Gary Smith Says Brett Wilson LLP Engages in SLAPP Against Him Over LinkedIn Post, "This is the Streisand Effect in Real Time"
Posted 18 hours ago:
The full text replicated (because they keep doing this to many people), then seem to be sending death threats to people who merely document this behaviour:
Before the FOS Litigation Group has even launched, FOS has instructed London media and libel solicitors, Brett Wilson LLP, to write to me personally.Again.
This is not new. In May 2024, the same firm wrote on behalf of FOS alleging harassment, intimidation, oppressive conduct and defamation. It demanded takedowns and sought to restrict communications.
We rejected those demands. We did not comply. No proceedings followed.
A later FOI request confirmed FOS paid Brett Wilson LLP £3,540, including VAT, for that five-page letter.
Now, in 2026, the pattern repeats. Same client. Same firm. Same AMH reference trail. Same broad allegations. Same absence of particulars.
The latest letter alleges my LinkedIn posts are defamatory, abusive and harassing. It identifies no post. It quotes no words. It gives no meaning. It identifies no factual inaccuracy. It advances no serious harm case. It gives no harassment particulars. It names a FOS employee, but does not say whether she is personally represented or whether FOS is using scheme fund levies to advance a personal reputational complaint.
That matters.
FOS is a statutory dispute resolution body. It performs a public function. It is accountable to Parliament. Scrutiny of how it exercises that power is not harassment. It is accountability.
If FOS wants to answer the substance, it can. If Brett Wilson LLP wants to particularise a claim, it can. Broad allegations on solicitor letterhead do not become true because they are expensive.
We will submit a fresh FOI request for the cost, authorisation, retainer and internal decision making behind this latest letter. We will also refer the matter to the SRA.
In my view, this has all the hallmarks of SLAPP style pressure correspondence. It is aimed at public interest scrutiny of a statutory body. It is vague, unparticularised and oppressive in tone. It is not the first such letter from the same firm for the same client.
This is the Streisand effect in real time.
An attempt to discourage scrutiny has made FOS’s response to scrutiny a public interest issue in its own right.
And this is why FLG exists.
Behind the legal letters are real people.
One case concerns a father who was dying when FOS correspondence landed on his doormat. He did not respond in time. His daughters, Hannah and Rachael, explained the position. The claim was still rejected. His death was not treated as an extenuating circumstance.
A dying man missed a deadline. His family explained why. FOS still rejected the claim.
That is not fairness. That is bureaucracy with its conscience switched off.
Let the public see the letters, decisions, reasoning and money trail.
FOS can answer the substance.
Brett Wilson LLP can provide particulars.
FLG proceeds. www.flg.org.uk
.
Watch Hannah and Rachael’s story as told by them. This is why the truth matters.Watch here 👇👇👇👇👇
https://lnkd.in/drqPwy8xRupert Lowe MP
Consumer Voice
Solicitors Regulation Authority
#SLAPP
#FOS
From the comments a few hours ago:
An update (10 hours ago): More from a colleague:
LG has not even launched yet. Financial Ombudsman Service has already sent lawyers.Before a single page of the website went live, the Financial Ombudsman Service instructed Brett Wilson LLP, London media and libel solicitors, to write to Gary Smith personally. The same firm. The same broad allegations. The same absence of any identified post, quoted word, or particularised claim.
In 2024 they tried the same thing. Gary did not comply. No proceedings followed. A FOI request later confirmed FOS spent £3,540 of scheme levy money on that five-page letter.
Scheme levy money. The same levies paid by the financial institutions FOS is supposed to hold accountable.
Now they have done it again. On the eve of launch.
Gary calls it SLAPP-style correspondence. Vague, unparticularised, designed to create pressure rather than advance a legitimate claim. I agree. Because a legitimate claim would name a post. Quote a word. Identify an inaccuracy. It does none of those things.
Meanwhile, behind the legal letters, there is a dying man who missed a deadline. His daughters Hannah and Rachael explained why. FOS rejected the claim anyway.
That is the organisation spending levy money on lawyers to silence scrutiny.
FLG is not going anywhere. Neither am I.
www.flg.org.uk
#FOSLitigationGroup #JudicialReview #SLAPP #ConsumerRights #RSAWhistleblowerFiles
A comment says: "One would be most surprised if they did not otherwise attempt to weaponise Lawfare…"