Kevin Roy Mawer review: Inappropriate behaviour by IP 52

Dear all

I would like to share with you an article

Hope you find it interesting

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND : KARMA

Between [protected]  BHS, Caroline Construction, BSC Group, Patisserie Valerie and many others had thousands of employees around the world with developments and businesses focused to support families, through job creation and ethical business.

Those busniesses operated successfully for decades with their founders and management.

With the financial banking crisis KPMG like many other insolvency practitioners were introduced by their bankers as a consultant to support businesses with these difficult times under a misleading banner of "Restructuring Services". 

KPMG’s agenda under mainly David Costley-Wood, Richard Fliming, Kavin Roy Mawar and Andrew Wood "The group of corporate hijackers" so called Restructuring team at KPMG Leeds and Manchester.

Their aganda is to strip businesses of their assets and pass them over to their other connected clients at 20% of its assets market value. 

Like taking a car worth £1000 and selling it to your friend at £200 inorder for your friend to take you out for free meals over the years.

A live example outlined by Ex CEO of BSC Group "a building worth £20 million (81, Del Street, Manchester) valued by Savills was sold by KPMG to one of their connections for £3.45 million" to defraud creditors and home buyers. 

Equally GVA Grimley Mr Phillip Rogers insolvency practitioner sold BSC Group asset valued by CBRE International at £25 million to one of his connected clients for approximately £3 million pounds.

As GVA Grimley now known as Avison Young.

Has conducted similar behaviour towards 

Devon Commercial Property Limited as their insolvency practitioners Robert Adrian Barnett Former Chief Executive Officer at GVA Grimley Ltd and tried to steal millions by their actions from the company creditors. 

The high court judge HHJ Paul Matthews concluded:

In my judgment,  

 What I do accept is that, if the claimant "Devon Commercial Property Limited" proves a breach of duty, but the actions of the defendant "Robert Adrian Barnett GVA Grimley "prevent the claimant from adducing evidence to prove the value of his loss, the burden can properly be put on Robert Adrian Barnett GVA Grimley to show that the value was zero; otherwise it can be presumed to be the highest possible: compare Amory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505.  https://youtu.be/PNK737XXicw 

interesting history to learn from via youtube.

This shows clearly the law that the insolvency practitioners should not be allowed to sell assets at an under value without accountability. 

Not withstanding the current court findings that KPMG team conducted a dishonest conduct in the hundreds of millions against the pension of old retired people,   using the same tactics and under selling assets below their fair value in the hundreds of millions. 

Their conflict of interest is another word given to professionals when they commit fraud.

They are white collar fraud gang, that operate to take down good companies to make fees for their benefit at the cost of others, no matter how vulnerable their victims are.

By selling many assets at an under value to market price, these so-called professionals collect substantial fees from the party they colluded with, in order to facilitate a fraud for their benefit. 

Employees, creditors, home buyers, shareholders and pension holders, all suffer from their gross misconduct and fraud.

Those individuals go further, if any person oppose them and complain about their conduct, as Mr. Bashar Issa CEO of BSC Group did or Chris Marsh CFO of Patisserie Valerie, they use their police and tax connections to feed them any wrongful information "Dishonest Witness statements by Mr David Costley-Wood " with the aim to discredit their character and impose criminal charges against them, by doing so those individuals become distracted with new issues and stop highlighting KPMG fraudulent actions and gross misconduct, sorry so called "Conflict of Interest ".

The same tactics where used against the Chairman Mr Luke Johnsonof Patisserie Valerie, attempts where made to use the tax authorities for prosecution of tax fraud,   he was forced to accept KPMG misconduct and step down from highlighting their so called conflict of interest manoeuvres.

Eventually KPMG had to admit their conflict of interest position and step down, also it was David Costley-Wood as the main administrator acting as the main partner for KPMG. 

The likes of David Costley-Wood and his team at KPMG are singly responsible for billions of pounds sold at an under value towards the general public assets and by doing so, the likes of KPMG are one of the main reasons the UK economy has suffered major job losses and economical turmoil. 

The likes of KPMG team actions creates further damage in the business world and promote an attitude that white collar insolvency practitioners can, commit perjury and fraud with no consequences to them, with a misleading title of "Restructuring Services" .

The insolvency practitioners in the UK industry are unaccountable and created in a way that allows firms to defraud companies and average people for the benefit of so-called professionals, wearing business suits and acting in despicable manner. 

Today, the tribunals highlighted only one case out of many miserable stories.

The tribunal outlines at least how Mr David Castley Wood and his firm KPMG are DISHONEST and use practices of gross misconduct towards vulnerable pension holders at the amount sum in the hundreds of millions. 

This places all KPMG and manily David Costley-Wood past testimonials given under oath to be a question towards its validity and highlights the danger of the power they had, and the other Dishonesty meanvours they have created towards many other businesses and vulnerable groups of people. 

Today is the first step out of many to take in order to highlight those individuals’ action and misconduct.

For decades these insolvency practitioner live in multimillion pound houses and enjoy a rich lifestyle on the expenses of the pension holders, killing current and future employmen and businesses 

in reality the money they make is called proceeds of crimes. 

Only true criminal charges would strip these individuals " Ex KPMG partners and employees " from their ill gained money, through confiscation proceedings and or unexplained wealth orders.

As KPMG and their partners are so connected with the police and with the tax authorities, it is doubtful that the police or the tax authorities will take any actions against them to avoid harming their personal relationship with KPMG partners. 

This is a complaint blog set up by all KPMG ex staff to highlight their ongoing behaviour. Its a must read.
Dear 

I would like to share with you an article i have written to support your recent article. 

Hope you find it interesting

Regards 

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND : KARMA

Between [protected]  BHS, Caroline Construction, BSC Group, Patisserie Valerie and many others had thousands of employees around the world with developments and businesses focused to support families, through job creation and ethical business.

Those busniesses operated successfully for decades with their founders and management.

With the financial banking crisis KPMG like many other insolvency practitioners were introduced by their bankers as a consultant to support businesses with these difficult times under a misleading banner of "Restructuring Services". 

KPMG’s agenda under mainly David Costley-Wood, Richard Fliming, Kavin Mawar and Andrew Wood "The group of corporate hijackers" so called Restructuring team at KPMG Leeds and Manchester.

Their aganda is to strip businesses of their assets and pass them over to their other connected clients at 20% of its assets market value. 

Like taking a car worth £1000 and selling it to your friend at £200 inorder for your friend to take you out for free meals over the years.

A live example outlined by Ex CEO of BSC Group "a building worth £20 million (81, Del Street, Manchester) valued by Savills was sold by KPMG to one of their connections for £3.45 million" to defraud creditors and home buyers. 

Equally GVA Grimley Mr Phillip Rogers insolvency practitioner sold BSC Group asset valued by CBRE International at £25 million to one of his connected clients for approximately £3 million pounds.

As GVA Grimley now known as Avison Young.

Has conducted similar behaviour towards 

Devon Commercial Property Limited as their insolvency practitioners Robert Adrian Barnett Former Chief Executive Officer at GVA Grimley Ltd and tried to steal millions by their actions from the company creditors. 

The high court judge HHJ Paul Matthews concluded:

In my judgment,  

 What I do accept is that, if the claimant "Devon Commercial Property Limited" proves a breach of duty, but the actions of the defendant "Robert Adrian Barnett GVA Grimley "prevent the claimant from adducing evidence to prove the value of his loss, the burden can properly be put on Robert Adrian Barnett GVA Grimley to show that the value was zero; otherwise it can be presumed to be the highest possible: compare Amory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505.  https://youtu.be/PNK737XXicw 

interesting history to learn from via youtube.

This shows clearly the law that the insolvency practitioners should not be allowed to sell assets at an under value without accountability. 

Not withstanding the current court findings that KPMG team conducted a dishonest conduct in the hundreds of millions against the pension of old retired people,   using the same tactics and under selling assets below their fair value in the hundreds of millions. 

Their conflict of interest is another word given to professionals when they commit fraud.

They are white collar fraud gang, that operate to take down good companies to make fees for their benefit at the cost of others, no matter how vulnerable their victims are.

By selling many assets at an under value to market price, these so-called professionals collect substantial fees from the party they colluded with, in order to facilitate a fraud for their benefit. 

