if
one was.
102. In response Ms Riaz stated that she was unable to provide this information,
explaining that a text is sent for all appointments however these are not kept and logs are
automatically deleted.
Information sought from third parties
103. In an attempt to support or refute certain claims made by Mr Qureshi and Ms Riaz,
the Commissioner sought information from the Administrative Court in Manchester,
Allday PA, and Pitney Bowes.
Information sought from the Administrative Court in Manchester
104. The following information was sought from the Administrative Court:
1. Whether there was a record of what the envelope, with the Royal Mail ‘signed for’
reference KX825278874GB and received by the court on 6 October 2016, contained
and also from whom it was received.
2. Whether the letter provided by Manchester Legal Services Ltd, which they claim
included the above Royal Mail reference, was sent by the court.
3. Whether court records showed that a Judicial Review claim form had been lodged
on Mr Qureshi’s behalf by Manchester Legal Services Ltd or anyone else.
4. Whether there was a record of any correspondence being sent by the court to
Manchester Legal Services Ltd in respect of Mr Qureshi.
5. Given that Mr Qureshi’s address was in Bristol, whether the court had a record of
transferring any correspondence or documents to the relevant court in Bristol.
6. Confirmation on what date the fee to lodge a Judicial Review claim increased from
£140 to £154.
7. Prior to May 2017, confirmation of when the Judicial Review claim form changed.
105. In response the Administrative Court stated that from records:
1. The item of post was accompanied by a fee remission form but the court does not
record who the item of post was received from, what was enclosed, or the names of
the parties.
2. A letter dated 15 September 2016 was sent by the court however the copy held by
the court differs from the one provided by Manchester Legal Services Ltd in that as

well as the address it included the person it was sent to ‘[name redacted] c/o Unit 8.’
In addition, the court reference number was different and the wording in the body of
the letter was different. It appeared that the letter had been amended after it had left
the court. Correspondence is sent by the court either by 1st
class post or DX, no
letters are sent by recorded delivery. A letter was sent by the court on 6 October 2016
to the same person as he letter dated 15 September 2016 although to a different
address however there is no subject heading so the court is unable to say for certain
what case it relates to. The court returns incorrect applications to whoever has sent
them, with this information coming from either the application form or the covering
letter. The court only retains a copy of their covering letter returned with the
application, it does not retain a copy of the incorrect application.
3. There is no case issued in the Upper Tribunal for Mr Qureshi. The Court was
unable to confirm if a claim was lodged in his name and subsequently returned.
4. The court attached the letter [dated 15 September 2016] sent to the Millennium
Centre, although it was not addressed to Manchester Legal Services Ltd and
therefore cannot be certain whether it related to Mr Qureshi.
5. There is no record of the court transferring any correspondence or documents to
the relevant court in Bristol.
6. The fee increased to £154 on 25 July 2016.
7. The T480 form changed in August 2016.
Information sought from Allday PA
106. Allday PA were provided with a copy of the nine messages which had been included
in the case file provided to the Commissioner by Ms Riaz, and asked whether they could
confirm the date, time, and content of each message.
107. In response Allday PA confirmed that the date and time of the nine messages were
accurate but were unable to provide any further information without the consent of their
client, Ms Riaz, or for the Commissioner to obtain the appropriate data protection release
request.
Information sought from Pitney Bowes
108. Pitney Bowes were provided with the envelope which Mr Qureshi stated contained
the JR claim form he received in June 2017, and were asked to confirm the company
name or address to which the franking machine reference number referred.
109. The Commissioner received no response from Pitney Bowes.
110. Having considered all the evidence received, the Commissioner considered that
Manchester Legal Services Ltd had possibly breached Codes 11, 14(c) and 53. The
Commissioner also requested further information from the organisation as detailed below.
Further possible Code breaches by Manchester Legal Services Ltd and additional
information requested from the organisation on 2 November 2017
111. The possible breach of Code 11 related to Mr Qureshi being misled into believing a
JR had been lodged for him.
112. In response Ms Riaz refuted this possible breach as a JR was never lodged.
113. The possible breach of Code 14(c) related to the Commissioner being misled as to
the nature of Ms Riaz’ representation of Mr Qureshi.
