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.

Nobody can know as we've not seen your retainer/contract etc.

However, I do think that you're getting slightly muddled with instructions and funding.

Apologies if this isn't relevant, but in post #44 callum, you said: [my bold]

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.'

HB

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?.

It is not a point about anyone getting something for nothing, if i wanted to take that route, i would have represented myself.

I had a legal right to rely on a professional, rather than risk getting something for nothing, so i am afraid that this point in trying to vindicate the solicitors actions because he done it for nothing, your theory. is just that.

Again it makes no relevance what i have signed, but for the solicitor, who had no right to negotiate the agreement in the first instance, no agreement would have been agreed and no signature required, he put me in that position, and he put me in that position knowing full well he had no legal entitlement or authority at that time to (a) negotiate (b) put an offer to the client © and claim the costs, thereafter.

The limitation period and the statue barred is subject to an extension of time, one of the provisions, as i understand it, is that once liability has been established, if denied, which was the case, the period of being able to claim is triggered once liability is proven and not from any date that it is denied.

In theory if that provision was not in place anyone accused of being responsible for injury to someone else, could just deny liability for three years, as did the Council and the solicitor, and rely on the limitation period as a means of avoiding paying compensation on just a bare denial, rather than on facts.

Any loss of ability to bring a claim may well have been statute barred, but for the reasons giving, there are avenues which could i assume supersede any limitation, and rightly so.

Apologies if this isn't relevant, but in post #44 callum, you said: [my bold]

 

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.'

 

HB

Hi Honeybee, and thank you for your post.

The solicitor was limited to fees not exceeding £500, those fees were obviously exhausted, during the early part of the litigation.

If they were not, which evidently they were, any costs incurred could only be remit on any work within that £500 granted.

Giving that the solicitor has in evidence now stated that he applied and appealed for more funding from the Legal Aid would not only suggest that initial funding had been already used, once he knew that there would be no further funding, he should have not only stated this, but also should have acted accordingly, by giving the case up, he did neither, he carried on, regardless knowing there was no funding for him to represent me, which would show he was not under a contract to represent, as funding would have to be in place in order for the contract to be legally agreed and valid.

 

The limitation period and the statue barred is subject to an extension of time, one of the provisions, as i understand it, is that once liability has been established, if denied, which was the case, the period of being able to claim is triggered once liability is proven and not from any date that it is denied.

 

In theory if that provision was not in place anyone accused of being responsible for injury to someone else, could just deny liability for three years, as did the Council and the solicitor, and rely on the limitation period as a means of avoiding paying compensation on just a bare denial, rather than on facts.

Tosh.

If liability is denied the only way to be SURE it doesn't become statute barred is to commence proceedings before the limitation date.

As for "the period of being able to claim is triggered once liability is proven and not from any date that it is denied." ; say what?

The statute bar "clock" runs from when the cause of action arises, or (for PI) from when the injured party (if a competant adult) gains actual or constructive knowledge of the cause of action.

"Liability proven"? It would only be "proven" when adjudged in court - up to that point it would only be "claimed", not "proven".

Your "understanding" is so far from reality that I'm hesitant to mention s.33 and Steeds v Peverel Management Services Ltd, but I do so merely to reassure anyone else reading this that I am aware of those, but don't feel they'll aid this OP.

In theory if that provision was not in place anyone accused of being responsible for injury to someone else, could just deny liability for three years, as did the Council and the solicitor, and rely on the limitation period as a means of avoiding paying compensation on just a bare denial, rather than on facts..

Actually, the solution to a disputed denial of liability is simple:

The claimant issues proceedings within the limitation period, and if agreement isn't reached before trial - the court judges.

If the end of the limitation period is approaching, the claimant can issue proceedings so as to not fall foul of the statute bar, and then request a stay to allow negotiation with the defendant.

Not tosh, at all.

What you are trying to suggest is that the limitation period and the time limits all need to be completed with a 36 month period, and that is it, no provision??