Employees, creditors, home buyers, shareholders and pension holders, all suffer from their gross misconduct and fraud.

Those individuals go further, if any person oppose them and complain about their conduct, as Mr. Bashar Issa CEO of BSC Group did or Chris Marsh CFO of Patisserie Valerie, they use their police and tax connections to feed them any wrongful information "Dishonest Witness statements by Mr David Costley-Wood " with the aim to discredit their character and impose criminal charges against them, by doing so those individuals become distracted with new issues and stop highlighting KPMG fraudulent actions and gross misconduct, sorry so called "Conflict of Interest ".

The same tactics where used against the Chairman Mr Luke Johnsonof Patisserie Valerie, attempts where made to use the tax authorities for prosecution of tax fraud,   he was forced to accept KPMG misconduct and step down from highlighting their so called conflict of interest manoeuvres.

Eventually KPMG had to admit their conflict of interest position and step down, also it was David Costley-Wood as the main administrator acting as the main partner for KPMG. 

The likes of David Costley-Wood and his team at KPMG are singly responsible for billions of pounds sold at an under value towards the general public assets and by doing so, the likes of KPMG are one of the main reasons the UK economy has suffered major job losses and economical turmoil. 

The likes of KPMG team actions creates further damage in the business world and promote an attitude that white collar insolvency practitioners can, commit perjury and fraud with no consequences to them, with a misleading title of "Restructuring Services" .

The insolvency practitioners in the UK industry are unaccountable and created in a way that allows firms to defraud companies and average people for the benefit of so-called professionals, wearing business suits and acting in despicable manner. 

Today, the tribunals highlighted only one case out of many miserable stories.

The tribunal outlines at least how Mr David Castley Wood and his firm KPMG are DISHONEST and use practices of gross misconduct towards vulnerable pension holders at the amount sum in the hundreds of millions. 

This places all KPMG and manily David Costley-Wood past testimonials given under oath to be a question towards its validity and highlights the danger of the power they had, and the other Dishonesty meanvours they have created towards many other businesses and vulnerable groups of people. 

Today is the first step out of many to take in order to highlight those individuals’ action and misconduct.

For decades these insolvency practitioner live in multimillion pound houses and enjoy a rich lifestyle on the expenses of the pension holders, killing current and future employmen and businesses 

in reality the money they make is called proceeds of crimes. 

Only true criminal charges would strip these individuals " Ex KPMG partners and employees " from their ill gained money, through confiscation proceedings and or unexplained wealth orders.

As KPMG and their partners are so connected with the police and with the tax authorities, it is doubtful that the police or the tax authorities will take any actions against them to avoid harming their personal relationship with KPMG partners. 

By doing nothing only allows other insolvency practitioners to continue their use of power as they see fit without any further recurs.

By doing nothing only allows other insolvency practitioners to continue their use of power as they see fit without any further recurs.

South Yorkshire's Economic Crime Unit in Sheffield, founded the Yorkshire and Humber Fraud Forum.
Its founder director was the same person who held the position of Detective Chief Inspector at Sheffield's ECU.
After retiring, he returned as a civilian and is now a manager, at the same ECU, although all traces of his existence appear to have been wiped from YHFFs website.

The YHFF is affiliated with KPMG in Leeds and although its founder director from Sheffields ECU resigned earlier this year, it still has 5 members.
One, currently heads up the Investigation and Compliance unit, at KPMG in Leeds.
Its Chairman is a Fellow of the ICAEW, who was once a partner at KPMG in Leeds, where he worked with the forensic accounting teams.

The IP in question has appeared as a guest speaker at YHFF seminars.
Against all the odds, he remains a Fellow of the ICAEW, and defies logic, by being a current member on its Appeal Committee.
He does not know How to Win Friends, but to paraphrase Carnegie, he sure knows how to Influence People.

See...
http://chamber.strawberryadmin.co.uk/uploads/resources/Tackling%20Business%20Fraud%20Masterclass.pdf

Unfortunately, setting up on his own will only allow him more autonomy. Nobody, least of all his Ruling Body, has been able to control him. Ever. No matter how much exposure and vitriol is evidenced, he still manages to hold his own. He is incapable of lying low. It is not even financial reward that motivates him: as many of his victims can testify, he has earned no monies from them, or recouped anything on behalf of their alleged creditors. No, instead, this man who masquerades as a human being, loves the cut and thrust of his unfettered pursuits. He positively embraces the chase, and the kill. He is like Mr Brooks without the fatal blow, but there are many ways to take a life, and it does not always end in death.

As for ICAEW, no one should hold out any hope. They have known about his behaviour for years. They have had complaints, dossiers even and yet not only do they investigate him and do nothing, but also allow him the privilege of being a member on their Disciplinary Panel, elevating him to their Appeal Committee only recently. Imagine, a fellow accountant appealing to another, but who has no soul?

Now he has no one to report to, no one to examine his deeds. All conducted whilst having the support of the ICAEW. This impunity is indeed mystifying. Who knows, perhaps his relationship with someone at South Yorkshires Economic Crime Unit helps?

Unfortunately, setting up ‘on his own’ will only allow him more autonomy. Nobody – least of all his Ruling Body – has been able to control him. Ever. No matter how much exposure and vitriol is evidenced, he still manages to hold his own. He’s incapable of lying low. It’s not even financial reward that motivates him: as many of his victims can testify, he’s earned no monies from them, or recouped anything on behalf of their alleged creditors. No, instead, this ‘man’ who masquerades as a human being, loves the cut and thrust of his unfettered pursuits. He positively embraces the chase, and the kill. He’s like Mr Brooks without the fatal blow, but there’s many ways to take a life, and it doesn’t always end in death.

As for ICAEW, no one should hold out any hope. They’ve known about his behaviour for years. They’ve had complaints – dossiers even – and yet not only do they investigate him and do nothing, but also allow him the privilege of being a member on their Disciplinary Panel, elevating him to their Appeal Committee only recently. Imagine: a fellow accountant ‘appealing’ to another, but who has no soul?

Now he has no one to report to, no one to examine his deeds. All conducted whilst having the support of the ICAEW. This impunity is indeed mystifying: who knows, perhaps his relationship with someone at South Yorkshire’s Economic Crime Unit helps?

Kevin was supposedly sacked by Begbies Traynor for not producing results. He went to them with promises of returns which did not come to fruition. By all accounts he was responsible for a large part of the losses suffered by BGT which was profitable until his arrival when it quickly became a loss making division. Since he departed they are hoping to recoup the losses and turn around the division. There were lots of IPs made redundant at the same time as his arrival, who were good IPs and generated income for the company. There was a lot of discontent when he was employed in an insolvency capacity but quickly damaged their reputation, created large complaints and caused significant loss by under delivering and wasting money. and achieved very little other than alienating people in the company, accrued lots of hours of recorded WIP with no results or prospect of results, empty promises at updates so they wanted to cut him out as soon as possible.

This is supposedly the reason he lasted just over a year with the company! There was far more management control than an earlier poster gave as the reason for him joining as they were quick to spot the deficiencies. BT allegedly did not like the drama he created whilst in office. A colleague tells me he has gone to set up on his own...as a one man band so he has no management to answer to and can be set free to act how he wants...probably until the law or his regulator steps in...or until he makes himself go bust by the same behaviour. Time will tell.

lawgrad,
At the seminar what exactly did Mawer say in regard to his opponents?
Did he mention any of them by name, and was he gloating?

I attended a seminar with this guy last year and it was absolutely dreadful! I couldn't believe the organisers of the conference would book such a poor speaker among so many other great speakers in a high profile event for professionals. The session description looked great and that's why I booked it as I was interested to hear his views however the content was bad, the presentation worse and the speaker did not properly engage with the attendees. His delivery was substandard and speaking style leaves a lot to be desired. In short, he should not be doing public speaking.

Kevin Mawer clearly thinks that he is something special and his own sense of self importance was the only part of the lecture which resonated. How he can put himself out as an expert offering services to the legal profession beggars belief. Some of his strategies are questionable and the derogatory manner in which he referred to his opponents was less than impressive. I don't think he even knew he was doing it. Just force of habit.

I would not suggest going to any seminar he is taking unless you want a lesson in how not to do things. The comments on this page are not surprising and had I seen them first, I would have never have booked his session.