114. In response Ms Riaz refuted this possible breach claiming to have never misled the
Commissioner and that she has an exemplary record with the OISC. Ms Riaz added that

the OISC has breached data protection laws by approaching third party providers without
permission and requesting information it is not entitled to.
115. The possible breach of Code 53 related to the absence of attendance notes recording
the phone calls referred to below.
116. In response to this possible breach Ms Riaz stated that there was no requirement to
make a record of the calls as they were received after the file was closed. Also, the calls
recorded were of a vulnerable member of staff who was highly taken aback that Mr
Qureshi recorded him. Further, that the recording of the calls was in any event done
without consent and therefore illegal.
117. The Commissioner provided Ms Riaz with a list of 12 calls, identified from Mr
Qureshi’s phone records, made between 2 May 2017 and 19 June 2017 to Manchester
Legal Services Ltd’s number which lasted between four and fourteen minutes. Given that
Ms Riaz stated that she ceased to represent Mr Qureshi on 17 January 2017, she was
asked for her comments as to why there were no attendance notes or records on the
case files detailing the conversations.
118. In response Ms Riaz stated that having spoken to the member of staff who took the
calls he informed her that due to the volume of calls Mr Qureshi was making and after
asking him to refrain from calling he was confused by the manner in which Mr Qureshi
was talking to him. No notes were made of the conversations because the file was
closed.
119. Ms Riaz was provided with voice recordings of phone calls between Mr Qureshi and
Kenzel and asked to comment on the content of the conversations, all but one of which
post-date the last letter Ms Riaz claimed to have sent Mr Qureshi on 6 June 2017.
120. In response Ms Riaz referred to her previous response above adding that the
recording was done without consent and was illegal. Ms Riaz also questioned the ethics
of the OISC in using the recordings.
121. A further phone recording provided to Ms Riaz was from 12 June 2017 between Mr
Qureshi and a member of Allday PA staff. The call appeared to relate to the message Ms
Riaz received from Allday PA at 15:13, a copy of which was included on Mr Qureshi’s
case file. The message recorded on the case file from Allday PA is ‘Caller did not speak
but breathed heavily for 5 minutes, call then disconnected. Number came up.’ On the
recorded message however, which lasts approximately two minutes, Mr Qureshi spoke to
the Allday PA member of staff, provided the reason for his call and also gave his name
and phone number. He is told his message will be passed on to Ms Riaz.
122. Ms Riaz was asked to explain the discrepancy between the voice recording of the call
and the message in the e-mail she received from Allday PA.
123. In response Ms Riaz stated that Manchester Legal Service Ltd cannot guarantee that
all calls are logged and sent as messages from Allday PA, and it may be the case that
this message was not sent via an e-mail at that point by the member of Allday PA staff.
Ms Riaz added that two calls may have been made at the same time by Mr Qureshi and
he may have spoken on the second occasion.
124. Reference was made to the letter dated 6 June 2017 which Ms Riaz sent to Mr
Qureshi, addressed to him at 11 Norman Road, St Werburghs, Bristol BS2 9UJ and the
fact that Mr Qureshi claimed he had notified her of his change of address in his e-mail to
her on 15 May 2017. This e-mail and the rest of the chain were referred to at point 3 of
the Commissioner’s letter to Ms Riaz dated 8 September 2017. Ms Riaz stated in

response to that letter she had read the e-mail and ‘it is not the chain of email I have on
record.’
125. If Ms Riaz did not receive the e-mail on 15 May, she was asked when she was made
aware of Mr Qureshi’s change of address and to provide a copy of the correspondence in
which he made her aware of this.
126. In response Ms Riaz stated that when Mr Qureshi made the request for the
documents to be sent to him and paid the postage he gave his address over the phone.
This was documented on file as payment was taken over the phone.
Conclusions
127. Having considered the evidence provided by Mr Qureshi and Manchester Legal
Services Ltd, it is clear that both accounts differ significantly, particularly in terms of what
happened following Mr Qureshi’s Administrative Review application being refused by the
Home Office. Mr Qureshi claimed that Manchester Legal Services Ltd had dealt with a
Judicial Review claim form on his behalf whereas Ms Riaz claimed that she had not done
so. In considering whether the organisation have breached any of the Commissioner’s
Code of Standards, the burden of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
128. The Commissioner has carefully considered all the evidence provided by Mr Qureshi,
Ms Riaz, on behalf of Manchester Legal Services Ltd, and several third parties.
129. Ms Riaz claimed that following the Home Office’s refusal of Mr Qureshi’s application
for an Administrative Review, she explained to Mr Qureshi that his options were to lodge
an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal who can decide if the person has a right of appeal, or
to submit a pre-action protocol letter to the Home Office asking them to reconsider their
decision and putting them on notice that a JR would be lodged in the event that the Home
Office maintained their decision to refuse Mr Qureshi’s application for indefinite leave to
remain in the UK.
130. With regard to the JR, Ms Riaz claimed she had made clear to Mr Qureshi that her
registration with the Commissioner did not permit her to deal with such applications. In
this regard, Ms Riaz provided the Commissioner with a letter dated 16 December 2016
that she had sent Mr Qureshi informing him she would be unable to assist him with his JR
claim. In addition, Ms Riaz included an e-mail exchange on the case file between her and
Mr Qureshi also on 16 December 2016 in which she stated ‘Sorry my last email was sent
incomplete, phone error. They [the Home Office] did not respond so JR can be lodged
however I cannot do that, I will send you a letter in the post tonight with details.’
131. While Mr Qureshi did receive an e-mail from Ms Riaz on 16 December 2016, which
he provided the Commissioner with shortly after submitting his complaint about Ms Riaz
and Manchester Legal Services Ltd, this read ‘They [the Home Office] didn’t respond so
JR lodged.’ Mr Qureshi informed the Commissioner that the e-mail Ms Riaz had provided
to him (the Commissioner) was a fake. In addition, Mr Qureshi stated he had not received
the letter purportedly sent to him by Ms Riaz on 16 December.
132. At the request of the Commissioner, Ms Riaz forwarded her e-mail electronically.
When comparing the electronic version with the one from the case file, the
Commissioner’s caseworker identified a material difference in that the word ‘the’ in the
hard copy becomes ‘her’ in the electronic version. When asked, Ms Riaz’ explanation for
this discrepancy was that she uses a network printer and if two people print at the same
time then errors are common in the print. The Commissioner is not persuaded by this
explanation and believes instead that the e-mail has been altered. In support of this
conclusion, on reviewing the hard copy of the e-mail the way the message is set out
suggests that additional words have been included.

133. The Commissioner requested a Word version of both of the letters, the draft and the
one sent to Mr Qureshi, of 16 December be e-mailed to his caseworker. Ms Riaz failed to
provide this so it has not been possible for the properties to be reviewed in an attempt to
verify the date on which the letter was created. Ms Riaz was also asked to provide the
original certificate of posting for the letter but was unable to provide this as it had been
shredded once a copy had been taken as the organisation was moving to a paperless
record keeping system.
134. While the adviser can choose which method to send correspondence to their client,
the Commissioner notes that prior to December 2016 Ms Riaz had sent correspondence
to Mr Qureshi by e-mail and questions why she did not attach the letter to her e-mail of
16 December particularly as she was drafting both simultaneously.
135. An attendance note on the case file dated 17 January 2017 recorded that Mr Qureshi
had been calling the office constantly and hurling abuse. He had been asked not to
contact the office and that the organisation’s representation of him had ceased. A hand
written note added that there had been many calls between January and May.
136. On 15 May 2017, Mr Qureshi attended what he claimed was a pre-arranged meeting
with Ms Riaz. Ms Riaz claimed she was unaware of Mr Qureshi’s appointment until she
saw him at the office. Ms Riaz also claimed that she explained to Mr Qureshi she was no
longer representing him due to his outbursts over the phone. She claimed Mr Qureshi
began shouting and screaming, was rude, abusive and made threats towards her, and
had to be escorted from the office by a member of her staff.
137. Mr Qureshi denied behaving in the way described by Ms Riaz, claiming he left the
office ‘peacefully/amicably.’ In an attempt to establish the truth, the Commissioner’s
caseworker requested Ms Riaz provide the CCTV footage of the incident. Ms Riaz
considered this request to be unreasonable and in any event stated that the footage no
longer existed as it had not been retained and had been recorded over.
