Nigel Broadhead Mynard
32, Ransford Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 2QG.
, CM1 2QG.
Recognised body
61052
Decision - Closure
Outcome: Intervention
Outcome date: 9 February 2024
Published date: 14 February 2024
Firm details
No detail provided:
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
To intervene into the recognised body, Nigel Broadhead Mynard.
Reasons/basis
The Panel was satisfied that it is necessary to intervene to protect the interests of clients and former clients of the Firm - paragraph 32(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended).
Intervening agents
Emma Porter of Shakespeare Martineau LLP, SHMA SRA Interventions, PO Box 18228, Birmingham, B2 2HX has been appointed as the intervening agent.
For enquiries please call 0300 247 2470 or email Interventions@shma.co.uk
Decision - Sanction
Outcome: Rebuke
Outcome date: 20 June 2023
Published date: 1 August 2023
Firm details
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: Nigel Broadhead Mynard
Address(es): 32, Ransford Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 2QG.
Firm ID: 61052
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Decision details
The SRA has decided to rebuke Nigel Broadhead Mynard. It was found that:
- The firm breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles because it failed to comply with a decision of the Legal Ombudsman dated 30 November 2021, within the timeframe set by the Legal Ombudsman in relation to the complaint of Client A.
- The firm breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles because it failed to comply with a decision of the Legal Ombudsman dated 23 June 2021, within the timeframe set by the Legal Ombudsman in relation to the complaint of Client B.
The facts
- On 30 November 2021, in relation to a complaint made by a client (Client A), the Legal Ombudsman directed the firm to undertake remedial work by a certain date.
- The firm failed to comply with the direction to undertake work for 33 days after it had last been told to comply with it.
- On 23 June 2021, in relation to a complaint by a client (Client B), the Legal Ombudsman directed the firm to pay compensation of £250 to Client B by 19 July 2022 (which had been extended from 8 July 2022).
- The firm failed to comply with the direction to pay Client B until 31 October 2022.
Reasons/basis
The firm was rebuked and ordered to pay costs of £1,350.
This was because the firm’s conduct was serious by reference to the following factors in the SRA Enforcement Strategy:
- The firm’s failure punctually to carry out remedial work for Client A and to pay Client B his compensation late, adversely affected two members of the public who had already had to complain about the firm’s services.
- The harm and impact of the firm’s failure to do as the Legal Ombudsman directed at the time when it directed it to be done.
- There is evidence of repetition of the misconduct. Page 21 of 21 Final Decision - Confidential
A more serious sanction was not considered to be proportionate by reference to the following factors in the Enforcement Strategy:
- The matters had been remedied before they came for adjudication.
- The firm has acknowledged its shortcomings and has tried to take steps to prevent the conduct recurring. There is no finding of dishonesty or lack of integrity.
- There is no evidence of the firm intending to harm Client A and Client B. There is evidence of the firm failing to cope during a particular, defined period.
- The firm and the person responsible for handling the complaints were under considerable pressure at the relevant time, as they tried to stabilise the firm after the COVID pandemic and the loss of two members of staff.