So propose your directions (if any) if not just submit the DQ

Ok ive submitted my proposed directions, which included a strike out of the defence.

I have also proposed that the Defendant provides the Court with my notice to admit facts, which they are refusing to give, and with good reason, it further proves they have no defence.

The Defendants have indicated on the DQ "Yes" to Giving that the rules require you to try to settle the claim before the hearing, do you want to attempt to settle at this stage.

What would be the procedure giving that indication, do the Defendants have to make a proposal.

I am a little bit suspect, because i know when it comes to costs and any award of costs, the defendants would have to show the court that they are-following procedures, but that does not necessarily mean that this is their intention.

I had previously indicated no to the same question, because i have tried to settle the claim on a without prejuduce as to costs basis which have been totally ignored by the Defendant, his insurers and those representing him.

Any guidance on how best to deal with this, as always will be appreciated.

Any help would be appreciated.

This does not necessarily mean they will make an offer. Any offer they do make might be very low if they feel your case is weak.

You could write to them (1) reminding them of the offer you have made, (2) noting that they told the court on the DQ that they want to settle, and (3) asking them to put forward their proposed settlement terms

Ok thanks for that Steampowered,

I am more than happy to now wait to the Trial.

If they had or have any intentions of trying to settle, and giving what they have now told the Court, it is for them to now show the Court of their intentions.

If they do not, they will be disadvantaged when it comes to costs, because they will be seen as not only failing to try and settle, but also after indicating in directions that this is now their intentions, i would have assumed.

Their legal bill to date reads 33k, as a litigant in person, i would estimate mine at 10k.

If they still want to pay and defend what is a strong case in my opinion, and also considered a strong case by a previous solicitor and barrister, l would be inclined to let them get on with it, either way it will work out expensive for the Defendant, and rightly so.

Just wondering if anyone knows on how a solicitor funds a clients case, as i am slightly confused.

Shelter were initially granted legal aid for my case, my solicitor is now saying that this was refused, this after i asked him to provide the Legal aid certificate reference number.

Taking this on board, i am slightly confused as to how the funding needed for my solicitor to represent me was obtained and then repaid by the Council, if no legal aid was granted, according to the solicitor.

Would i be right into thinking that the funding in any event, legal-aid, CFA would be supported by the clients signature and date as proof of the funding needed?

Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance.

You should have received an engagement letter from the law firm which sets out the basis of funding, although this wouldn't usually have a lot of detail. I'm not sure what other evidence you could want/expect. You might be able to check details with the Legal Aid Agency but I don't know how you'd go about doing that.

If anyone knows of the procedure from which a Court can make an order which is with CPR, A Notice To Admit Facts, I would be grateful for any advice on the procedure that would need to be adopted.

You serve the N266.

The other side reply, or don't. The Court doesn't need to make an order.

The only consequences for the other side if they don't reply, or deny a fact that the court later finds was true is the possible costs implication ; the court won't make an order forcing them to reply.

While it can be used tactically, its intended purpose is to remove issues not in dispute, allowing the court to focus on those matters in dispute.

For matters they have already denied in their defence expect them to repeat the denial or remain silent.

I'm with GM, by the way, in terms of sggesting professional legal advice: if you are looking at a multitrack case..... If you have a strong case you'll find someone to take it on a CFA or DBA basis, and if they won't you should reconsider if it is wise to proceed as a LiP without a strong case ......

A notice to admit facts is typically used to confirm points which should be uncontroversial. The purpose is to save time at the hearing by allowing both parties to confirm uncontroversial facts, so that the judge can just focus on deciding the issues that are in dispute.

If you want to use a notice to admit facts to make allegations that the other side will disagree with, that is a bit pointless. The other side will simply deny the allegations (as they will have done in their defence). The process of you making allegations and the defendant replying to them already happened through you serving a particulars of claim and the defendant serving a defence in response.

For example, if I issue a claim alleging that you punched me in the CAG bar at 7pm on Tuesday and you deny it, I might serve a notice to admit facts confirming that you were present at the CAG bar at 7pm on Tuesday. You might admit that you were in the CAG bar at 7pm on Tuesday if there is lots of evidence that you were in the bar at that time and it would just waste everybody's time to make me call witnesses to say that you were in the bar. However it would be pointless for me to serve a notice asking you to admit that you punched me, since you have already denied punching me in your defence. We are obviously not going to agree on the punch so that will need to be decided by the judge at the hearing.

Hi Steampowered,

Legal Aid have now confirmed that no certificate was issued.

I was under the Legal help scheme with a figure of £500 giving as the amount allowed for public funding.

As the solicitors bill was for 2.5k and paid by the Council in regards to the costs incurred, why is this for more than was allowed, it could be that the solicitor did not have the funding or any agreement signed by me for him to incur those costs and should have giving up the case, once the public funding had been exhausted.

Am i to assume that the solicitor who was not being funded should have told me this significant fact, sooner, rather than later, which would include any agreements with the Council, not sure, but i would not work without any guarantee to a payment, unless there was an agreement in place ( CFA ) which was never the case.

I have also now discovered that the solicitor and his firm would have a conflict of interest in this case they regularly represent the same Council on the same grounds that my claim was based, Disrepair?

Any help, and in particular as to how legal representation was made, without funding would be appreciated.

Surely there should have been some contract in place, and the probable reason why i had to pay for my own medical records to be disclosed after the solicitor breached DPA.

If a solicitor has acted and without the needed funds as to show a contract between client/solicitor has continued after legal help funding was granted, am i right to assume this would amount to fraud??

Any help, and in particular as to how legal representation was made, without funding would be appreciated.

 

Surely there should have been some contract in place, and the probable reason why i had to pay for my own medical records to be disclosed after the solicitor breached DPA.

 

If a solicitor has acted and without the needed funds as to show a contract between client/solicitor has continued after legal help funding was granted, am i right to assume this would amount to fraud??

How is it fraud?

How is it fraud?

Making legal representation which would include an agreement, when the funds needed as to legally represent or create a new contract were never there, or in place.

Unless this solicitor works for free which his legal bill would not suggest, he had no right to represent me, nor negotiate on my behalf.

Giving that i had to pay for my own medical records to be released after the limited public funding had been exhausted would also show he did not have the funds needed to represent me.

If i want to be legally represented, the minimal i would expect would be for that solicitor to be motivated in wanting to win my case, but insured against losing the case, he was neither.

I'm struggling to see the fraud angle.

I really think you need legal advice as you don't seem to know what your claim is.

The basic nature of a professional negligence claim is as follows:

- The defendant owed you a duty of care to do something (or not to do something). This needs to be clearly identified.

- The defendant failed to do what he was supposed to do (or didn't do what he was supposed not to do). The failure needs to be clearly identified.

- That has caused you loss. The specific loss you have suffered needs to be identified. How the specific failure you identified cause the specific loss needs to be clearly explained.

If you want to start throwing accusations, you need to be properly following them through - setting out clearly what the solicitor was supposed to do, how they failed to do it, and what loss you suffered as a result of that failure. In very simple terms, you need to be able to articulate this for each claim you want to make. For example it is pointless alleging breach of the DPA or failure to communicate with you properly about funding, if those did not cause the problem you are seeking to claim compensation for.

I am struggling to understand what you are trying to claim for. It sounds like the key thing you are claiming for is the inability to bring a personal injury claim against the council, which it sounds like was outside the very strict 3 year limitation period which applies to personal injury claims before you met with the solicitor (the limitation period means you must issue a claim form at court within 3 years of a personal injury or the council will have a complete defence to any personal injury claim under the Limitation Act 1980)? Is that correct or have I misunderstood, or is there something else you wish to claim for?

If you don't have any other demonstrable financial loss you are claiming for, I'm afraid this claim is starting to sound pretty hopeless in legal terms, and you would be lucky to escape with a drop-hands settlement (meaning you agree not to proceed with the claim for zero compensation, and in exchange they agree not to pursue you for their legal costs).

I'm struggling to see the fraud angle.

 

I really think you need legal advice as you don't seem to know what your claim is.

Thanks for that Ganymede,

Legally representing someone, when there is no contract or the needed funding to be able to do this, and then negotiating an out of court compromise agreement, goes way and above negligence, its fraud.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

Beyond Remit.

Solicitor should have giving the case up or at the very least advised me to seek alternative legal advice, with secured funding, obliged to do this, done the complete opposite.

Carried on ignoring instructions, knowing those instructions and any contract whereby the work could be done was null and void, it never existed.

He denied me legal representation, by acting as a solicitor, and without the authority nor the funds as to represent.

Solicitors are no different to any other profession, the rule of contract.

Are you suggestion that the solicitor done the work for free?

If there was no funding arrangement in place, how was the case funded ?

The latest excuse now being used is that he applied and appealed for legal aid which was refused, which not only shows further, that there was no funding for him to represent, mid-way through the claim, when he allegedly applied for public funding, but more significantly, thereafter.

That may well be, but it isn't fraud.

It is when the solicitor has gained profit, in legal fees from a Council, public authority, whilst representing me, when the funding/authority/contract was not in place, on or before he presented his bill, which evidently was paid.

You cannot submit a legal bill for payment, if the tools and the requirements were not in place to incur costs, in the first instance.

He has been paid for work that he knew he had no right to claim, that is fraud.

Can i request a copy of the solicitors bill and the contract that would have been made by solicitor/client?.

You are the client.

Did you not get a copy of the retainer or CFA etc when you signed up?

You are the client.

 

Did you not get a copy of the retainer or CFA etc when you signed up?

The only letter that relates to legal costs states " I confirm that i am advising you under the LEGAL HELP and HELP at COURT SCHEME"

I can only give you some basic advice and help such as writing letters.

Legal representation was based on a CW1 (Controled Work) application, initially applied for not by the solicitor, but Shelter??

So evidently, the solicitor did not even have the very basic funding in place to represent, he would be deemed as second provider under the CW1.

Legal Aid have this afternoon provided a copy of the CW1.

Any advice would as always be greatly appreciated.

Could a solicitor, based on the funding allowed, under the CW1 scheme be in a position to be able to make full representation which would include a settlement agreement.

Is it not the case, that the solicitor did not have the funds, nor the funds to create a contract, on which that representation was made.

As the solicitors, solicitors are trying desperately to get my claim struck out, a simple yes or no as to whether representation could or should have been made would, i assume be a key point to argue.

Thanks in advance.

Did they ask you if you accepted the settlement offer?.

Edited: it seems the answer is in your other thread on this same matter.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim-%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

"

Part of me agreeing to the compromise was that i reserved the right to pursue a PI, and those instructions were giving to the solicitor who has in letters and emails confirmed that he was instructed to reserve that right. He did not relay that information and he allowed me the client to sign the compromise agreement which in effect was for Full and final

settlement/s which was worded that any right to pursue a claim had now been lost because the solicitor did not reserve the right and because he advised me to sign agreement, mindful that i was losing any legal right to pursue a PI claim."

So, you are now saying they shouldn't have been acting on your behalf, and agreed it without your authority.

But you signed the agreement.

Then you are saying that you lost your chance to sue for personal injury, but it transpires you had already lost that chance as it was statute barred.

I'm failing to see how they could have been negligent by acting for you, with your agreement, for allowing you to lose a right that had already been lost!

Did they ask you if you accepted the settlement offer?.

Hi BazzaS

Not quite sure what your question is.

I would have assumed that as the solicitor was not contracted, nor funded at that time, to represent, this would include representation on any agreements because he should not have been in a position to advice on that, or anything else, i would have thought.

The solicitor was at that time, not in a position to advise nor try to compromise, on my behalf.

Hi BazzaS

 

Not quite sure what your question is.

 

I would have assumed that as the solicitor was not contracted, nor funded at that time, to represent, this would include representation on any agreements because he should not have been in a position to advice on that, or anything else, i would have thought.

 

The solicitor was at that time, not in a position to advise nor try to compromise, on my behalf.

But you signed the agreement?

You didn't say "no, I never asked you to act for me!" ; in fact you did agree to them acting for you, given

those instructions were giving to the solicitor who has in letters and emails confirmed that he was instructed to reserve that right.

So, you instructed them!.

Then you signed the agreement, settling the claim.

Now you want to claim

a) They shouldn't have been acting for you. Yet, you instructed them.

b) They shouldn't have agreed a compromise agreement : but you agreed it and signed.

c) They made you lose the chance to persue a PI claim ; but it was already statute barred when they took it on, so it was already lost and you have suffered no new harm as a result of their actions.

Its irrelevant whether i signed an agreement or not.

The fact remains he should have not had anything to do with my case which would include any agreements, he was not contracted to deal with any agreements.

Its not a case of me not wanting them to act that needs to be proved, if i knew now, what the solicitor should have said then, i most certainly would not ask him to act, and would not agree to him continuing to act, he was obliged to tell me the client that he did not have the funding to create valid contract, and not for the client to second guess if that compulsory obligation as to act had been met.

So, are you arguing that the solicitor shouldn't have acted for you? (In which case you got "something for nothing"!).

Either way : it IS relevant you signed the agreement. You can't claim you didn't agree it.

You MIGHT claim they owed you a duty of care to explain that signing it meant you couldn't then issue a PI claim.

However, it still remains that even if they owed you that duty of care, and even if they breached it, they will argue there can be no claim for negligence, as no harm resulted.

You were already outside the period of the statute of limitation for the PI claim ; what new harm are you saying you suffered?.

The loss of ability to bring a claim that was already statute barred?.