Appeal for information
Paul Andrews and his fake law firm LSB INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES
It has come to our attention that Paul Andrews, our company's former Managing Director, has been pretending to be a legal advisor with a firm called LSB International Legal Services, operating from his home address of Luton.
Since September 2017, he has been using paper giving the solicitors registration number 420716 and the names Caroline Crawford. Mr Andrews has sent menacing letters to ourselves and various of our company's suppliers and collaborators, in an attempt to intimidate and disaffect them from dealing with Retro Computers Ltd along with the threats of legal action if the recipients do not comply with his demands.
We wish to advise you that there is no such law firm registered in the UK as LSB International Legal Services. Furthermore, the law firm registration number at the foot of the paper on which Mr Andrews has been sending these threats is the expired registration number of the firm Crawfords which has ceased trading some time ago.
If you have received a letter from this company, we ask you to contact us in confidence at email@example.com
[Chairman - Retro Computers Ltd]
5 Technology Park,
London NW9 6BX.
Telephone: 07717 220816
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org— David Levy
Right let’s get this one out of the way early today.
Levy made an ‘appeal for information’ the other day….
He claimed numerous things, as no doubt you all saw, from saying I gave a solicitors registration number, to saying I used a name of Crawford, and that I had sent menacing letters to people whatever that is supposed to mean.
To be clear, as usual, this is a combination of a using a small truth, and wrapping it in a series of outright lies about me by Levy, and for who knows what purposes, other than in an email sent to me on Wednesday the 2nd of May 2018, him knowing (as we had already crossed emails early that morning that I was not around for the rest of the day as having to attend a funeral), he emailed me, ending in the words –
“We intend to publish whatever we think fit of your emails to us”
Then he put out his ‘appeal for information’ post on Facebook that same day, even going so far as to do paid adverts on Facebook. I do not of course know what source the funds to run those adverts came from.
So for clarity I will attach scans of the actual/exact ONE email from myself, which was ONLY sent to the RCL lawyer which had/is/was representing RCL in the high court action over the shares, (the action we won, but have not yet had our costs repaid back to us by RCL or its current directors - YET). I had one reply back, which is also attached as a scan. The only thing removed from the scans is my home address and the obvious personal details of the lawyer and myself. As you will see, no registration number, no third person’s name called Crawford, none of that. It was not, and never has been sent to others, and no other email or letter sent anywhere else in this matter by me (using the LSB name), and basically to say that is just a lie, nothing more.
I will also briefly explain the motive behind this one and only letter.
It’s hardly a secret that as above, both ourselves and RCL spent a lot of money on the high court action over shares, and so on, no need to revisit that whole story again. But of course it’s always wise (in hindsight) to know facts before spending huge sums on lawyers.
(With no reference to this particular matter, but as a general, hypothetical thought. All of us know that technically it is possible to defend yourself in court, so while one the person you are up against uses lawyers, the other person does not. A person not using lawyers has no costs, and they could potentially try over and over again, to write many, many letters, and try to cost the person using a lawyer to spend a lot of time, money and effort both in and out of the court, only for the person using the lawyer to say win in court, and win costs, only for that person not using a lawyer to then claim they have no money, cannot pay, and so on, with that losing persons only ever aim to be, that even if you win you lose.)
Anyway back to this particular matter. A friend of a friend who is in Europe, and does various online help tasks, of varying types, suggested to my friend he do me a pretty standard off the shelf draft letter, (which is attached as was sent as above), to find out if Martin was using the services of the RCL lawyer in potential actions, of potential defamatory comments Martin was making online about myself. From any responses (which would cost me nothing more than an email and my time) it would then be possible to see what potential further action could be taken, by then handing it over to an actual UK lawyer in said matters, if it looked like spending money was worth it of course.
As it turned out, the RCL lawyer confirmed he was not, and clearly would not be acting for Martin is such matters, therefore no further emails/letters/anything was sent as above.
Never again using the letter from the friend of a friend again (i.e. the one and only time the LSB thing was used was the attached) but I did successfully (in terms of outcome) personally write some emails with regards to the prior hosting companies of the website – www.retrocomputerslimited.com – making it clear I would not tolerate defamation against myself on their servers. The first company clearly agreed, and the RCL website was moved to a second host, again we complained and so on, as you can see from the current state of that site, that’s without the very public falling out RCL has had with Mr Fogarty. To be clear I was one of several people who wrote on their own behalf to the hosting companies in related defamation matters.
So that’s pretty much it really, LSB is a name a friend of a friend, uses online. To be very clear on the law, it is perfectly acceptable to use the term ‘legal advisor, it is not acceptable to use the term ‘solicitor’. Unlike the on-going issues with the SRA which do concern solicitors, the SRA would have no interest or jurisdiction in this matter, no law was broken, no lies were told, it was nothing more than a one off exploratory email/letter, which served its purpose.
So there you go, a small truth, wrapped in a covering of lies, to what end I don’t know. Make of that what you will.
(Attached - scans of letter sent, covering email, email reply by RCL lawyer, and an example evidence ‘screen grab’ also sent to the lawyer)— Paul Andrews