Kevin has parted company from Begbies Traynor in August 2013 after they let him go. He didn't last long! Wonder why?

Irwin Mitchell is the legal firm they tend to use to my knowledge. They are very aggressive which is what Begbies need.

I am now putting together a dossier with a view to getting national exposure of the ethics and practices of these "Officers of the Court". There are so few cases that get exposed at Court and I genuinely believe this is because the IP's withdraw and settle out of court once they have been rumbled; so the courts maintain their belief that such IP's conduct themselves with the integrity one assumes applies to an officer of the court!

It would appear that the problem is not isolated to one IP in particular at this firm, nor indeed one office! It appears to be widespread across their network of offices. I would be particularly interested to know which firm of solicitors acted for these IP's because in my experience these breaches of codes of ethics do not apply solely to the firm of liquidators.

Oh dear, Begbies Leeds is going to be full of them now. I am dealing with an IP at Begbies Leeds and he is just the same as Mawer...relentless but he has picked the wrong person to mess with. He has not gone so far as to have me followed or clone my mobile but he is just the same in other ways. He sends letters so they arrive on Christmas Eve, Birthdays and weekends just to upset us (little does he know we don't open our post on these days). I get the impression he is trying to place a wedge between me and my husband but it has not worked, in fact it has the opposite effect, our legal advisor has told me that this is how they work hoping you will call them and offer them £30, 000 to go away, hahaha. This industry is one of the worst next to Lawyers then accountants. You feel hounded and quite frankly you feel your rights as a human are being breached by not allowing you to enjoy life like you should. These legal crooks can string things out dfor as long as they want and basically it is all a money making exercise.

Pam Johnson Lucker: It pains me to hear of the person close to you who was suicidal. Lamentably, I identify only too well with these thoughts, although that will be of little comfort to the friend you speak of.

You talk of the victim offering to supply Kevin Mawer with her medical records (in an attempt to get him to back-off), but that he had “no interest.” This differs considerably from my own personal experience with Mawer, who conversely, is morbidly obsessed with my medical history.

A small incident occurred around five years ago, that I didn’t give much thought to [at the time], but given subsequent happenings, I have since formed a theory.

One morning whilst at home, I received a call from my GP’s surgery. The receptionist informed me that my call was being “returned” and that she had the “information for me.” I thought a simple mistake must have been made, so replied that I hadn’t rang the surgery. I learned that a ‘female’ - masquerading as me - had telephoned asking to be “reminded” of what ‘current’ medication ‘I’ was taking, only for the receptionist to inform the caller that she couldn’t divulge that information unless she contacted ‘me’ on my registered home telephone number. She went on to ask the most basic details from the impostor, such as my home telephone number, post-code, spouses name and D.O.B. and said that the woman appeared to be disguising her voice, and when questioned explained that she “had a sore throat”; arousing the receptionist’s suspicions.

Aside from the notion that no right-minded person would need to be reminded of their current medication, it is safe to assume the deceitful communication was not an accident, but to serve someone’s purpose.

I am a quiet individual, and have been married a long time, with no children. My darling Mother died six months ago and up until her untimely death, I had nursed her constantly for the previous two years. No one outside of those closest to me has ever been interested in me except a very perverse individual who has a morbid – I repeat, morbid – obsession with me.

I was raised by a profoundly intelligent woman, and grandmother and like to think I have an innate sense of goodness and reasoning. I have equally been described as courageous, which given my loathing of injustice, does not sit well with the likes of Kevin Mawer.

I am not looking for any pity (far from it), but it indeed would be an understatement to say the past ten-years have been tough; at times unbearable. When my Mother died, I was paralysed with grief and a few weeks ago, I was admitted to Hospital with a suspected heart attack. Whilst being registered, we were notified that according to my NHS records, ‘I’ had altered my long-standing home address, by being temporarily registered elsewhere? I also managed to discover the temporary medical centre/surgery ‘I’ registered with (in an adjoining County), which strangely I have no recollection of ever visiting. You can fill in the gaps, but you have to question the mind-set of someone who goes to the trouble of organising a female to physically imitate me, for reasons, which I can only speculate upon at this time.

In answer to The Mawer Files question "how much of your assets went to your creditors" and "how much did Kevin Mawer take for himself/his firm, " the short answer is very simple:-

A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

In our case, it was never about financial gain, which is why Kevin Mawer's pursuit was nothing more that a very long, and very personal vendetta.

A person close to me was suffering from depression when they had their affairs managed by Kevin Mawer. They actually contemplated suicide - and I am not joking, because the relentless pursuit of them was so bad, the threats, the bullying, the insults. The same things mentioned on here and other forums. It did not stop and they could not see any other alternative. He was even told about the sickness but he did not stop and said he has no interest in medical records when offered - they are private - even though nothing else seemed to be. Luckily, they got professional help and came through it with a stronger mind but it is no laughing matter and do not under estimate the pain and suffering that it can cause. There is no one to complain to because due to conflicting priorities a complaint can only be handled by the person who is in office. If that person is a bully or acting unprofessionally then they will dismiss it and enjoy the gratification that he is bringing such distress to them. I imagine that is why people describe themselves as victims? I posted this a while back on the other forum but it was deleted - close to the mark maybe? - so hope not this time because it has to be said and people need to know - there should be reforms and better laws to govern people who can do enormous damage and the employers, like Begbies Traynor should have higher moral corporate governance standards than accepting bailiff behaviour by Insolvency Practitioners. All companies need to make money but sometimes, at what consequence? It can destroy lives when professionals conduct their work in the way described on here...

For anyone who needs more information about Kevin Mawer, I have started a thread called ''Kevin Mawer - Misconduct Complaints'' on this site which is a summary in chronological order from various sites. This is to inform about people's experiences with Kevin Mawer and so they can objectively consider the professional that they are or maybe dealing with - creditors, sponsors, debtors, directors all included.

Interception of communications - this is a terrible ordeal to have to read and it seems like nothing more than a personal vendetta which is what many people complain about. The question is - did he actually get any money from you? All of this time and cost but for what? I assume your assets had gone into your estate but then surely that would be the end of it? How much of your assets went to your creditors and how much did Kevin Mawer take for himself/his firm from those assets in fees? This is an important point as courts generally do not like practitioners taking everything for themselves and leaving nothing for the creditors if their fees and costs are unusually high? It would be good to have a better understanding?

‘Man With A Vendetta’

Insolvency practitioners’ work, within the constraints of civil law and to clarify, ‘misfeasance’ is a charge brought in civil procedures. If Kevin Mawer’s subjects/victims were truly suspected of the assorted fraud(s) he vicariously accuses them of, they should be charged with ‘malfeasance’. But, that would be a matter of state (ie Police), and of course working in the grey civil realms of the Insolvency Rules, is what allows liquidators/trustees like Kevin Mawer their autonomy, whilst equally earning them a crust.

Lest anyone be in any doubt, I am in no way predisposed to any type of deception and for the record, nor was my husband suspected of ever being involved in Kevin Mawer’s entirely fabricated fraud against the both of us. But then, when did the small matter of the truth ever get in his way?

Kevin Mawer spent almost 7-years securing our absurd misfeasance Trial, and shortly after his legal-buddy managed to have the original Circuit Judge replaced with a more suitable one [of their choice], it was with great reluctance, that my husband and I petitioned for our own bankruptcies. Consequently, we lost everything we owned. We even had to surrender our life insurance policies due entirely to Kevin Mawer draining of us of every last vestige; including our sanity. There are simply no words to adequately convey the onslaught of his [then] bitter 7-year vendetta. As all those who have encountered him will know, he can be a formidable force, but despite his monumental ego, cannot quite manage everything himself, and seeing as he lacks the finesse of the legal due process part, requires more than a touch of outside assistance, to execute – and influence - his deeds.

The extending sway Kevin Mawer unashamedly enjoyed [within the justice system], became ever more apparent as time went on, and no matter what firm of solicitors we employed, or however vigorously we fought him (and his ‘Two.Cohorts’), we had limited rights. We were met with casual indifference, and even when we managed to attract interest, that support mysteriously dissipated: and swiftly. It felt like we were ensconced in a dystopian world: except it was centred in Leeds. By the time of our ‘show-Trial’, Kevin Mawer’s vicious pursuit had escalated to such a degree that even if he wanted, he couldn’t back out, so was forced to proceed with his bogus misfeasance charge. Securing a bogus judgment Order against us seemed hollow (he had personally ensured we were financially bereft and without assets, long before), so ostensibly, he had nothing to gain? Or so it appeared.

