Description:
The letter dated 29 July 2025 from Slee Blackwell Solicitors asserts that my correspondence, and that of others, is “virtually identical.” This is factually incorrect and misrepresents the independent, distinct nature of my letters, which are based on personal ownership, timeline, and evidence.
Such a mischaracterisation not only suggests a failure to treat each owner’s case individually, but also implies a generic and possibly orchestrated submission, which is not true in my case.
This blanket assertion risks undermining the authenticity and seriousness of my correspondence in the eyes of both the trustees and potential third parties, including legal bodies or the ombudsman.
Desired Outcome:
Formal correction or retraction of the statement regarding “virtually identical” correspondence and commitment from Slee Blackwell to treat all correspondence individually and to avoid blanket classifications that misrepresent the senders.
What Could Go Wrong:
Dismissal or devaluation of legitimate concerns due to presumed template-based submissions; in legal proceedings or correspondence.
Erosion of credibility in the dispute process, damaging potential settlement or negotiation outcomes.
Potential for escalation into a defamation or negligence claim.
Current Situation:
A letter was received on 29 July 2025 in which the solicitors stated: “We note that you and others have written virtually identical letters.” No evidence was provided to support this claim. My letters, in fact, differ materially in both tone and content and were constructed without reference to any group material or template. No further comment or clarification has yet been issued.
Action Strategy:
1. Raise the issue formally in a follow-up letter, requesting evidence of the claim or its retraction.
2. Add this Concern to the Open Concerns register for visibility and future reference.
3. Monitor for further instances of collective misrepresentation or procedural shortcuts.
4. Prepare a defamation impact note for potential use if mischaracterisation leads to quantifiable harm.
Concern Category:
Legal
Location:
UK
Analysis: Not available
| Snapshot History |
|---|
| C00271_250918.pdf |