138. In an e-mail exchange Mr Qureshi provided the Commissioner between him and Ms
Riaz on 15 May 2017, at 10.34pm, in response to him providing details of his new
address Ms Riaz stated ‘Thanks, the court have said it needs to be on the new format
form and I have it on the old one so I need to now transfer it all. SO bear with me.’ When
this e-mail and its associated chain was put to Ms Riaz her response was that ‘it is not
the chain of email I have on record.’ Ms Riaz did not however provide the Commissioner
with any alternative e-mail chain from her records. In the absence of any evidence to
rebut the e-mail chain provided by Mr Qureshi or question its veracity, the Commissioner
has concluded that this is an accurate record.
139. It follows that, the Commissioner having found this e-mail chain to be accurate, then
Ms Riaz’ version of events earlier in the day during her meeting with Mr Qureshi is called
into question.
140. The Commissioner is of the view that if events unfolded during the meeting as
described by Ms Riaz she would not be engaging in a conversation with Mr Qureshi later
on that evening as evidenced by the e-mail chain. When asked for her comments on the
e-mail chain, while Ms Riaz stated that the e-mail chain was not the one she had on
record she failed to provide the Commissioner with her record. Although the
Commissioner asked Ms Riaz what form she was referring to in her e-mail, she failed to
respond. In the absence of any contrary evidence from Ms Riaz, the Commissioner has
concluded that the form is a JR claim form, notwithstanding that it appears the JR was
never lodged.

141. When asked when and how Ms Riaz had received details of Mr Qureshi’s new
address, to which she claimed she had returned his documents together with a covering
letter dated 6 June 2017, Ms Riaz claimed Mr Qureshi had phoned the office to provide
his new address. The Commissioner is not persuaded by this explanation given Ms Riaz’
claim that she had informed Mr Qureshi in January 2017 and May 2017 that she was no
longer representing him and had subsequently sent two him two text messages informing
him that he should no longer contact the office. Instead, the Commissioner believes that
Mr Qureshi made Ms Riaz aware of his new address in their e-mail exchange during the
evening of 15 May.
142. Included in the case file were nine messages which had been taken by Allday PA
staff from Mr Qureshi. These messages suggested that Mr Qureshi had been rude and
Ms Riaz described them as being of an abusive nature. Mr Qureshi however claimed that
he had always been respectful when he had spoken to a member of Allday PA staff.
143. The Commissioner attempted to verify the content of the nine Allday PA messages
with this company. While Allday PA confirmed that the date and time of each message
was correct, they were unable to provide any further details without the consent of their
client, Ms Riaz, or the applicable data protection release. The Commissioner is therefore
left in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to verify the information provided by
Ms Riaz with the third party, Allday PA, from whom it originated.
144. If, as Ms Riaz claims, the Allday PA messages she provided in the case file are
accurate, the Commissioner is unable to understand Ms Riaz’ vehement reluctance to
him seeking this verification which would corroborate Ms Riaz’ claims. The only inference
the Commissioner can draw from this is that the content of the nine messages Ms Riaz
provided to him differ from those recorded in the documents originally by Allday PA and
that the messages have been altered so as to portray Mr Qureshi in a poor light and to
support Ms Riaz’ version of events.
145. The Commissioner did, however, identify that one of the phone calls which had been
recorded by Mr Qureshi was with a member of Allday PA staff and that this appeared to
relate to a message Ms Riaz claimed she received from Allday PA at 15:13 on 12 June
2017 for which an e-mail was included on the case file. The Commissioner does not
accept Ms Riaz’ explanation for the discrepancy between the voice recording of the call
and the message recorded in the e-mail she received from Allday PA, that Mr Qureshi
may have made another call about same time and that he spoke on this occasion. The
Commissioner’s caseworker has checked Mr Qureshi’s phone records and while they
show a number of calls made to the Manchester Legal Services Ltd’s office number all
other eight of the messages taken by Allday PA, which are included on the case file,
appear to be sent from the company immediately after the call had been received.
146. With regard to the other call recordings between Mr Qureshi and Kenzel which the
Commissioner disclosed, Ms Riaz claimed the member of staff, Kenzel, whom the calls
were with, was confused by the manner in which Mr Qureshi was talking to him in given
the volume of calls he was making. Ms Riaz added that the recordings were made
without consent and were illegal.
147. Ms Riaz’ response would suggest that she has not listened to the recordings as
during three of them Mr Qureshi informed Kenzel that he was recording the calls, and on
three occasions Kenzel asked Mr Qureshi to play the recording back to him.
148. The Commissioner’s caseworker has listened to all the conversations and notes that
while both Mr Qureshi and Kenzel at times sound exasperated, Kenzel does not appear
confused during the conversations. The Commissioner notes that during the conversation
on 9 June 2017, Mr Qureshi asked Kenzel if he had the reference number yet. Kenzel

replied that he did not have this information but that he would provide Mr Qureshi with it
when he received it. Mr Qureshi also stated that Kenzel did not send him the letter he
(Kenzel) received from the court stating that he needed to apply to the court in Bristol,
and nor did he send him a copy of the documents sent to the court. Kenzel informed Mr
Qureshi that he would send these in due course. In addition, Mr Qureshi asked Kenzel if
he was sure they (Manchester Legal Services Ltd) sent through his documents to the
Manchester court who had sent it back to the organisation stating that Mr Qureshi
needed to pay an extra amount and that he needed to send it (the application) to Bristol
as that is where he lived. In response Kenzel confirmed that was the information he
received.
149. Also during the conversation, Kenzel reminded Mr Qureshi that he had phoned up the
court, the Home Office, and JR department to try and find out what happened to Mr
Qureshi’s documents.
150. During their first conversation on 12 June 2017, Mr Qureshi again asked Kenzel if he
had the reference number, which he had not. During their second conversation on that
date, Mr Qureshi stated that Kenzel promised to send him the letter which was received
from the court in Manchester where they asked that it (the application) was sent to the
Bristol court. Kenzel replied that he would need to obtain this from Ms Riaz.
151. During their conversation on 16 June 2017, Mr Qureshi asked about the content of a
letter that was due to be sent to him. Kenzel informed him that it contained a copy of what
had been sent to the court. Mr Qureshi asked about the reference number so that he can
check with the court that Manchester Legal Services Ltd sent them the documents, and is
informed by Kenzel that everything would be in the letter. When asked by Mr Qureshi
when he would receive the letter, Kenzel informed him that it would be sent out on
Monday so he should receive it by Wednesday or Thursday as it would be sent out by 2nd
class post.
152. During their conversation on 26 June 2017, Mr Qureshi informed Kenzel that he had
received the letter from Manchester Legal Services Ltd’s letter last week which did not
contain the mail tracking reference number to enable him to find out which court they sent
his documents to. Kenzel informed Mr Qureshi that he would have to get that from Ms
Riaz. Mr Qureshi also reminded Kenzel that he had told him the letter would contain the
reference number together with the letter that Manchester Legal Services Ltd had
received from the court in Manchester which asked for the application to be lodged in
Bristol rather than in Manchester. In response, Kenzel informed Mr Qureshi that he sent
him what he had so far.
153. While the recorded conversations Mr Qureshi had were not with Ms Riaz, the
Commissioner is of the view that the content of the conversations show Kenzel had
knowledge of Mr Qureshi’s case in the manner in which he responded to him. It is the
Commissioner’s view that the dates on which the recorded calls were made and their
content are significant as all but one of them were made after Ms Riaz purportedly sent
her final letter to Mr Qureshi on 6 June 2017.
154. Also, if, as Ms Riaz claimed, she had informed Mr Qureshi not to contact the office
the Commissioner finds it difficult to understand why a number of calls were still being
accepted from Mr Qureshi, with two of the conversations with Kenzel lasting over 11
minutes. If there was any confusion on Kenzel’s part during the conversations he had
with Mr Qureshi the Commissioner would have expected him to end the calls and make
Ms Riaz aware of the number of calls still being received.
155. The Commissioner notes that in the conversation on 26 June, Mr Qureshi referred to
a letter he received from Manchester Legal Services Ltd the previous week. One of the

documents Mr Qureshi provided the Commissioner with was a partly completed JR claim
form and typed grounds for review which he stated was received from Manchester Legal
Services Ltd. Mr Qureshi also provided the envelope which contained the documents
which showed it was an item of 2nd
class franked post sent in Manchester on 21 June.
While the Commissioner has not been able to establish which company the unique
franking number related to, he has concluded that this is likely to be the item of post to
which Kenzel referred in his conversation with Mr Qureshi on 16 June.
156. The Commissioner does not agree with Ms Riaz’ assertion that there was no
requirement for records to be made of these calls as by that time the file had been
closed. The Commissioner instead believes that relevant matters were discussed during
the calls and, as such, a record should have been made of them. By the failure to retain
any record of these calls Manchester Legal Services Ltd have breached Code 53 of the
Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
157. With regard to the Royal Mail reference number KX825278874GB which Ms Riaz
stated was given to Mr Qureshi in error, the Commissioner notes that Ms Riaz failed to
provide an explanation or comment on Mr Qureshi, in his e-mail of 9 March 2017,
specifically asking for the reference number for his Judicial Review and her not correcting
him. While the Commissioner has found no evidence of the JR claim having been lodged
by Ms Riaz on Mr Qureshi’s behalf, he suggests that this e-mail exchange is further
evidence of Mr Qureshi being misled into believing that such a claim was being dealt
with.
158. Given the information provided by the Administrative Court, the Commissioner is not
persuaded by Ms Riaz’ account of how the recorded delivery reference number appeared
on a piece of correspondence unrelated to Mr Qureshi’s case. Ms Riaz suggested that
the piece of correspondence may have related to one of the other three legal firms that
had offices based in the same building as Manchester Legal Services Ltd. However the
Administrative Court informed the Commissioner that their version of the letter showed
that it had been addressed to a named individual c/o Unit 8, which the Commissioner
notes is the organisation’s office number. The Administrative Court referred to other
differences between the versions of the letters suggesting that it had been amended after
it had left the court. The court also stated that they do not send letters by recorded
delivery.
159. The Commissioner is concerned, given his conclusions about alterations made to the
e-mail dated 16 December, that alterations have also been made to the court letter in
order to explain the recorded delivery reference number which was given to Mr Qureshi.
160. Ms Riaz was asked to provide the Commissioner with actual e-mails of which a copy
appeared in the case file, as well as Word versions of several documents which the case
file also contained. While Ms Riaz provided the actual e-mail chain between her and Mr
Qureshi on 16 December 2016, no other e-mails or Word documents were received. The
Commissioner has therefore been unable to review the properties of the Word
documents to establish when they were created or to compare the actual e-mails with the
hard copy.
161. One of the actual e-mail chains requested by the Commissioner was the exchange
between Ms Riaz and Mr Qureshi on 3 and 4 October 2016. The entire chain appeared
on a single page in the case file and while the first message is dated 3 October, the next
message is dated 4 October before the next two messages revert back to 3 October. One
of these messages from Mr Qureshi showed a different date and time from the e-mail
chain he provided the Commissioner. The final message in the chain, sent by Ms Riaz,
stated ‘As I have stated on many occasions I have lodged your PAP not your review.’
Given the discrepancies in the dates in messages within the e-mail chain, the

Commissioner is of the view that some of the messages have been altered in an attempt
to support Ms Riaz’ contention that she did not deal with Mr Qureshi’s JR.
162. Given the Commissioner’s findings about inconsistencies with Ms Riaz’ e-mails, this
leads the Commissioner to question the veracity of the e-mails provided by Ms Riaz,
between her and Mr Qureshi, regarding the issuing of the client care letter and of him
considering the option of lodging an appeal. The Commissioner has concluded, on the
balance of probabilities, that a client care letter was not sent to Mr Qureshi by Ms Riaz
and, as such, Manchester Legal Services Ltd have breached Code 23 of the
Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
163. The Commissioner believes that if Mr Qureshi had received the e-mail Ms Riaz is
purported to have sent him on 16 December 2016 or her letter of the same date informing
him that she was not permitted to undertake a JR on his behalf it would make no sense
that he would continue to contact Manchester Legal Services Ltd for six months after this
date rather than seeking to instruct an alternative representative who could assist him
with his JR particularly in view of the fact that he wished to expedite the matter. In fact, at
the point of making his complaint to the Commissioner, Mr Qureshi was still trying to
verify with Manchester Legal Services Ltd whether a JR had been lodged on his behalf
and was trying to obtain the Royal Mail reference number to confirm at which court the
JR had been lodged.