Kevin Mawer’s imperative had always been to force us into bankruptcy and be installed as our trustee – he was open about that - and the best way to do this was to invent false charge(s), forcing us into court Hearings. The method in his madness was the inescapable financial burden of us footing our own legal bills: as well as HIS. He had tried earnestly to get the court to declare us bankrupt back in a couple of years before the show-Trial (as a result of struggling to cover his mounting legal costs), but despite his persistence, and against all his legal wrangling, we managed to overcome this. Until that is, his legal-buddy inflated Kevin Mawer’s costs – on the DAY of the bankruptcy Hearing: but he was foiled at the eleventh hour, with the Judge (in Our.Home.City) insisting that an out-of-court settlement be reached. The significance of legal proceedings in Our.Home.City will be expanded upon in a later paragraph.

As we were all but bankrupt [in name], we were permanently baffled at Kevin Mawer’s rapacious need to be installed as our trustee? After all, by the time of our show-Trial he had effectively been the uninvited ‘third person in our marriage’ for almost 7-years, and appeared to know everything about us: even our most intimate of words. But, what we weren’t aware of, was that [post-Trial], he needed to guarantee that we never had the ability to appeal the bogus misfeasance Order: with the Court of Appeal, for this would surely have evidenced all of his (and ‘His.Cohort’s’) corruption and collusion. The fundamental [civil] law that we were unaware of though - but our enemy knew - was that as bankrupts (and under current Insolvency Rules), we had NO legal rights – whatsoever – to lodge an Appeal (against an Order), except for a personal injury or an immigration matter: UNLESS our trustee in bankruptcy AGREED!

Therefore, it was crucial to Kevin Mawer, that he became our trustee, and at whatever cost. After the failed bankruptcy Hearing though, Kevin Mawer and his ‘Two.Cohorts’ ruthlessly continued with their concocted charge of misfeasance, with a Trial finally being scheduled almost two-years later.

Timeline:
The week before the show-Trial: As we petitioned our own bankruptcies, we immediately came under the jurisdiction of the Official Receiver in Our.Own.City: so they automatically became our Trustee in Bankruptcy. Although the OR is impartial in such matters, from the onset, we made them aware of everything that had happened to us, and how we had been forced into bankruptcy. As a consequence of being bankrupt, we were ordered not to attend the misfeasance Trial at Leeds Chancery and accordingly, the Judge [of Kevin Mawer and his legal-buddy’s choice] was informed of this.

Day of the show-Trial: In an act that can only be described as scandalous, the Judge ignored legal direction by allowing the scheduled TWO-day ‘show-Trial’ to proceed. In actuality the Hearing lasted approx 35 minutes, without any of our substantive Defence being read. So, despite our following formal legal advice and informing HH Judge ‘L’ (in writing) - prior to the Trial – that a judgment Order should not be entered against us under section 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as well as the Official Receiver’s intervention, the Applicant’s fragrant female barrister managed to persuade the Judge to enter an Order under CPR 39.3 for our ‘non-attendance’!

This was a grotesque travesty and made a mockery of English law, civil or otherwise.

The day after the show-Trial: Kevin Mawer’s legal-buddy made a formal request to the Official Receiver – in Our.Home.City – for them to make an application to the [then] Secretary of State (Pat McFadden MP), for the appointment of Kevin Mawer (and his KPMG colleague) to become our joint trustees in bankruptcy.

One month later: Despite our compliance - and despite the Official Receiver being our trustee – the OR was obliged to make applications to the Secretary of State: on behalf of Kevin Mawer. At that stage (and I quote from the OR’s formal correspondence to the Secretary of State) they wrote, “the Official Receiver was aware of a possible conflict of interest” and that, “this has been put to Kevin Mawer, who stated that he had no professional conflict.“

The OR went on to state that, “they were also aware that complaints had been made by [us] to the relevant professional bodies in respect of the conduct of [‘His.Sponsor’], ‘Kevin Mawer’, and also [‘Their.Joint.Solicitor’] acting for Kevin Mawer and ‘His.Sponsor’.”

Three days later: The might of Kevin Mawer and 'His.Cohorts' was met with resistance however, for under Section 296(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Secretary of State DECLINED to make the appointments. A letter was received from the Insolvency Practitioners Unit (on behalf of the Secretary of State) setting out the reasons for NOT appointing Kevin Mawer and his colleague, and I quote [verbatim] from said letter:-

“Given the pending complaint involving Kevin Mawer, the Secretary of State does not consider it is appropriate at this time to appoint Kevin Mawer as Trustee or any other practitioner with whom he has a working relationship.”

Note: the formal complaints referred to, and lodged by us, were in fact a comprehensive 32-page dossier to the ICAEW (regarding Kevin Mawer and ‘Their.Joint.Solicitor’), as well as the Insolvency Practitioner’s Association (regarding the conduct of ‘His.Sponsor’). I might add that up until that time period, the complaints did not extend to what happened from the following year onwards, including the illegal interception of our communications; illegal break-ins culminating in stolen data ending up in the hands of our enemy; illicit communications with estranged relatives; Police intervention or Kevin Mawer’s ‘magnum opus’, which I will reveal at a later stage.

The following day: As ever, Kevin Mawer was undeterred and despite the Secretary of State’s refusal the day before, the Official Receiver received a letter from ‘His.Sponsor’ requiring ‘either’:-

(a) “The appointment of ‘Kevin Mawer as Trustee by the Secretary of State”
or that
(b) “Meetings of creditors be convened in accordance with Section 294 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (requisitioned meetings).”

Note 1: As our formal trustee, the Official Receiver had already deemed it pointless to call a creditors’ meeting, because we were fully compliant and had been stripped of all our worldly goods – ie humiliated in the process.
Note 2: The latter proposal insisted upon, guaranteed that ‘His.Sponsor’ could automatically install Kevin Mawer as our Trustee, without any legal encumbrance.

The [misfeasance] claim, against us was egregious in its entirety. Not so much manipulated as invented. An outright deception, but as we had come to learn during the preceding years, the grey realms of civil law is open to the most flagrant abuse, by rapacious self-serving reprobates, with limited rights for their victims.

One month later: The Official Receiver was powerless, and accordingly a creditors meeting was convened for three weeks later. As one would expect the OR invited us – to attend our own creditors meeting.

Note 1: Despite being [automatically] invited by the Official Receiver to attend our own creditors meeting, shortly before it was due to take place, we were informed that a formal request had been made by ‘His.Sponsor’ and the offer had been withdrawn, meaning we could NOT attend after all!
Note 2: Incidentally, Despite all the activity against us emanating from Leeds, Kevin Mawer and ‘His.Sponsor’ had the impudence to call the creditors meeting at the Official Receivers’ office in Our.Home.City (oh yes!), and not only did Kevin Mawer; ‘His.Sponsor’ or ‘Their.Joint.Solicitor’ not attend; but no creditor did either. What a mockery.

After his farcical installation as our trustee, we immediately lodged a claim with the County court in Our.Home.City to have Kevin Mawer and his colleague’s appointment rescinded under Rule 6.94(2) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, and the outcome of that – and the sheer level of corruption involved – still defies belief.

Despite my not telling anyone of this (by email or otherwise), unknowingly I must have been followed to the court – in Our.Home.City - because the next thing we knew, our Application (for once we became the Appellants), miraculously found its way to LEEDS CHANCERY: ie it was transferred! I immediately visited Our.Home.City court, informing a clerk that an error had been made, and in line with English constitutional law, our Application MUST be heard at the court where we were made bankrupt. She was just as confused, and I waited whilst she went to see the actual District Judge (who had agreed to transfer the case), but she came back and reported that it now had to be heard at the same court as our [bogus] misfeasance Order?” I politely informed her of the legal status, in that our Application against Kevin Mawer as trustee was in no way legally connected to Leeds Chancery. She understood and diligently went back to the Judge in Chambers, but quickly came back with a message from the Judge, who told her to inform me that, if I protested “any further”; he would (and I quote) “get very cross!”

