Yvonne Hossack wins disciplinary hearing
Share
Solicitor Yvonne Hossack is free to continue her work campaigning against the removal of wardens from sheltered housing after winning a disciplinary tribunal.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority had taken Ms Hossack to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal accusing her of bringing her profession into disrepute.
The charges against her included accessing instructions from third parties without seeking clarification of the position and providing confidential information for third parties.
The tribunal, which concluded today, has made no order against Ms Hossack. Only one of the six allegations against her was proved, relating to confidential information, and this was only upheld at the lowest level.
Ms Hossack said of the ruling: ‘I think it was a little bit of a miracle because they’d built the gallows high, but the tribunal realised the gallows was built on sand. I hope this is a warning that this will not work, should not work, and is an abuse of my clients and the tax payers.’
She added: ‘The people that I’m most glad for are my clients.’
Ms Hossack has fought a number of high profile campaigns against the removal of wardens from sheltered housing schemes, and care home closures.
During the tribunal she called home secretary Alan Johnson as a witness, who confirmed he would be concerned if she was unable to represent the residents of a care home in his Hull constituency that is threatened with closure.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
kass | 18/09/2009 4:42 pm
Congratulations!!!... I look forward to your next victory!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kenton mann | 19/09/2009 12:19 pm
well done a modern robin hood, all councils and complainers a wake up call, l hope Dr Peter faces being struck off soon for bringing complaints against kind and caring people, shame on you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
george sankey | 19/09/2009 4:03 pm
Yvonne is a saint and I think she needs some recognition.
What a wonderful person.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vernony | 19/09/2009 10:54 pm
Brilliant: When you look at it logically, how would these town halls know if what she was doing infringed, or did not infringe the solicitors code of practice. In my opinion they must have sought advice way off the beaten path to try to find something (anything) 'to stop her'. In doing that it has divided her which would have been far better engaged in fighting for the vulnerable. I hope the electorate in those towns will remembers who did what, when it comes to and election
P.S. the SHUK Lines are buzzing with congratulations, to which we add ours
Vernon Yarjer
Chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Association
www.shelteredhousinguk.com
mailbox@shelteredhousinguk.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norman Adams | 21/09/2009 7:23 am
See the story made front page of the Independent [Saturday 19th September 2009]
Think this statement from Sir Anthony Grabham, a past president and chairman of the British Medical Association should be remembered.
"Her work is of enormous value and indeed is essential in a caring society. This tough butterfly should not be crushed."
Yvonne Hossack - we love you
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 21/09/2009 11:31 am
"Solicitor Yvonne Hossack is free to continue her work campaigning against the removal of wardens from sheltered housing after winning a disciplinary tribunal."
In a related discussion here on the removal or wardens I commented that it was gutter press journalism to state that Yvonne Hossack is undergoing a disciplinary case. Now that she has been cleared perhaps we can expect a higher level of reporting here. But what do we see? She is now being labelled a 'campaigner' and I again take issue.
Inside Housing reporters do not see Barnet or any other councils as 'campaigners' of removing resident wardens without consultation do they? Or the stacks of councils on the relentless drive to introduce floating support as campaigners. Yet that is precisely what they are.
Why dont IH reporters mention that floating support costs more and provides a lesser quality service? Surely that is an issue of more concern to its readers and the sector as a whole? Or even report on the fact that FS is a short-term service model being applied to a long term need for support
The personalisation of issues and labelling people only detracts from the issues being discussed and those issues are of far greater importance to the sector than the personalities involved. As IH has reported 110,000 older persons lost support in the first 3 years of SP - a fact. It has also reported that SP saves the public purse massively in sheltered housing - again a fact.
It has also reported the fact that the JR being brought is because councils reduced services without consultation - again a fact.
These are all of far greater importance than the person leading that fight - yet the absence of discussing the issues and the inclusion of labelling all detract from what are very important issues and not just for sheltered tenants, but for all vulnerable people that are accommodated in social supported housing.