164. The Commissioner believes that, contrary to Ms Riaz’ assertion that she withdrew her
representation of Mr Qureshi in January 2017, she in fact continued to represent him until
June 2017 and misled him into believing that she was dealing with a JR claim on his
behalf. By undertaking such work and misleading Mr Qureshi into believing a JR claim
had been lodged on his behalf, Manchester Legal Services Ltd have breached Code 3
and Code 11 of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards. It is also clear from his mobile
phone records that throughout the period of representation, Mr Qureshi made a large
number of calls to Manchester Legal Services Ltd in an attempt to obtain updates on his
case. By failing to deal with Mr Qureshi’s calls appropriately, Manchester Legal Services
Ltd have breached Code 14(a) of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
165. Having reviewed the evidence provided by Ms Riaz, the Commissioner considers that
it contained a number of inconsistencies and some evidence was simply not credible.
The Commissioner is deeply concerned that e-mails which form part of the case file have
been altered by Ms Riaz or that she has withheld part of the e-mail chains so that the
conversations are taken out of context in attempt to support her claims, and by doing so
has misled the Commissioner as to the nature of Ms Riaz’ representation of Mr Qureshi.
As such, the Commissioner has found that Manchester Legal Services Ltd have
breached Code 14(c) of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
166. The Commissioner has considered the claims by Mr Qureshi and Ms Riaz regarding
the fees he was charged for the provision of immigration advice. Ms Riaz claimed that
there was an outstanding balance of £260 owed by Mr Qureshi. Given that the
Commissioner has concluded that Mr Qureshi was misled by Manchester Legal Services
Ltd into believing that there were dealing with a JR on his behalf, the Commissioner is of
the view that a proportion of the fees he paid should be refunded to him. This issue is
dealt with further in paragraph 170. While not affecting the amount recommended to be
refunded to Mr Qureshi, the Commissioner notes that VAT of £125 has been incorrectly
added to the invoice dated 1 October 2016, as VAT was not added to either of the
previous two invoices for the reason that Mr Qureshi was not a resident of the EU or UK.
167. With regard to the additional £14 fee, the Commissioner does not accept this related
to the photocopying and postage costs for documents sent to Mr Qureshi on 7 June 2017
and instead believes this fee is more likely to relate to the increase of the JR fee. The

Commissioner has reached this conclusion based on the e-mail conversation between Mr
Qureshi and Ms Riaz during the evening of 15 May 2017, and the fact that the fee
matches exactly the increase of the JR fee. In this regard, the Commissioner believes
this fee should also be refunded to Mr Qureshi.
168. The Commissioner is concerned that this complaint has raised serious issues with
regard to the conduct of Ms Riaz and Manchester Legal Services Ltd. The Commissioner
is particularly concerned that Ms Riaz misled Mr Qureshi into believing that a JR had
been lodged on his behalf when no such application had been made. As a result of Mr
Riaz’ actions Mr Qureshi’s immigration status has been jeopardised and is precarious as
he no longer has valid leave. The Commissioner considers that Ms Riaz and Manchester
Legal Services Ltd were directly responsible for Mr Qureshi becoming an overstayer.
Having considered the evidence in its entirety, the Commissioner is of the view that Ms
Riaz failed to act in Mr Qureshi’s best interests and as a result of this Manchester Legal
Services Ltd have breached Code 12 of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards.
169. It is a requirement that registered advisers satisfy the Commissioner that they are fit
to be regulated by him. It is the Commissioner’s view that Ms Riaz’ fitness to practise has
been seriously impaired by her actions and conduct during her representation of Mr
Qureshi and in how she has sought to mislead the Commissioner during his investigation
into Mr Qureshi’s complaint.
Other Points
170. Given the Commissioner has concluded that the payments made by Mr Qureshi of
£14 and £490 were made in respect of a JR application, the Commissioner recommends
that Ms Riaz refunds the amount of £504 to Mr Qureshi.
Commissioner’s action on substantiated complaints
171. The complaint is substantiated against Manchester Legal Services Ltd. The breaches
in this determination will be considered as part of the organisation’s continued registration
with the OISC.

Complaint determination c9017 - Shazia Riaz - Machester Legal Services

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Complaint determination c9017 - Shazia Riaz - Machester Legal Services

Similar to Complaint determination c9017 - Shazia Riaz - Machester Legal Services (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Complaint determination c9017 - Shazia Riaz - Machester Legal Services