Manifestly unjust – and illegal – but no matter how many lines of enquiry I executed, no one was willing to divulge exactly who made the formal transfer request for our Application (to have Kevin Mawer removed as our formal trustee), other than it was requisitioned from “someone in Leeds Chancery.”

Two months later: So unconstitutionally, our case against Kevin Mawer was indeed heard in Leeds Chancery: despite it not being a Chancery matter. We even engaged the Official Receivers’ formal solicitors (TLT) beforehand – and PAID for this service (as bankrupts!) and at the Hearing, the DEPUTY Official Receiver from Our.Home.City even attended.

Note: Before attending, we had compiled an excellent [self-penned] witness statement, corroborating the unsuitability (ie injustice) of Kevin Mawer remaining as our trustee. To give impetus, we evidenced in our court bundle, irrefutable proof of Kevin Mawer’s historic untruths’, perjury, and his suppression and withholding of [crucial] evidence. I even applied ahead of the Hearing, for an official court tape recording of a previous Hearing, to be played. This alone, would give gravitas to what had been falsely stated in our Opponents’ witness statements [previously], against which differed from what they stated [in separate writings to us]. The court clerk confirmed – to me - via email, that the Judge had agreed for the specific tape to be played in court.

Hearing: In spite of the Judges’ agreement, upon arriving at court it became abundantly clear what we were up against: yet again. Arrogantly, the Judge would not even respond to the whereabouts of said tape recording. When we discovered whom the Judge was it became all to clear: there was never any intention of it being played, or, any impartiality as it transpired.

We were doomed.

If you think matters could not denigrate even further; well how about this?

Who do you think the presiding Judge was? The very same District Judge ‘G’ who presided over ludicrous previous court Hearings we attended, led by Kevin Mawer, and where he had ‘found’ in the Applicant’s favour. Hence, another foregone conclusion, with Judge ‘G’ finding once again for the Defendant: an ever-victorious Kevin Mawer, who unsurprisingly sat smirking across the table without the Judge chiding him - or his familiar legal-buddy/’Their.Joint.Solicitor’ - even once. Astoundingly, and by sheer chance, I later discovered that after the Hearing, Judge ‘G’ (only a ‘District’ Judge remember) had the temerity to formalise a dictate that if any future cases of ours be presented to the court, they be RESERVED: to HIM. This is virtually unheard of in civil cases and again, merely demonstrates the level of corruptness involved.

By the time he was given free–rein to remain in his position, Kevin Mawer’s vendetta had lasted Seven-Very-Long-Years. As for his all-encompassing and far-reaching role as our trustee, those Seven-Very-Long-Years amounted to what can only be described as a trial run.

We had no idea of what Mawer was to come…….

Does anybody know how many formal complaints have been made about Kevin Mawer? Either to his professional body or the Insolvency Service? The Insolvency Service is a public organisation so a freedom of Information act request could be made however I am not sure that they would provide the information beyond possibly just the number of complaints as it relates to a person rather than a general information request. Complaints are not published and if anybody has made a formal complaint it would be good understand how it was handled and what communication they received after it had been submitted with regard to progress or outcome, if at all? Any information on the process or first hand experiences would be appreciated.

Because he has something to 'offer', which is offset against his well documented misdemeanours. Only a few know what it is but fear not, the truth will out.

How and why is he still allowed to practice?

Widely regarded as a Seagull IP - someone who flies in and sees an opportunistic moment where he can dive in and pick up whatever scraps are left, whilst making a lot of noise in the process by squawking and creates a huge mess by Sh****ng over everything (as Seagulls do) and then when he has had his feed he flies off, leaving other people to clean up the mess he has left in his trail. He is well practised in the dark arts of Insolvency and thinks he is at the top of the food chain when he is actually at the bottom. If there was a vulture category for an IP then he would fit that bill.

People give Kevin Mawer far too much airtime and you may be frustrated by him but he probably enjoys all of the discussions. It will elevate his status in his own mind that his contentious work brings criticism and is expected (rather than they way he conducts himself brings him the criticism)

Don't pander to an ego that is so big that any criticism is taken as a compliment and where he may be deluded into thinking it helps his profile rather than undermines it. He may think that but most people know it not to be true. I am not saying don't highlight the issues, but just take care how you highlight them as he has pretty tough skin and may seen as a compliment. (perverse I know but validation for his attempts to ruin people) are conquests in his book. More fool Begbie's for employing or keeping him as he will cost them money and embarrassment.

Ironic tonic, how apt.
 
Kev indeed scheduled as a speaker at upcoming conference.

Join Kevin and other luminaries from Kings Chamber’s in Leeds, Howes Percival, Players Solicitors, 9 Stone Buildings, Moon Beaver, Quadrant Chambers and Guildhall Chambers
 
The Insolvency Litigation Conference 2012 – 20 September 2012
 
The latest law, practice and procedure
Invaluable for litigators advising cash-strapped individuals and companies

Speaker
          Kevin Mawer, Begbies Traynor
9.45    Pre-Action Information/Evidence Gathering
Problems particular to litigation in an insolvency scenario
 Sources of reliable information          
 Powers available to an insolvency office holder
 
For booking information, please contact
http://www.clt.co.uk/ConferenceDisplay/1693550/2000
 

Kevin Mawer is an expert at taking over other people's work, even when a case is far down the line and almost complete. If there is nothing to get out of it he will often still have a go and as long as he gets his fees and money for the creditor/s who have put him forward. I wouldn't want to speculate if claims can/are/have been fabricated but he needs large enough claims to be able to justify the fees he wants to earn by justifying the amount of time he has to spend 'identifying' the claim and then pursuing it. The actual claim may not even make it to being a formal claim but the pursuit of identifying what it could be will possibly include the relentless hounding of the Debtor/Director, their associates and often anyone even possibly connected so that he can summons them and put huge amounts of pressure on them until they submit - even if there are no assets for distribution - the debtor/director will end up feeling as if there is no option but to get money from somewhere, anywhere - just to get rid of him and the most aggressive creditors that want to be paid (or have been partially paid but want to be paid everything if the distributions under a former administrator were not enough to pay full creditor claims). Some creditors just want to bring misery to the Director because they feel they have been short changed or suffered other problems because they did not get paid and the company went under. If he goes in late into an administration then he will often have to 'charge' to review all of the former work already done and it starts all over again. He may quite literally bully people into submission and Directors often have to employ other Insolvency Practitioners just to protect themselves against him, so bad is the level of relentless demands, pressure and threats. If they do not have an insolvency professional to assist them then their lives may quite literally be made hell.

Looking objectively, question who actually benefits in this scenario? Maybe one or two creditors and maybe Kevin but he will probably never be happy as enough is never enough for him by all accounts. His ideal scenario is being paid by creditors on contingency (which is rare) so that he guarantees payment and can then enjoy, an unencumbered, full on assault on the Director/s. There is no better a conduit to exercise these tactics and pressures than Kevin.

Is the process legal?
Yes but the devil is in the detail of the processes and if they are being conducted legally.

Is it fair?
Not always

Is there enough IP regulation?
Definitely not. Complaints about people like Kevin Mawer would not exist if there was.

Is the complaints process adequate? No - complaining to the person who you are complaining about may make it worse. Complaining to the Insolvency service or the professional body is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted but should be done anyway. Unfortunately it does not help the practical process.

If you are unfortunate enough to have Kevin Mawer in office then do your best to try and get an Insolvency Practitioner in early on to try and represent you so at the very least you cannot be subject to flagrant breaches, unfair treatment or dubious claims so he can be paid. Even this will not make the process easy as he may bully the I.P representing the Director and may work outside of his representation of the individual by widening the net, adding pressure to others who are not represented. There are measures which can be taken to remove a practitioner however it can be a very expensive and difficult exercise when you are against someone who knows the ropes and will do everything to prevent that.

You only have to look at the advertised press release of one person whose affairs he managed when he was at KPMG and he gave a statement saying ''expect a lively and energetic investigation'' that alone says it all without anything else that you may have read. You will not read such statements from any of his counterparts who do not appear to take personal gratification in the same way.

If you have a justifiable complaint then you should submit it - at any stage and if you don't then it might leave it open for other people to suffer.

Hope this is helpful and constructive advise.

Oh dear! Whatever next? He'll probably be doing seminars at I.P. Conferences on ''reputation management''! He'll probably add it to his areas of specialities as well and BTG global risk or whatever they are branded can add it to their menu of consultancy services. He gives risk management either a whole new meaning or it's own unique definition! Lol! Funny and not funny all in the same breath! Keep up the good work Kev!

Absolutely shocking but not very surprising. He loves to be considered in some kind of high regard and the stories people have just pierce the perception of anything other than a highly qualified bully. There are plenty of honest IPs who do reputable work for reasonable reward. This line of work is the casino banking equivalent and the higher the stakes, the more chance of loss and the larger the risks that are taken. Unfortunately for Kevin those risks have not paid off and with very public consequences.

His behaviour has become so out of control over the past few years that people cannot help but provide commentary on the matter. It is a sad but regular complaint that will undoubtedly continue to follow him as long as he continues to practice. He apparently cannot moderate or mend his ways. Kevin has had so many close scrapes and got away with things for so long that his bad habits have become common place and the longer he does the job, the more audacious he becomes however it has not gone unnoticed or unchallenged and it will only intensify in line with the level of issues that are created as a result.

In response to the previous post, none of his KPMG colleagues joined him at Begbies and it is doubtful that any of them would have wanted to follow him and instead would have probably gone as far in the opposite direction as possible. It is no secret that people were grateful for his departure. There is a fresh, new team of unfortunates at Begbies that now have to tolerate and endure him (and all of his personality issues) at work, in particular the administration staff who are on the receiving end of his neurotic tendencies, having to take instructions from him and carry out his all of his whims and desires...but not without raised eyebrows or sideways glances that is for sure!

No smoke without fire may be an understatement with this individual. Talking does not make it better but hopefully raises awareness to those who did not know or may have been fooled by a person who could be a perpetrator rather than a protector as he would have people believe.

Once, Mr IP summoned my husband to a meeting at KPMGs offices. A pre-planned catalogue of taunts ensued, with Mr IP goading my husband about his knowledge of a specific item in our home. The item in question was a small safe and ever boastful, he specified exactly WHERE the safe was. This was despite it being out of view: it was on a shelf, inside a wardrobe, and in serving with its purpose, clothes needed to be removed, in order to locate it:

The first point to consider is that, Mr IP was never an invited guest in our home. Secondly, whilst there is no suggestion that Mr IP himself gained illegal entry to our home (like all true cowards he transacts his dirty business from a distance), someone did, and he knew. So, as he was the one in receipt of this unambiguous information, who exactly instructed a low-life to gain illegal entry to our home, who then passed on this meaningless information [about a safe], amongst God knows what else? Furthermore, who or which company paid the low-life for their services, (Mr IPs former employer or the superficial creditor he was controlling)? Moreover it would be so fascinating to see what the services rendered stated on said invoice?

Bear in mind, the low live(s) - who we eventually discovered were regularly breaking into our home (with the sole purpose of updating themselves with the contents of my computer hard-drive), had the audacity to let themselves in with a back door key, which they presumably had cut during a previous visit!

Reprehensible behaviour and totally against the law, whatever your viewpoint,

Oh and for avoidance of doubt, my husband covertly taped this meeting, which is why what Mr IP said can be repeated over and over (unlike him, I am a stickler for getting facts right).

Interestingly my husbands advocate for the meeting at KPMG Leeds was a very nice chap from, Begbies Traynor in Leeds.

Intriguing – and somewhat ironic – is it not?

Is it true that when he resigned from KPMG that other employees there (closely associated to him), left also (but did not go to Begbies)?

Re-posted, due to Internet interference (or perhaps my IP address is being diverted via proxy servers in Eastern Europe again, which when I think about it would explain why a previous post of mine was entered four separate times, but with variants!) Oh dear! Deja vu.

Tasmin P: Thank you for your coherent analogy on Mr IP. To all intents and purposes, he no longer has any formal role over us, but tries to remain influential, albeit from a distance. He planned to extend our bankruptcies beyond the statutory twelve months (just like he [publicly] succeeded in doing with another one of his charges), but at the eleventh hour, his plan was foiled and we were discharged: in 2009. Without wishing to diminish any of the suffering of his other victims, I would wage a bet that the level of scheming he went to - in an attempt to secure CRIMINAL charges against us - exceeded anything that he has engaged in before. That is how much he detests me. I think his hatred is compounded by the fact that I am a woman, which frankly, does not have much of an effect, but what I positively loathe is a liar and a cheat, and he possesses both traits. I am sure that his family will see him differently, but beneath his veneer of dullness lays a despicable beating heart, and he is corrupt to his very core.

He deliberately ruined my life (literally), and my day with him WILL come.

Tasmin P: Thank you for your coherent analogy on Mr IP.

To all intents and purposes, he no longer has any formal role over us, but tries to remain influential, albeit from a distance.

He planned to extend our bankruptcies beyond the statutory twelve months (just like he [publicly] succeeded in doing with another one of his charges), but at the eleventh hour, his plan was foiled and we were discharged: in 2009. Without wishing to diminish any of the suffering of his other victims, I would wage a bet that the level of scheming he went to - in an attempt to secure CRIMINAL charges against us - exceeded anything that he has engaged in before. That's how much he detests me. I think his hatred is compounded by the fact that I'm a woman, which frankly, doesn't have much of an effect, but what I positively loathe is a liar and a cheat, and he possesses both traits. I'm sure that his loved ones will see him quite differently, but beneath his veneer of dullness lays a despicable beating heart, and he’s corrupt to his very core.

He deliberately ruined my life (literally), and my day with him WILL come.

Interception of communications : The company he works for will have ended up paying if it could not be reclaimed elsewhere. That is for sure, or unless he was insured as is most often the case but would have still needed an order for costs. If one was not sought then there would be potential questions why not? Perhaps it was just damage limitation and no further costs should be incurred on cost hearings or that they did want another challenge to costs which would raise questions over the judgement, create appeals or have the judgement vulnerable in any way? Perhaps he was so desperate for control that getting the judgement, 'any' judgement was good enough or if it was a bad case then they just wanted to show they had 'won' and got out as quick as they could?

He will have racked up the costs whilst chasing a rainbow to a pot of gold at the end of it and it matters not to him if there is any gold as he will delude himself that there is along the way and when he finds out that there actually is not, then he will continue anyway as that is the nature of the man you have been dealing with as he will be angry with you (for not conforming to a preconceived view of what he would expect you to be) rather than blaming himself for (wrongly assuming not everyone is as he thinks they are or he can achieve the unachievable). I would say that if he does not get what he wants then he makes it personal however he makes it personal anyway...from the start. That is also his nature. He wants to find wrong doing in every case...that is his purpose. If he finds no wrong doing then it angers him more and makes him determined that he should find it, regardless how it is achieved and that is where problems creep in because he will create wrong doing or the perception of wrongdoing by a collage of misleading information, half truth's, untruths and all sewn together and then presented 'in his illustration' of wrong doing and how terrible the character of the person. He will then base his applications upon his own notions and theories rather than actual fact and hope that he wins. Unless you are represented and can or have the means to fight against him then most people are on an unfair and losing playing field. Sorry to say but it is true. There is no win, win, if you are involved with him and only lose, lose - and you may lose your sanity along the way as he appears to revel in the pain that he causes. If you could only hear him laughing about sending emails or letters with the sole intent that will upset people. He is the type of person that would send a letter by hand to someones family member on a Friday and so it is received in the Saturday morning post (not that there is any these days) but so it would upset them and the debtor who theya re connected to and would consume their weekend with upset. It is calculated, nasty, professionally trained and pre meditated ways of trying to destroy peoples lives. It is morally reprehensible behaviour as an Insolvency Practitioner or as a normal human being with any moral compass.

Sorry if I have not answered your points and gone off on a tangent but it does anger me. I have seen it all before and it is a shame that it continues and will continue as long as he is licensed, which in all honesty, I am surprised he still is. His antics have got him into plenty of trouble in the past and will in the future unless someone can properly untangle his web. It costs money to do that so why would any one if they have none? Interception of Communications - do you still have to deal with him or is it all over? 2002 is a long time ago. How and why has he pursued you for so long and what has he achieved for your creditors? Has he taken your case with him to Begbies or did it remain with KPMG?

One thing is for sure, he has a free reign (pretty much) to spend money so he will work up WIP amounts as much as possible and will inevitably cost his company money and may not deliver on cases as there is no money despite his endless campaign. He may do it all for personal satisfaction but what results does that bring? If his company which is now Begbies Traynor do not see results then he wont be there for too long. 9 years at Grant Thornton, 4.5 years at KPMG - was he sacked or pushed and now on to Begbies Traynor so what are the bets? 50% less again than the last 2 firms? That would be 2.25 years at Begbies? How long are we giving Kevin there? He has already done 14 months so are we giving him another 12 months from now before he is sacked or is asked to leave? That would all depend on what he is doing or what he hs done so far and the fall out that is has created. Will that be long enough for him to cause some havoc with some trumped up claims and no delivery and as soon as he is settled in will he be back to his usual ways of tormenting, bullying and personal vendettas against people and costing the company a fortune as a result? I suspect it probably will...but not for long.

Where next? A boutique practice of a few people or his own one that will suit his niche skills (I am not talking about a market or a betting shop but an Insolvency practice in case you are guessing) Sorry Kevin if you are reading but had to get it off my chest - It has been bugging me (and probably many others) for some time about your questionable methods and techniques and you need to stop ruining people's lives for your own satisfaction (and gain, if there is any). Change your ways and do your Industry and service, not a disservice.

Mr IP's illegal interception of our communications represents just one strand of his offensive against us. He first targeted us back in 2002, so his ongoing vendetta is very deep-rooted, and very unnatural. It is also very telling that neither Mr IP (nor the 'creditor' he purported to act for) ever lodged any type of costs order in respect of the fabricated judgment he managed to skillfully have lodged against us. Even stranger, is knowing that Mr IP never billed either of his two previous employer’s for the litany of work he engaged in, whilst pursuing us so determinedly. Seemingly, Mr IP surrendered his own time for free (in exchange for personal gratification no doubt), but the question that remains unanswered, is that as no costs order was ever lodged in court (in regard to the claimants fee's for the bogus judgment), then who exactly paid for:

1. The substantial solicitor and barrister fees incurred by Mr IP and his 'client/creditor'?
2. The extensive surveillance work, including (but not limited to), us being regularly followed, and filmed (often by more than one operative at a time)?
3. The payment for the [very] specialised equipment required for the long-standing cloning/mirroring/imaging of our mobile phones?

Those carrying out the above services will no doubt justify their activities as simply "doing their job", but seeing as it’s unlikely that these outside sources gave their services – and use of equipment - for free, surely there must be a trail of a transfer of payments, so who exactly ended up paying?

My Last post about Mawer was deleted from topix as have many been. Perhaps it is because I have shed light on the way he operates and he is probably trying to ''manage'' his reputation by making complaints to the moderators of the sites and having anything taken off the site which portrays him badly or that might allege questionable conduct. The one thing Kevin does not like and that is to look incompetent or dodgy! I will be far more factual when writing this so that it cannot be criticised when moderated. There appears to be an ongoing issue in relation to this I.P. and there are dozens of pages and examples of posts on this site and others of how he handles with people and the tactics he employs in order to achieve the goal and he is also widely criticised in these forums for the handling of cases, his professional conduct, (or otherwise lack of) in those cases and particularly his treatment of the subjects of his appointments and alleged breaches of the code of ethics (which I believe to be true ). some call themselves victims - which is self explanatory! There are many cases where he has collected funds however they are not enough to make dividends to creditors and they all go towards his fees and expenses and which are not often challenged as they should be and this does not work in the creditors interests. The reason that I have posted this, is having been close to a previous case, I have seen first hand the tactics that are involved and would recommend that people do their home work and to be aware that whilst some of the people who have posted and who appear to be quite upset with his treatment of them may have reason to feel that way 'as prisoners' however the question is not whether they feel demoralised but are they correct in what they write regarding his conduct towards them and the strategies he used in order to keep creditors close but whilst delivering little when his fees are a priority over everything else? It appears to be a well practiced game which may benefit him but which causes much distress to many whilst he is indulging in this execution. Be warned as the experience may be bad for many due to the specific personality type and approach of this person - which by all accounts and my own experience is of benefit to no one; the creditors he represents, the company or person who he administers or the company (now Begbies) who he represents...a disservice to them all. The only person who actually benefits could be Kevin - personal satisfaction in 'winning' regardless if that means costing the company or estate more as a result of his crusades. He will push ahead for personal satisfaction even when it makes no commercial sense and will cost the creditors and his firm more than he brings in but he takes a wage at the end of the day so what does he care? as long as it gives him personal satisfaction. Take care to beware and be aware of questionable conduct and actual ability. A sorry state all round and I am sorry for anyone who has to come into contact with him on a formal basis...very sorry. What I have witnessed is not good and can be questionably immoral. It may be wrong to elaborate further as I did before but hop this serves as honest feedback from experience dealing with these matters and can give them an insight - creditor, debtor or otherwise the character and ability of a man who they are dealing with...

In our instance, Begbies was not involved with the dastardly deeds of the IP. To confirm, when he first invaded our lives, he worked for Grant T******. Then, matters truly escalated when he went to work for K**G. We have no quarrel with his current employer. In fact quite ironically it was a very nice chap from Begbies who represented my partner when he was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with the IP, at the offices of his former employer. The true purpose of that meeting was to gain possession of my home computer, the fallout of which can be explained later. I advised my partner beforehand, that during that meeting, the IP would probably try to disarm him, being quickly followed by an insult: about me. This is exactly what happened (very predictable, is Mr IP). It had all been preordained of course, but what he said about me was foul. As the IP had grown to know us intimately over the preceding years (given all the historical information he had garnered, through personal and business documents, talking to anyone who would listen, as well as being privy to private conversations and such like), he knew (like all decent husbands), that mine was particularly loyal. When the IP casually took aim, my husband warned him, but he continued with the insults, resulting in my husband having to be restrained by his advocate – the very nice chap from Begbies.

You allude to the phone-hacking scandal and a Bond movie. Alas, these analogies are true, except we have been the victims in this long running grift.

To answer your specific questions, of course the appropriate authorities were notified. In the interests of accuracy, when the email breach was discovered, I initially wrote to my ISP on 29 March, requesting historical log-ins of all the IP addresses connected to my account. Ironically, this communication was (obviously) done via EMAIL, which is how Mr IP knew I intended to contact the authorities, BEFORE I actually did! This is indisputable – and I do have the evidence – because the joint Trustee (the IP’s former colleague, at his former global firm), wrote me a letter dated 31 March citing, YOU HAVE AIRED ALLEGATIONS [about Mr M****] TO THE P*****. At the time of the joint Trustee’s letter, the only sources I had imparted that information to was my husband and the ISP. It is a memorialised fact that I didn’t visit my local P***** station to formalise my complaint until 1 April.

Frustratingly, I was initially fobbed off – (no time for Internet crime) but sometime later I did manage to secure the interest of a female officer of high ranking (an specialised Inspector no less), who went out of her way to assist after I related the long running saga. She earnestly negotiated with our ISP (for months), and was in regular contact with me, but suddenly - and mysteriously - she informed me that nothing further could be done.

In regard to the physical (CCTV) evidence we secured of the intruder making an illegal break-in to our home, no one has any knowledge of who that particular criminal is, so no charges (as yet) can be made. However, this does not negate the fact that all of our intercepted data, paperwork, and intimate knowledge gained during our private conversations, always managed to find their way into the IPs domain, which truly is shocking and highly immoral.

In our instance, Begbies Traynor was not involved with the dastardly deeds of the IP. To confirm, when he first invaded our lives, he worked for Grant Thornton. Then, matters truly escalated when he went to work for KPMG. We have no quarrel with his current employer. In fact quite ironically it was a very nice chap from Begbies who represented my partner when he was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with the IP, at the offices of his former employer. The true purpose of that meeting was to gain possession of my home computer, the fallout of which can be explained later. I advised my partner beforehand, that during that meeting, the IP would probably try to disarm him, being quickly followed by an insult: about me. This is exactly what happened (very predictable, is Mr IP). It had all been preordained of course, but what he said about me was foul. As the IP had grown to know us intimately over the preceding years (given all the historical information he had garnered, through personal and business documents, talking to anyone who would listen as well as being privy to private conversations and such like), he knew (like all decent husbands), that mine was particularly loyal. When the IP casually took aim, my husband warned him, but he continued with the insults, resulting in my husband having to be restrained by his advocate – the very nice chap from Begbies.

You allude to the phone-hacking scandal and a Bond movie. Alas, these analogies are true, except we have been the victims in this long running grift.

To answer your specific questions, of course the Police were notified. In the interests of accuracy, when the email breach was discovered, I initially wrote to my ISP on 29 March, requesting historical log-ins of all the IP addresses connected to my account. Ironically, this communication was (obviously) done via EMAIL, which is how Mr IP knew I intended to contact the Police, BEFORE I actually did! This is indisputable – and I do have the evidence – because the joint Trustee (the IP’s former colleague, at his former global firm), wrote me a letter dated 31 March citing, YOU HAVE AIRED ALLEGATIONS [about Mr Mawer] TO THE POLICE. At the time of the joint Trustee’s letter, the only sources I had imparted that information to was my husband and the ISP. It is a memorialised fact that I didn’t visit the Police to station to formalise my complaint until 1 April.

Frustratingly, I was initially fobbed off – by the local Police (no time for Internet crime) but sometime later I did manage to secure the interest of a female officer of high ranking (an specialised Inspector no less), who went out of her way to assist after I related the long running saga. She earnestly negotiated with our ISP (for months), and was in regular contact with me, but suddenly - and mysteriously - she informed me that nothing further could be done.

In regard to the physical (CCTV) evidence we secured of the intruder making an illegal break-in to our home, no one has any knowledge of who that particular criminal is, so no charges (as yet) can be made. However, this does not negate the fact that all of our stolen data, paperwork and intimate knowledge gained in private conversations, always managed to find their way into the IPs domain, which IS illegal, truly is shocking and highly immoral.

In response to Watching with Caution:

In our instance, Begbies Traynor was not involved with the dastardly deeds of the IP. To confirm, when he first invaded our lives, he worked for Grant Thornton. Then, matters truly escalated when he went to work for KPMG. We have no quarrel with his current employer. In fact quite ironically it was a very nice chap from Begbies who represented my partner when he was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with the IP, at the offices of his former employer. The true purpose of that meeting was to gain possession of my home computer, the fallout of which can be explained later. I advised my partner beforehand, that during that meeting, the IP would probably try to disarm him, being quickly followed by an insult: about me. This is exactly what happened (very predictable, is Mr IP). It had all been preordained of course, but what he said about me was foul. As the IP had grown to know us intimately over the preceding years (given all the historical information he had garnered, through personal and business documents, talking to anyone who would listen as well as being privy to private conversations and such like), he knew (like all decent husbands), that mine was particularly loyal. When the IP casually took aim, my husband warned him, but he continued with the insults, resulting in my husband having to be restrained by his advocate – the very nice chap from Begbies.

You allude to the phone-hacking scandal and a Bond movie. Alas, these analogies are true, except we have been the victims in this long running grift.

To answer your specific questions, of course the Police were notified. In the interests of accuracy, when the email breach was discovered, I initially wrote to my ISP on 29 March, requesting historical log-ins of all the IP addresses connected to my account. Ironically, this communication was (obviously) done via EMAIL, which is how Mr IP knew I intended to contact the Police, BEFORE I actually did! This is indisputable – and I do have the evidence – because the joint Trustee (the IPs former colleague, at his former global firm), wrote me a letter dated 31 March citing, YOU HAVE AIRED ALLEGATIONS [about Mr Mawer] TO THE POLICE. At the time of the joint Trustee’s letter, the only sources I had imparted that information to was my husband and the ISP. It is a memorialised fact that I didn’t visit the Police to station to formalise my complaint until 1 April.

Frustratingly, I was initially fobbed off – by the local Police (no time for Internet crime) but sometime later I did manage to secure the interest of a female officer of high ranking (an specialised Inspector no less), who went out of her way to assist after I related the long running saga. She earnestly negotiated with our ISP (for months), and was in regular contact with me, but suddenly - and mysteriously - she informed me that nothing further could be done.

In regard to the physical (CCTV) evidence we secured of the intruder making an illegal break-in to our home, no one has any knowledge of who that particular criminal is, so no charges (as yet) can be made. However, this does not negate the fact that all of our stolen data, paperwork and intimate knowledge gained in private conversations, always managed to find their way into the IPs domain, which IS illegal, truly is shocking, and highly immoral.

If the complaints above are accurate then it is truly shocking. The department that Kevin Mawer works for in Begbies Traynor offers services of covert surveillance and IT forensic services but they should be services that are within the law and should not be abused. If the above post is correct then the action would be a breach of his responsibilities in office but highly illegal and would place him at risk of both disciplinary, civil and criminal action.

Is there anything to support these allegations?
Was a report made to the authorities at the time?
Did this happen in his former employment at KPMG or was this in his current employment?

I do not want to diminish your comments as you represent them to be your own experience but the scenario you have drawn could pass as something out of a bond movie or has traits of the whole media phone hacking saga. If it is true then it is absolutely shocking but if it is not, then it would diminish the experiences of other people and very unfair on Kevin Mawer. It is really not something that I would want to believe of an Insolvency Practitioner however there are so may complaints about Kevin, most of them are simply about alleged lapses of ethical and professional judgement, missteps, manipulation of the system, breaches of the code of conduct and at the more serious side of unlawful action. The above complaint however takes those criticisms to a higher level still. It would be so unfair to Kevin if they are not correct or exaggerated (some appear to be suspicions rather than proof but well founded suspicions if the circumstantial events are accurate) and conversely right to expose if they are true. It would be better investigated by the authorities if the latter is true and for a complaint to be made to the licensing body.

Generally speaking, Insolvency law should never be used as a way of manipulating a situation to serve the purposes or the conveniences of a practitioner. All Insolvency practitioners should always act in a professional manner that utilises the legal processes available to them without resorting to bullying, intimidation or any type of 'expert specialisms' that require the engagement of morally questionable or unethical conduct. Insolvency by its very nature places huge a responsibility of trust and requirement of skill in execution of the responsibility of the office holder and at times debtors can be vulnerable. Any person who is a licensed practitioner who puts into question the integrity of the profession by their actions should be held to account at every possible opportunity and no Practices should turn a blind eye to bad practice in preference of fees and allow their practitioners unfettered autonomy without supervision.

Some of the discussions are worthy of debate but for the most part, the debate should not even be taking place and it is troubling that there appears to be such a volume of discussion involving the issue of integrity, a point which no one should ever have cause for complaint. A person/company being bankrupt/administrators appointed/wound up or even a claim being made against them by a trustee following an insolvency order should not evoke the sentiment that is demonstrated on this site if the debtors in question were handled fairly and in accordance with ethical and professional governance standards. Some would say that there is no smoke without fire but if a fraction of the complaints are accurate then it is an alarmingly poor (and unfair) reflection of an industry as a whole perpetrated by the actions of less than a few and (hopefully) people will take notice that the debate is far more worthy than being dismissed as expected criticism, I do not agree that this level of criticism should attract negativity by virtue of the profession they are in. A bit, maybe, but not in this volume. If you do an Internet search on all of the people who work for BTG Global Risk at Begbies Traynor and in the various offices in Leeds, London, Manchester etc there appears to be not even a single derogatory comment about anyone other than Kevin Mawer (who has hundreds) Most, or a lot of them, do the same or similar jobs with the same areas of speciality? Perhaps it is an individual style that Kevin works to which raises emotions so highly. Begbies have a reputation and a brand to protect and I can't think for a moment that they would deem that it is 'all part of the territory' The head of BTG Risk Partners has been at Begbies for 6 years without a single complaint so why in less than a year can Kevin amass such a torrent of complaints about him? I have heard that he wanted to join Begbies Traynor because there is less management involvement than at KPMG which was so management and compliance heavy that it restricted him and he would have more free reign at Begbies Traynor! This is the positive spin he puts on his departure! If the reports from his previous issues are anything to go by then he might need more supervision rather than less otherwise Begbies may risk the same issues somewhere along the line. Kevin may have convinced them that the problems were restricted to the same cases at KPMG but these discussions demonstrate that it maybe far more and far wider reaching than that and may not go away if the work pattern is continued in the same way it previously has?

The subject should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, not least by the companies who employ and supervise them. Special treatment should never be given by a professional body or complaints not treated properly if there are connections or friends in high places and hope that has not happened here as has been the implication.