BazzaS, just a simple yes or no> can the limitation period be extended

The answer to that, would dismiss the statue barred that you are minding into believing any claim that i had five years ago against the Council would not be the solicitors liability two years ago, because of his negligence, what a load of nonsense.

You know as well as what i do, that an accident 4 years ago can still be claimed beyond limitation, which begs the question why you continually repeat what is an insignificant point and one on which this and any other solicitor could rely on, sorry but you are wrong.

Actually, the solution to a disputed denial of liability is simple:

The claimant issues proceedings within the limitation period, and if agreement isn't reached before trial - the court judges.

 

If the end of the limitation period is approaching, the claimant can issue proceedings so as to not fall foul of the statute bar, and then request a stay to allow negotiation with the defendant.

Agreed with your second paragraph.

And thats what i did, to isure against any limitation being eclined.

Unfortunately, as with a number of other issues, the solicitor, who i have since established, should not have been representing, failed to act on the fresh proceedings and with the limitation, suprise, suprise.

Agreed with your second paragraph.

 

And thats what i did, to isure against any limitation being eclined.

 

Unfortunately, as with a number of other issues, the solicitor, who i have since established, should not have been representing, failed to act on the fresh proceedings and with the limitation, suprise, suprise.

Did you actually issue court proceedings for a PI claim?. Or just write to the council staying you thought they were liable? Were you issued with a claim reference number by the court for the PI claim?.

If so, were those PI proceedings included in your compromise agreement? If not what is the current status of that claim?.

You know as well as what i do, that an accident 4 years ago can still be claimed beyond limitation, which begs the question why you continually repeat what is an insignificant point and one on which this and any other solicitor could rely on, sorry but you are wrong.

It can have a claim ISSUED, but the defendant will use ss.11 and 12 as a defence.

Not tosh, at all.

 

What you are trying to suggest is that the limitation period and the time limits all need to be completed with a 36 month period, and that is it, no provision??

 

BazzaS, just a simple yes or no> can the limitation period be extended

 

The answer to that, would dismiss the statue barred that you are minding into believing any claim that i had five years ago against the Council would not be the solicitors liability two years ago, because of his negligence, what a load of nonsense.

 

You know as well as what i do, that an accident 4 years ago can still be claimed beyond limitation, which begs the question why you continually repeat what is an insignificant point and one on which this and any other solicitor could rely on, sorry but you are wrong.

He's right, it is tosh!

The limitation period for accident claims like yours is 3 years from the date of the accident.

It doesn't run from the date of admission or denial of liability at all.

Technically limitation is a defence so in theory if the Defendant agrees to an extension and not to raise it as an issue the limitation period can be extended by consent.

However, if liability is denied then the odds on the Defendant consenting to this are very low, in which case you MUST commence court proceedings within three years of the accident date or you are statute barred.

Section 33 applications to disapply the three year limitation period are theoretically possible but it has to be exceptional and extenuating circumstances. A denial of liability is not one.

 

BazzaS, just a simple yes or no> can the limitation period be extended

 

Can it be extended: if forced into the gross oversimplification of a "yes or no" answer, the answer would have to be yes, it can.

However, "simple" would be an apt description for someone who felt it would (rather than "could") be extended. It "could", for a yes or no answer, but in the circumstances described, it wouldn't be.

It could be extended by mutual consent : why would the council be minded to agree that?.

It could be extended for a minor or protected party. The OP has shown no understanding of the law regarding limitation, but that doesn't mean they lack competance to issue proceedings (and in some of their posts they claim to have done so...)

The limitation could be disapplied (technically different to an extension) under s.33, but considering the six-fold factors the court would consider : that too seems most unlikely.

 

The answer to that, would dismiss the statue barred that you are minding into believing any claim that i had five years ago against the Council would not be the solicitors liability two years ago, because of his negligence, what a load of nonsense.

Nonsense is a fair summary for : "The answer to that, would dismiss the statue barred that you are minding into believing any claim that i had five years ago against the Council would not be the solicitors liability two years ago, because of his negligence"

I can't begin to make out either the meaning or the logic behind that paragraph. It is like someone has chosen random words from a law text on limitation / negligence / PI claims.

As for "I have a very strong case, a solicitor has said so, but I haven't let them take it on for me under a CFA as I prefer to take on the case myself, as a LiP, in the High Court, to keep costs down" ; yeah, right.

This, from the same person who said they weren't bothered about costs, as they had no assets that could be claimed against if they lost.

Is the current claim in the High Court, or multi-track of the County Court?. The OP has stated both .....

Was the OP's original PI claim struck out for failure to comply with directions?.

Would having failed to comply with directions once not be a good reason to let a solicitor deal with the claim under a CFA (that and the reduced stress from not being a LiP, given the OP's medical conditions ........).

That is, of course, if the OP's case is as strong as they claim their new solicitor has told them ...... if so, they'd be gagging to take on the case under a CFA!

Limitation and on the scale of issues is way down on the list, however just for record, the solicitor has in correspondence whilst unlawfully negotiating a settlement has clearly indicated to the Council "And giving the circumstances we do not foresee any difficulty in the Court sympathising with our client, giving the circumstances, in extending the limitation period.

Which would fit in with the solicitor and the Council wanting sight of my medical records, which again proves beyond any doubt that the solicitor was not only acting without a legitimate contract in place, (fraud), the funding that would have been in place would most certainly not come out of the clients pocket, to pay for those medical records.

There was no funding, therefore there could be no contract, the solicitor has therefore committed a serious fraud, which in this case was to claim from the public purse for work that he could not have possibly incured, because the funding and that funding that would be needed to secure a contract agreement WAS EVIDENTLY, never there.

I rest my case.

Limitation and on the scale of issues is way down on the list, however just for record, the solicitor has in correspondence whilst unlawfully negotiating a settlement has clearly indicated to the Council "And giving the circumstances we do not foresee any difficulty in the Court sympathising with our client, giving the circumstances, in extending the limitation period.

 

Which would fit in with the solicitor and the Council wanting sight of my medical records, which again proves beyond any doubt that the solicitor was not only acting without a legitimate contract in place, (fraud), the funding that would have been in place would most certainly not come out of the clients pocket, to pay for those medical records.

 

There was no funding, therefore there could be no contract, the solicitor has therefore committed a serious fraud, which in this case was to claim from the public purse for work that he could not have possibly incured, because the funding and that funding that would be needed to secure a contract agreement WAS EVIDENTLY, never there.

 

I rest my case.

Which case (are you resting.....).

1) The negligence case? what harm has the alleged breach of duty of care caused you, that you hadn't already caused yourself?.

2) The "fraud" (which isn't, and hasn't caused you any loss). Fraud would be a criminal matter, BTW, so if you believe there has been a fraud you should report it to the police.

If your report to the police is as confused as your approach here, they'll take no action, so you might want to get your story logically organised and highlight how it is fraud : you don't appear to have convinced anyone here it is a fraud .......

3) Some other case?. You've started a court case, as a LiP.

(Remind us, is this High Court, County Court?)

(Remind us, why are you undertaking this as an LiP, given the stress you claim it is causing you, and the health conditions you have mentioned, and the fact that [apparently] a solicitor believes you have a very strong case - why not take out a CFA and let them deal with all the stress for you......).

Looking back, I can't see where you have actually particularised the loss you are claiming for, in either money terms, or a clear statement of loss that you are asking the court to quantify.

Did the solicitor (the one you are claiming was negligent, so why would you also believe their statement?) make that statement before or after finding out that you had already made a PI claim and had it struck out ............ the statement may have been accurate on the facts available to them at the time, but you may have not given them all the information (in the same way you didn't mention it on CAG initially .... it only came out later, and you have been conveniently ignoring it).

You can ignore those valid questions here (as you have done so far). Thing is, you don't have to answer them here, but they'll certainly arise in court, where you won't be able to ignore them and hope they will go away.

I do not need to ignore anything, to be perfectly honest.

However, what is being ignored and despite paragraph after paragraph trying to convince me that i have not acted in a way that you see as fit, you have not made any attempt to tell me or anyone else why the solicitor fraudulently acted and claimed for costs that he and you know full well, could not have been inured, because there was no contract to incur, and there most certainly was not a valid contract as to claim costs, your views?

As for reporting fraud to the relevant people who deal or were affected by the solicitors most blatant of actions, how do you know this has not been reported?, its defrauding the public out of public funding, period.

The solicitor took the chance, on this occasion, he has been well and truly outed by someone a bit more clever than him.

I do not need to ignore anything, to be perfectly honest.

 

However, what is being ignored and despite paragraph after paragraph trying to convince me that i have not acted in a way that you see as fit, you have not made any attempt to tell me or anyone else why the solicitor fraudulently acted and claimed for costs that he and you know full well, could not have been inured, because there was no contract to incur, and there most certainly was not a valid contract as to claim costs, your views?

 

As for reporting fraud to the relevant people who deal or were affected by the solicitors most blatant of actions, how do you know this has not been reported?, its defrauding the public out of public funding, period.

 

The solicitor took the chance, on this occasion, he has been well and truly outed by someone a bit more clever than him.

OK then, who have you reported this "fraud" to, then?. Should we expect to hear of the solicitor being prosecuted by the CPS, or censured by the SRA, anytime soon?.

You are more clever than that solicitor?. Yet, you spouted tosh about limitation periods, and when called out on it, suddenly decided they weren't important after all.....

My view is that the solicitor was acting for you, under an agreement. After all, there was an exchange of emails where you gave them instructions. You INSTRUCTED them. I base this on where you describe the e-mailed instructions .....

You probably have as good a grasp of the details of that retainer (since another poster has asked about it repeatedly, and you still haven't provided the details / a [suitably redacted] copy.......), as you do of limitation ....

Meanwhile, you have an ongoing court claim (the details of which you remain coy). You don't appear to know what you are claiming for, but have decided that it is the best way for you to show how much more clever you are than the solicitor.

If they didn't have to waste time on it, I suspect they'd be laughing at the absurdity.......

If you didn't ask the solicitor to negotiate the compromise agreement for you (and bearing in mind how much more clever you are!) : why did you sign it?.

OK then, who have you reported this "fraud" to, then?. Should we expect to hear of the solicitor being prosecuted by the CPS, or censured by the SRA, anytime soon?.

 

You are more clever than that solicitor?. Yet, you spouted tosh about limitation periods, and when called out on it, suddenly decided they weren't important after all.....

 

My view is that the solicitor was acting for you, under an agreement. After all, there was an exchange of emails where you gave them instructions. You INSTRUCTED them. I base this on where you describe the e-mailed instructions .....

 

You probably have as good a grasp of the details of that retainer (since another poster has asked about it repeatedly, and you still haven't provided the details / a [suitably redacted] copy.......), as you do of limitation ....

 

Meanwhile, you have an ongoing court claim (the details of which you remain coy). You don't appear to know what you are claiming for, but have decided that it is the best way for you to show how much more clever you are than the solicitor.

If they didn't have to waste time on it, I suspect they'd be laughing at the absurdity.......

Oh right, the contract and the needed funding to create a legitimate contract has been firmly established because of email communication, thats news to me, and well done, you have just re-invented the validity of a contract, based on your theory, which how you would put is complete TOSH.

What part of the solicitor acting, incurring and thereafter claiming costs without a contract to achieve either are you really finding it hard to see, or want to see???

I have already explained that there was no agreement after the minimal award of public funding had been exhausted, more importantly, the evidence that has now been disclosed in a court of law, by the solicitor, acting for the fraudulent one further demonstrates this very significant fact, there was no contract in place which incidentally would include the time when the solicitor was acting negligently!!!

If the solicitors as you put it are laughing at this absurdity, thats fine by me, maybe in between laughing and know that they will not get a penny, in any event, they should find the time to google contract, that would be of more benefit, rather than ignoring the glaringly obvious, There was no contract to incur, and thereafter profit, period.

As for being reported, the Councils insurers are now investigating, the Legal Aid are aware of his actions, as are the SRA, as for the CPS, based on the evidence stacked up against him now, it would be in the public interest to prosecute the solicitor, after all, he has profited, be it unlawfully and without contract from the public purse, his legal costs, which he was not entitled to claim.

If you didn't ask the solicitor to negotiate the compromise agreement for you (and bearing in mind how much more clever you are!) : why did you sign it?.

Irrelevant, the solicitor was negotiating on my behalf, he did not have a contract in place for me to compromise the agreement, through him.

Irrelevant, the solicitor was negotiating on my behalf, he did not have a contract in place for me to compromise the agreement, through him.

What was he doing "negotiating on your behalf", as you put it, if not to establish the terms of the compromise agreement? You know, the one you instructed him about, and then signed??.

If they weren't representing you, when you started sending them instructions, they would have replied "we don't have a retainer in place with you, are you wishing to instruct us" ...... if they MISTAKENLY believed there was a retainer in place, (which is a possibility, after all you seem to be able to get easily confused and risk causing confusion......), then that is a MISTAKE, not FRAUD.

Did you really mean to say "for me to compromise the agreement"?. You didn't "compromise the agreement", you "signed a compromise agreement"......

Validity of a contract, I defer to Treitel.

Offer, acceptance, consideration and intent to create legal relations. Nothing you have said prevents there being a contract in place for them to represent you. Or, they may have made a mistake : it still isn't fraud, and you still haven't established:

a) a quantified loss.

b) a loss you can describe, that you want the court to quantify, or

c) any valid cause of action.....

Contracts can be written, in e-mail, or verbal. Provided the four key elements (offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent to create legal relations) are present it doesn't matter if it is a physical document, electronic document, or verbal agreement, though establishing the existence of the contract to the satisfaction of the court is easier with the physical and electronic documents ....

Irrelevant, the solicitor was negotiating on my behalf, he did not have a contract in place for me to compromise the agreement, through him.

Again, I think you are mixing up the retainer and the funding.

We really need to see the paperwork you signed but it's probably not possible to type it all up so will be pure speculation and guesswork.

What was he doing "negotiating on your behalf", as you put it, if not to establish the terms of the compromise agreement? You know, the one you instructed him about, and then signed??.

 

If they weren't representing you, when you started sending them instructions, they would have replied "we don't have a retainer in place with you, are you wishing to instruct us" ...... if they MISTAKENLY believed there was a retainer in place, (which is a possibility, after all you seem to be able to get easily confused and risk causing confusion......), then that is a MISTAKE, not FRAUD.

 

 

 

Did you really mean to say "for me to compromise the agreement"?. You didn't "compromise the agreement", you "signed a compromise agreement"......

 

Validity of a contract, I defer to Treitel.

Offer, acceptance, consideration and intent to create legal relations. Nothing you have said prevents there being a contract in place for them to represent you. Or, they may have made a mistake : it still isn't fraud, and you still haven't established:

a) a quantified loss.

b) a loss you can describe, that you want the court to quantify, or

c) any valid cause of action.....

A solicitor does not mistakenly believe there is a retainer in place, i have heard it all now, dress it up as much as you want, come the cold light of day, its FRAUD.

You do not mistakenly SEND A LEGAL BILL FOR PAYMENT, because you MISTAKENLY thought you were entitled to that payment.

The solicitor should have giving up the case once the funds needed to create a valid contract had been exhausted, or refused, either, and then advised accordingly which again would show yet another example of this solicitor acting with severe negligence.

Again, I think you are mixing up the retainer and the funding.

 

We really need to see the paperwork you signed but it's probably not possible to type it all up so will be pure speculation and guesswork.

But you need funding to be able to provide a retainer, he went beyond remit.

But you need funding to be able to provide a retainer, he went beyond remit.

Consideration need only be sufficient, not adequate .............

What needs to be realised is that this is just not a case of a member of the public asking a solicitor to represent him.

This solicitor was entrusted by a Organisation set up to protect the public from landlords who breach Housing laws. SHELTER.

The solicitors work and any breaches were proved by Shelter so he did not even have to establish those facts, they were put on a plate for him, but he still managed to DRAG the case out, initially by not doing the obvious and what Shelter expected of him, an injunction, which would have removed the risk straight away.

Why was he motivated in DRAGGING the case out, for PROFIT, which he would not have got anywhere near if the Court had issued an injunction.

At the time he knew full well that his client had recently suffered a serious heart attack, which meant he had a heart condition and was also suffering from severe PTSD, but this meant nothing to the solicitor, those facts would not help his bank balance, a very selfish act, but not uncommon in that profession.

Lowest of the low in my opinion, another person using the vulnerability of another person as to satisfy their own needs, in this case pure profit.

Consideration need only be sufficient, not adequate .............

And hence why a client, or in this case, had to fund the claim, out of his own pocket............

And hence why a client, or in this case, had to fund the claim, out of his own pocket............

I thought you only paid for the medical records? How much were they?

Disbursements are the often paid for by the client.

And hence why a client, or in this case, had to fund the claim, out of his own pocket............

You've misunderstood (again).

What do you believe "consideration need only be sufficient, not adequate" to mean??.

You say there was no contract as there was no funding. There was some funding, so there could be a contract ......... that the funding was limited doesn't preclude the contract.

It is back to GM's point : you are confusing "funding" and "retainer".

Mind you, if you led the solicitor to believe you were funding the claim out of your own pocket, until the case was won / the council settled (including costs), then there was both the retainer and a funding agreement...........

Are you now saying you agreed to fund the case?. Not for the first time your statements are confusing / poorly phrased.....

Anyhow, to recap : outstanding contradictions you have created:

Funding details?.

Retainer details?.

High Court or County Court?

Why aren't you retaining solicitors for the current case, funded by a CFA?.

If you can't get those clear, here, how do you expect to make your case in court, as a LiP?

I thought you only paid for the medical records? How much were they?

 

Disbursements are the often paid for by the client.

I had to pay £50 for medical records, but as explained earlier, those records and the personal data were not relevant to the case, because the solicitor has since stated that his firm do not do PI claims?, their words not mine.

I have gone through all the emails received and two there are two that stand out.

The first one states we await legal aid before we can continue with your case, and on the refusal of legal aid, we do not do conditional fee agreements for this type of work!!!! as has been suggested by Legal Aid to us.

So reading that would i assume show that no more work could or should have been undertaking until legal aid was granted, which was refused, and thereafter and on the advice of Legal aid, the solicitor has indicated that they do not do CFA, thats what their letter clearly states, which would dismiss any theories that there could or was a fee in place after legal aid was refused.

It would also like to mention the complaint against the solicitor that i made against the solicitor before legal aid was refused, not only was the complaint not dealt with by his company, my invitation to forward my complaint onto the Legal Aid, SRA were denied by the company.

So not only does the company not have the correct process for a complaints procedure which is compulsory under guidlines, they did not allow those who could further deal with a clients complaint be considered, very odd...

You've misunderstood (again).

 

What do you believe "consideration need only be sufficient, not adequate" to mean??.

 

You say there was no contract as there was no funding. There was some funding, so there could be a contract ......... that the funding was limited doesn't preclude the contract.

 

It is back to GM's point : you are confusing "funding" and "retainer".

 

Mind you, if you led the solicitor to believe you were funding the claim out of your own pocket, until the case was won / the council settled (including costs), then there was both the retainer and a funding agreement...........

 

Are you now saying you agreed to fund the case?. Not for the first time your statements are confusing / poorly phrased.....

 

Anyhow, to recap : outstanding contradictions you have created:

Funding details?.

Retainer details?.

High Court or County Court?

Why aren't you retaining solicitors for the current case, funded by a CFA?.

 

If you can't get those clear, here, how do you expect to make your case in court, as a LiP?

You do not lead a solicitor into believing that you are funding a claim, how many more excuses are you going to give the solicitor, you are scrapping the bottom to even suggest this could be a reason for him or anyone else for that matter to rely on, its nonsense, and i think you know that.

As for your alleging me contradicting, maybe you should concentrate on what is being written rather than trying to make excuses which would be laughed out of court if you were representing that solicitor.

To remove any doubts, the funding was limited CW1, and exhausted, no public funding allowed thereafter, no fee agreement was agreed, and the matter is being considered within the High Court.

So why pay for your medical records?

A personal injury claim can be included in the disrepair claim by just disclosing medical records when the injuries are fairly minor.

This is different to a separate personal injury claim brought under the Personal Injury Protocol.

Regardless of which way you went about bringing an injury claim the medical records would need to be disclosed. I don't see how you were prejudiced by having the medical records disclosed.

As for your complaint, once the internal complaints procedure had been done it was for you to make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. Not for the firm to refer themselves to the Ombudsman.

It would also like to mention the complaint against the solicitor that i made against the solicitor before legal aid was refused, not only was the complaint not dealt with by his company, my invitation to forward my complaint onto the Legal Aid, SRA were denied by the company.

The solicitor doesn't have to pass your complaint onto the "Legal Aid", nor the SRA.

You've been advised previously who you should have approached if you wanted your complaint reviewed by a body that does have the power to pass the case on to the SRA, and you could complain to the Legal Aid Agency directly.

For both you might want to get your facts straight and your points clear, as if you present as confused a case as you have here, any such complaint will likely be "circular filed" fairly quickly.

As for your complaint, once the internal complaints procedure had been done it was for you to make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. Not for the firm to refer themselves to the Ombudsman.

I asked the OP if they had taken it to the Legal Ombudsman, asking on 4th April.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim&p=4884819#post4884819

Have you taken this to the Legal Ombudsman?

It is hard to help the OP if they aren't willing to help themself.

The solicitor doesn't have to pass your complaint onto the "Legal Aid", nor the SRA.

 

You've been advised previously who you should have approached if you wanted your complaint reviewed by a body that does have the power to pass the case onto the SRA, and you could complain to the Legal Aid Agency directly.

 

For both you might want to get your facts straight and your points clear, as if you present as confused a case as you have here, any such complaint will likely be "circular filed" fairly quickly.

Again that is your own opinion.

Whilst i agree that a solicitor does not have to pass a complaint onto the LA or SRA, you have again failed to give reason why his company did not follow the procedures that would need to be followed before they could get involved ???

The facts are quite clear, the fact that you have ignored any points that would undermined the solicitors actions as nothing short of fraud, says a lot, from where i am sat.

The solicitor doesn't have to pass your complaint onto the "Legal Aid", nor the SRA.

 

You've been advised previously who you should have approached if you wanted your complaint reviewed by a body that does have the power to pass the case on to the SRA, and you could complain to the Legal Aid Agency directly.

 

For both you might want to get your facts straight and your points clear, as if you present as confused a case as you have here, any such complaint will likely be "circular filed" fairly quickly.

So a litigation would not prevent a complaint be considered ?? as you are suggesting.

You cannot do both and the same time.

Legal Aid are aware of my complaint.

Again that is your own opinion.

 

Whilst i agree that a solicitor does not have to pass a complaint onto the LA or SRA, you have again failed to give reason why his company did not follow the procedures that would need to be followed before they could get involved ???

 

The facts are quite clear, the fact that you have ignored any points that would undermined the solicitors actions as nothing short of fraud, says a lot, from where i am sat.

The whole point of the Legal Ombudsman is to resolve complaints if you have tried to use the internal complaints procedure but you are still not happy with the result.

You are then entitled to go to the Ombudsman yourself.