I've looked into what is required to make a complaint about a CA.
They don't take anonymous complaints (which is fair enough).
However, there is a review process that may require a face to face meeting
Whilst, i do believe that Michael is taking money under the table, i don't have any substantial evidence (besides those photos of him in DRC, AVZ Announcements) and hearsay evidence of conversations with him. I think the complaints with be 'vexatious'. Anyone who has first hand evidence is more than welcome to lodge a formal complaint with CA on his conduct.
They don't take anonymous complaints (which is fair enough).
However, there is a review process that may require a face to face meeting
We do not investigate complaints that are:
- anonymous
- frivolous
- vexatious
- an abuse of process
- lacking in substance, vague, imprecise or unsupported by evidence
- related to historical issues no longer practical to investigate
- of insufficient nature to warrant referral to the member
- capable of being resolved by referral to an alternative forum and it is reasonable for that to occur
The member will be required to attend and in some cases the complainant may be invited to attend the meeting to participate in the discussion. The meetings are not open to the public and apart from direct parties to the complaint, witnesses do not attend. Parties can bring a support person, such as their colleague or partner. However support people can’t speak without approval of the PCC. This includes any solicitor attending as a support person.
Whilst, i do believe that Michael is taking money under the table, i don't have any substantial evidence (besides those photos of him in DRC, AVZ Announcements) and hearsay evidence of conversations with him. I think the complaints with be 'vexatious'. Anyone who has first hand evidence is more than welcome to lodge a formal complaint with CA on his conduct.