Im sure many councils will disagree as it seems their rationale was to remove the 'bugbear' that Yvonne Hossack has become to them. Oops is that me doing the same? Or am i just paraphrasing what many have said on this site from council quarters?
Strange that you challenge councils (challenge - that one of the four 'C's of Best Value by any chance?) and you get labelled as an irritant. Yet councils challenging anyone else is the guardianship of the public purse, or some other such nonsensical phrase isnt it?
Even more interesting that councils try to adopt this 'moral' high ground when supporting amoral decisions such as the removal of services without any consultation. Long may they continue to be challenged.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Patrick Cullinane | 23/09/2009 1:51 am
“The Solicitors Regulation Authority had taken Ms Hossack to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal accusing her of bringing her profession into disrepute.”
How could solicitor Yvonne Hossack bring her profession into disrepute when the Solicitors Regulation Authority have already done this by allowing the Police and the Law Society to have a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between them, which is a violation of the Peoples rights to independent and impartial public services.
Did you know that the UK Police are also in Partnership with the Local Authorities and the Courts?
Did you know that ALL Public Servants (including ALL UK ‘Judges’) swear their oath of allegiance to serve the Monarch? - And NOT to the People and Justice!!
This is a clear violation of OUR rights under Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, as we are guaranteed independent and impartial TRIBUNALS established by LAW. The Courts that we have got now in the UK are Bureaucratic Kangaroo Courts and are not Courts of LAW.
Now you know why the Solicitors Regulation Authority took an exemplary solicitor like, Yvonne Hossack, to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, as she was railing against her oath to the Queen.
The justice system in the UK is in tatters for the want of solicitors like Yvonne Hossack.
Thanks Yvonne; now hopefully more solicitors will follow your example for the common good: - and we may even start to get compensation for our LONG suffering and losses: -
Report by Phillip Inman of The Guardian, Financial Section, Monday 25 August 2008
“Evidence put to the high court shows that Cullinane, far from owing tax, was due a rebate.”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/25/tax.taxandspending1
Report by Phillip Inman of The Guardian, Jobs & Money, Saturday May 10, 2003:
This man was right all along
Patrick Cullinane has fought a running battle with the Inland Revenue since the day he was accused of not paying income tax. And the taxman fought dirty - so dirty he lost his home and nearly lost his sanity. Now, a batch of confidential documents reveal fatal weaknesses in the Revenue's case. Phillip Inman reports: -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,952455,00.html
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Camden Tenant | 23/09/2009 4:03 pm
Common sense prevails at last.
This is what happens when a honest decent citizen trys to help others and goes up against the 'system'. A system that is so flawed and designed at every level to from the police to the courts from local councils to central government to oppress and harm decent law abiding people.
The state and dare I say the Crown are not our 'friends' and they do not have our best interests at heart - quite the opposite it seems.
In my experience If you aren't one of 'them' and don't operate as they do then you will be targeted for harassment and intimidation and your life will be made a living hell. This isn't right.
Welcome to 21st century Britain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Peters | 24/09/2009 10:01 am
If only all lawyers were as good and honest and trustworthy as Yvonne Hossak, then I might never have lost my home and property, and endured the breakdown of my marriage, all because of the actions of a crook who was aided and abetted by lawyers in evading his debts to myself.
For the proof of how it was done please visit my website at http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tmcnabb40@yahoo.co.uk | 26/09/2009 9:02 am
Perhaps mr. yarker should have attended the tribunal or asked his members too, as the shuk lines were buzzing, then he would have had a clearer understanding, and as he stated in the shuk "newsletter" he would,nt know the implications if yvonne lost, i can assure him those who made the effort to attend despite their disabilities could tell him what the implications would have been = MASSIVE. There is only one voice and leadership in these matters and that is the expert, loving, caring , devoted, determined, yvonne hossacks , others are support groups, individuals, and not remotely as qualified/experienced as yvonne.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment