Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

callum1999

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by callum1999

  1. callum1999
    If the other side requested the case be moved, what rule would they need to comply with, for that transfer to be giving?
  2. callum1999
    No, but where the Claimant and where the Defendant lives should not decide the merits of a case. Is there a procedure that needs to be followed??? to transfer a case, i would assume that this has been adopted, if for any reason, that turns out not to be the case, it will just add and prolong the proceedings long term, a bit silly, but as expected> not to worry.
  3. callum1999
    Oh ok Yes the High Court in London GM.
  4. callum1999
    No but thereafter yes. The Council have been giving the evidence to prosecute the solicitor, and present that evidence to the police, because technically they are the victims, if fraud is proved. However if they decide not to pursue, which was never in a million years going to happen, partly because the solicitor for the council has aided and abetted with my solicitor, i refer back to (conflict of interest) ? this would allow my solicitor, if he has committed fraud, which is clearly the case now, from being subject to a criminal investigation, how convenient is that. Problem that both solicitors have got and any immunity that the councils solicitor has giving my solicitor under normal circumstances would be a master stroke, but problem is, it matters not if the Council and their solicitor took this route, which they have. As a member of the public i have every right to report a crime, and if that crime involves a commodity that is in the public interest, as public funds paid and received, would be of a public interest and one that should be considered for a criminal prosecution, all i have done is added the council solicitor with my solicitor as to conspire to defraud the public out of funding. So just put the two together solicitor and council, that immunity the council are giving my solicitor is no longer a viable option. It is in the public interest, not the solicitor working for the council to decide.. High Court GM Whilst i am not qualified as to who is capable of hearing a Multi track claim, there needs to be rules that have to be complied with for a party to achieve this. CPR 11, 3 (B) which i assume would be the correct procedure for the other side to adopt, if they wanted the case moved from the High Court to the County Court, that time passed 14 days after the acknowledgement of service was made. I am only going by the rules, because it appears to me that once i sterted presenting the evidence in favour of my claim, they suddenly want a court and a judge to now suddenly deal with the case, just a coincidence or just another ploy tactic with no substance when it comes to complying with the rules..
  5. callum1999
    The Defendants have had the claim moved (jurisdiction) from the High Court, level of judge Master, to a County Court, level of judge District, on the grounds that both parties are with the same Civil Court, just say for argument sake, Bristol. Thats what the otherside are using to get it moved. Can they make an application to change the level of Court or Judge at any time during the litigation, as this request was made on the proposed direction under CPR29.1(2) with the directions questionaire, this after the Court said that it appeared the case was suitable for allocation to the multi track. As always any advice would be greatly appreciated. CPR 11, 3 (b) would this have any affect on the application?? The application was made after this order was complied with, by both parties, no application to move the case by otherside. Fraud.. (False Representation) It has been reported now.
  6. callum1999
    Its a misrepresentation, regardless of the solicitor was minded not to take on the original PI claim, if that were true, why ask for the medical evidence and thereafter, disclose it, if the solicitor was in no way dealing with a PI claim, medical evidence + PI claims go hand in hand, again the evidence would clearly suggest "They just didn't want to deal with your PI claim" as not being entirely correct, the complete opposite. You do not know that if it went somewhere else they would have rejected it, as i have pointed out before, this solicitor was adamant that the Courts would extend the limitatiom, so much so, he was requesting medical evidence as to establish those initial injuries. GM some advice please If the police are to investigate, what would be the next steps in this litigation, what should i do??
  7. callum1999
    If i had known then, what i know now, i would have gone somewhere else, to say it is not relevant, is just plain nonsense.
  8. callum1999
    A solicitor cannot tell a client what they like, whilst they are not obliged to accept a claim, they most certainly are not obliged to mislead a client into believing such a service never existed. You seem to be missing the point of misrepresentation, and the deception, by saying "yea but if they did tell you that they could provide that service, they were not obliged to undertake the work, that i accept, but that is not the issue as they have not put themselves into such a position that you are placing them in. Forget the PI injury that could have been appealed under the Limitations, what about the PI for heart attack, stress, anxiety, angina and a list of other both physical and psychological damage caused and not protected by statue barred>> I know you are only trying to help GM.
  9. callum1999
    But they did not refuse to "take the claim on" on the basis that you are alleging GM. They said that they could do neither, and not based on the merits or reasons not to represent as is now being suggested, it was because that firm, and on the strength of THEIR OWN evidence (disclosed) did not do this type of work. Not only was that, and has now now proofed as being a complete lie, it was a quite blatant misrepresentation. What was the motivation in misrepresenting, from where i am sat i would highlight two (A) profit, continuing beyond remit, not giving the case up and continue to profit, minded and in evidence, stating they were not in a position as to continue, on the grounds that we do not do this work or (B) A conflict of interest between that council and that firm of solicitors. The consequences when one or both are established which i do not foresee as having great difficulty in proving are way beyond where i want to be, i am not that type of person, malicious, but, if this solicitor and all those timidly trying to cover want to carry on in hope rather than in facts, my next course of action would be more than justified. The Defendants and now the Council are refusing to provide the full details of the funding for the case, which would include the solicitors bill, surely this cannot be an option and is a deliberate attempt as to pervert the course of justice. I would have thought that it would be in their own interest, and for a number of reasons that they provide now, rather than the establishment finding out for themselves.
  10. callum1999
    They may not be under any obligation to offer a CFA or take on a PI claim GM, but to claim they could do neither, whilst advising/representing a client, was that within the boundaries??? So if the solicitor evidently states his company do not do PI claims and evidently fails to reserve, after being instructed by a client to obliged with either, why has the client or more importantly why has the solicitor not only requested the medical evidence, but also disclosed this sensitive material to a number of third parties. Was this yet another misrepresentation/act as to drag the case out, whilst making profit???, or just a geniune mistake to add to all the other mistakes,
  11. callum1999
    Maybe the reason "they said that" was that the solicitor and the firm do and did deal with PI claims but as with a number of other factors, led the client (me) to believe that they didn't, knowing full well that this was not entirely true, they did, and on checking their website today, still do. Which begs the question, why tell me (the client) that there was no funding available because they have never done this type of work before, but still continued and beyond remit, to profit??, and at the public expense?
  12. callum1999
    So, there is no need for the MOJ to include rule 32.18 in the rules, based on what you are stating. So why when i was requested to provide further evidence to the POC by the same people denying me further evidence, could this not be drawn and on your theory, on the POC, excactly the same principle, the difference being i provided further facts, maybe because i have not got nothing to hide. Liability has nothing to do with it, had the Council admitted liability, which was always going to be the case, would there application to strike out, been successful? No. They have secured n order by stating and relying on something that was incorrect and successfully relied on that indirection (denying liability) as a means of gaining an order. My solicitor was in agreement with me and wrote to the Council pointing out why the claim that was struck out should be reconsidered by what the solicitor described as being a sympathetic court would give an extension. None of what you are saying was being said by the solicitor, why is that?
  13. callum1999
    Am i right into believing i can amend the POC, and to include fraud and breaching data protection to the claim form. This would now be supported by those who determined both acts and on the balance of evidence, considered and adjudged are of the same opinion as me. When a solicitor goes beyond remit, lies about funding not being available and also has the audacity to get a client to pay to disclose sensitive medical information to a third party, he is in a lot of trouble, still he knew the risks and he knew that when he took those risks how vulnerable his client was, at that time, which most certainly will not help his cause, that is for sure.
  14. callum1999
    They have not agreed nor disagreed with my facts, if that were to be the case, they would have complied with the order which would afford them and state why "they disagree with my facts" They have indicated that they are not prepared to admit the facts, purely for financial reasons, yea right, they know if they admit to the facts their weak case becomes even more weak and hanging by a thread. Yes he can and he should have, liability when the claim was struck out due to not receiving such notice was not damaged caused by me, it had not been litigated, neither me nor the Court are responsible for the actions of a third party (PO) and not to mention the Council were denying liability, used to secure a judgement, cannot rely on that now could they??
  15. callum1999
    Can i apply under Rule 32.18 (Notice To Admit Facts) for the Court to make such an order on application? I have but to no avail, invited the Defendants to provide, but they are refusing. These facts are in my opinion relevant to the case, and should be considered by the Judge, if say for argument, i apply to strike defence out. If i cannot rely on those facts, this puts me at a disadvantage, any advice would as always, be appreciated. The solicitor was instructed and thereafter, agreed to reserve any PI claims that i had or could have had against the Council, whether or not any previous PI claim was struck out had nothing to do with the solicitor, evidently, he was not legally representing me at that time..
  16. callum1999
    You could not make it up, how could anyone know that they have not received a court order, and make an application??, if they never received it, in the first place. Sorry, but it is the solicitors fault, he was instructed to reserve the clients right to pursue the clients right to pursue a claim, he failed, despite acknowledging that fact. That obligation and statutory duty was well and truly breached, that's not me stating the obvious, but in any working environment, there are standards that have to be met, why solicitors feel they are immune from such standards, is a probable reason why you have more than one Organisation keeping tabs on how they behave and act, or is that just a coincident?? strange that. Andy i am looking for advice, that is all I have nothing more to say to BazzaS, (Dave) i will ignore and thank you for giving such notice
  17. callum1999
    You could not bully me, on the internet or in real life, fool. You strike me as a bully, my opinion, that's not to say you are bullying me, im just stating how i persevere you in real life. This site was designed to help people, not judge, are you ok with that?, you have the facility to PM me.....
  18. callum1999
    Who is stating LiP's get to do what they want, oh the irony. Unlike this solicitor, who not only has taking about three miles of slack but the public has funded this adventure, how jolly. Final paragraph, again, it is merely your opnion, so again, it is irrelevant. Anyway i am off for some tea now, give you time to calm down. A note to who runs this site. I am genuinely trying to seek advice on here, but each and every post is being hijacked by one poster. I have not got a problem with him, but if his intentions are to get the thread removed, so be it. I would have assumed this site is far bigger than one individual who fails to be able to control himself if you dare oppose him. A bit of a bully, never let the bully win.
  19. callum1999
    "Will be" dose not mean "Can be" Lets turn this round, you tell me why they would not consider extending the limitation, and bearing in mind what you have just said about "being strong enough, i might be wrong but i would assume a litigant as a opposed to a professional solicitor, cough, would be cut a bit of slack, your theory>>
  20. callum1999
    You are funny, how have you know reached the Court of Appeal? This one would go straight to Crown Court, and depending on the plea, supported by a jury>>
  21. callum1999
    Im sorry for asking the question and not knowing the answer, i almost forgot that this is a public forum which enables members of the public to ask questions in the hope of getting sensible replies. If i were as clever as you Dave, i would not need to ask others, tick tock I have no attitude towards the Courts time limits, quite the reverse. Its irrelevant, limitations can be extended, period.
  22. callum1999
    Tick Tock, all depends on when evidence came to light, cannot act as you put it "promptly" until in such a position of being able to "act promptly" Forget about amending civil claims, and try and concentrate on the real issues, like a solicitor making profit when such profit would and should have been spent on those more deserving, like the old, not some two pence greedy solicitor who feels as you do, oh so sure, yea right. Oh i will, trust me, i know a lit bit about criminal law. Like i know the rules on double jeopardy, no longer exist. You can always google it, if you are still not convinced?? What you believe is completely irrelevant. You have quoted double jeopardy five minutes after dictating this message, that says it all and what you believe.
  23. callum1999
    Yes they do HB but they can also take over from a private criminal prosecution, if they feel obliged or adjudge the case serious enough, which i would assume any fraud matter as being. Private prosecutions in theory puts those accused in a position of facing two separate criminal prosecutions, one would follow the other, but separately. If for argument sake i fail to get a criminal prosecution, that same evidence can be passed onto to the police/cps who are more likely to get a criminal prosecution rather than an individual because they would know the law.
  24. callum1999
    I disagree, a criminal act is a criminal act, regardless of who and why the act was committed. If you are suggestion that solicitors are immune from a criminal prosecution because the act was committed in a Civil Court, the law dose not work that way, im affraid. As for getting it through the County Court, who would not be able to consider such an allegation, i would assume, and because it was not mentioned in the POC, again i do not agree with you, this evidence came to light after the claim was issued. Believe it or not, sometimes evidence gets discovered once a claim has been issued. So could they bump it down from a Master to say a District Judge, as i have indicated the level of Judge Master?, as to consider my application.
  25. callum1999
    But the Defendant is not complying with my notice to admit facts, if they did, this would further show that (a) there is no arguable defence (b) this should be considered by the judge.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...