spitfire1964
-
Posts
226 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by spitfire1964
-
Criminal Damage case - things dont add up....
spitfire1964 replied to letsmakeamark's topic in General Legal Issues
Please reassure everyone on here that you are not and never likely to be a defence solicitor/barrister?? You would have more clients serving sentences as for allowing to be openly framed giving the quite comical advice that you gave the OP in respect of false statements. -
Mate and I can tell you right now that no-one rocked up and out of the blue to see any solicitor right, quite the opposite, see the post I have just put on BazzaS response, its all detailed and factual. As for your work schedule, whilst I do have some sympathy for the amount of work that has come your way, and I would assume the Charity where you donate all your hard earned money are grateful for your continued contribution or do you get paid and keep all that money you work hard for?... That's life in the real world fella...
-
For the record and to remove any doubt no-one crashed through the solicitor front door, unexpected, demanding the solicitor drops everything that he is doing to accommodate what my grandfather was requesting. Indeed, after ringing the very same receptionist to give her notification that we were coming down as opposed to e-mailing, writing or making what evidently is a reasonable request by pigeon, on are arrival we were very polite, respectful and very calm, My granddad and in a non aggressive manner asked the receptionist if she or the ever busy solicitor could spare a few seconds, because that is all it would have taking in the real world to photo copy what I would assume would be on three or four A4 paper the contract/agreement. So and in theory and how BazzaS has created the actual events again to suite his own ego and agenda to always be right, again has been shown to be vigorously flawed and yet another made up story, which is barely that a story. How long to merely copy a few pieces of paper, not long and most certainly not unreasonable when you deal in fact as opposed to myths. If I were a betting man and looking at the facts I would hazard a guees that to do something so trivial like this would and in a solicitors world take 4 hours and a lot of unwarranted money as to profit from a simple task for anyone human.
-
How am I making it complicated, lol, if someone asked me to show or prove something I would just deal with it, period. As for turning up at the solicitors/ unannounced, I do apologise, are they really that important, or is this just the hype that was created in the last century, things have moved forward, its called progression, jump aboard.
-
Criminal Damage case - things dont add up....
spitfire1964 replied to letsmakeamark's topic in General Legal Issues
It get's better, "What do you care how serious it is for the people who gave misleading statement/s, its perverting the course of justice and say that tomorrow morning when all them innocent people waking up in jail because of misleading statements or fabrication of bxll ****-e to commit someone innocent to jail, i'm sure they will be in full agreement with you Barry, not. Don't rely on your defence, instruct and demand who is representing you to get the evidence and once they get that evidence instruct them to make an immediate application to the Courts to have the case immediately dismissed as there is clear evidence, be it from a Civil court, makes no difference that you are being subjected to perjury, in otherwords a load of lies. Also make the point that if charges or proceedings are not immediately withdrawn, you will be clsaiming damages from both the police and CPS for what is known as a malicious prosecution, they will move, hope this helps, it should. SF -
I thought email would be the appropriate way of communicating at this stage because it is proof, but my granddad did not do this because after advising him to do this, someone on here advised that this would not be the right thing to do, hence why we both went to the solicitors direct, but it appears that was wrong as well. I do not see why anyone should have to go to such extremes to find out whether or not the solicitor can or cannot represent my granddad, either he can or he cannot, why the process why all the fuss and why all the problems just to get to a fairly relevant point. ok, I will get my granddad to email him, as for legal proceedings being issued, again we are not sure whether or not they have, as their are negotiations to settle, probably not, not sure.
-
Book an appointment, why should anyone book an appointment with a solicitor who has no legal right to act or negotiate in the first place. Are you saying book an appointment with the same solicitor who has provided zero evidence, which would be evident, in any event to find out what could be giving without an appointment? Think you will find that you do not have to pre-book an appointment with a solicitor just for him or her to disclose the data that shows they can profit from someone and negotiate, which they clearly have, think the Data Protection Act and freedom of personal info would cover this and show the solicitor is currently breaching that Act by not providing personal data which he is acting upon, naughty.
-
I did suggest my granddad sending an email, but another poster said that would not be suitable, that's why my grandadad went down in person just to request a copy of this alleged agreement but I am now being told that my granddad would need to make an appointment with solicitor, crazy. We only want sight and copy of the contract the solicitor has been making legal representation on, we are not asking for sight of the Queens Will for goodness sake. Its quite simple really but if others want to make this complicated, carry on. Next I will be being told that I will have to rely on the FOA to see this mysterious contract. Any logical advice would be appreciated.
-
I get it, we just walk straight past the receptionist go charging through the building knocking down every door until we meet the solicitor, will have to try that next time, seriously.
-
You one oddball mate, get some help, and I mean that in the nicest way, you spend to much time on here, there is a big world out there. To remove any doubt JR up and running, Tribunal now jumping through hoops to conclude this now.
-
The receptionist told my granddad that they did not have to provide him with copies nor show originals from which we assumed could have been copied there and then. Understandably my granddad is a bit confused now and I just hope this is the only problem they have caused him because it would appear that they are hiding something here, it all points that way, anyway. Going to ring his insurance company up for some legal advice after being advised to do this by CAB, going through the policy details now to see if he can get some legal advice, free.
-
Just got back from the solicitors firm and granddad asked to see the contract/agreement but the firm have denied this and to provide a copy of this data. Quite obviously the firm and the solicitor are making false legal representation and negotiating without the required documents to be able to do this. Contacted CAB, they have advised that this is a fraudulent act, cannot say that I am surprised.
-
Criminal Damage case - things dont add up....
spitfire1964 replied to letsmakeamark's topic in General Legal Issues
How do you know the police never had no information on the other two? they may well had but not enough to arrest and charge. -
He does not recall signing any paperwork, a rep from the firm explained what would happen if they took the case on at his home. The rep told my granddad that he would pass all the details of the accident over to a solicitor at the firm and consider the merits of the claim. About five days later my granddad got a call from the solicitors who were prepared to take his claim on, and that even if his lost the costs would be covered., that is all we know.
-
Thanks for all the advice, appreciated. OK I have advised my granddad to e-mail a second request for the proof that the solicitor is in a legal position to be able to represent him, and once this has been established, the solicitor will be in a position of being able to negotiate a settlement. My granddad approached me and it makes no odds to me other than protecting him what he gets or does not get in compensation. Maybe my granddad feels he should be offered more and maybe the solicitor has indicated that he would get more, but like I said the amount offered is a lot less than what both he and the solicitor agreed as a rounabout figure, my guess is that because the amount is for less granddad is suspicious as to the solicitors motives, I don't know, but if he has any doubts and wants to remove them doubts all he is doing is asking the solicitor to provide the evidence that he can represent him which and in all honesty is not an unreasonable request, I don't know.
-
I am not saying that I have any authority to act on behalf of my granddad, however, that is irrelevant at this stage, because whilst I may not have the authority, for now, I have the right to protect him because of who he is to me, period. And if I feel the solicitor is acting shifty, because some do, and to the most vulnerable he will have me to deal with, period. As for putting pressure on my granddad, why would I do that, the only person who is remotely putting any pressure on him would appear to be his solicitor who to date and for the most obvious of reasons cannot even show a legitimate contract when that obligation and duty was put to him..... I reckon the solicitor is pulling a fast one, like they do, and making legal representation as to profit without having the authority or should I say data in place which would allow him to be able to do that. Solicitor's and like any over businesses are bound by the law of contract, why solicitors are so convinced that they are immune from following those same standards, is probably the reason they have chosen that proffesion in the first place and are convinced that they can act above the law, trust me, they CANNOT, period...
-
The otherside have made an offer which is considerably a lot less than the solicitor advised on being an amount for compensation, the offer and in all honesty is derogatory and not acceptable. Solicitor has indicated that and in his opinion the offer should be accepted and has also indicated that if my granddad accepts this offer, which he is about to reject, the other-side will be liable for my granddads legal costs which have in princible been agreed by his solicitor and the solicitor working for the otherside. Think my granddad is being pressured into accepting this offer not because of what my granddad will get but based on the legal fees granddads solicitor will be able to recover. Again its awakward but I would hate the thought of my granddad being misled when at all times the solicitor representing him has no legal right to do this without a contract being not only in place but also some proof that the solicitor is not making profit from misrepresenting my granddad. CAB have advised that before granddad makes any decision he should have proof that the solicitor representing him has followed the correct procedures that demonstrates he could represent granddad, my gut feeling is that he is not put himself into a position which allows him to take granddads case on, providing the contract/agreement would show everything was in order and the fact that previous requests for the proof of funding by way of providing a copy of the agreement/contract being denied, is a bit iffy imo
-
Do not let them get you down Shelley, they are all pre-programmed to do that. I am sure things will eventually work out for you, you have giving me a smile tonight, worded perfectly. Don't change for nobody, you will get there in the end, good luck...
-
Pip tribunal hearing/advice **WON**
spitfire1964 replied to spitfire1964's topic in Benefits and HMRC
The direction as giving on the piece of paper the Tribunal provided states independent medical advice should be sought. However and after being contacted by SARC and after some confusion, well I never, the Tribunal and the Clerk have now indicated that they the HMCTS were ordered by the last judge at the last hearing for them to provide and with my authority medical records from my GP. I have now giving my authority and await the next instalment of how the DWP and HMCTS decide how this case goes forward as both seem to be making it up as they go along like they do... -
Pip tribunal hearing/advice **WON**
spitfire1964 replied to spitfire1964's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Thanks for that BB, those figures and recorded deaths of Claimants being found fit for work after an assessment initiated by the DWP before PIP replaced DLA and in part ESA, am I reading this right? In otherwords the bar has now been raised by the Government and the DWP because after targeting the less vulnerable, but vulnerable none the less, those on ESA and lDLA and now they are targeting and treating the most vulnerable of vulnerable as to the same method used before, removing benefits or Claimants by means of relying on a third party to lie and make up medical facts that if commited or controlled correctly as with most proffesions all these so called professional health workers and their peers would all be serving custodial prison sentences for fraud, because that's what they are commiting each and every single time they fabricate a medical report, and for one stinking thing, profit. They and the medical proffesions playing out this game and on a new level now are the virus and the full responsibility to every single disabled or sick person who after being defrauded into being claimed as fit to work by some under paid nurse, ambulance driver or as in my case some two bob five minute trained [edited] who is expert of human bones have all got blood on their hands imo. Think about it, is profit worth more than anyones life, the answer is yes and the profiteering still goes on and the loss of life to accommodate that profit will continue, its disgusting BB -
If DWP had initially advised you to claim ESA instead of UC, I assume they are at fault for giving you the wrong advise and maybe they should have advised you to claim UC straight away and not the other way around. If that is the case, others on here will be more up on this subject than me, surely OP can have her benefit paid from when she applied and not when she was wrongly advised if I am reading this right?
-
Pip tribunal hearing/advice **WON**
spitfire1964 replied to spitfire1964's topic in Benefits and HMRC
Received notification this morning from the Tribunal dated the 22nd September, 10 days later, confirming hearing next week. Informed HMCTS that the last appeal was adjourned because the Judge wanted my medical records from GP. At first the Clerk indicated that they had not been made aware of this order but after about ten minutes admitted this order had been made for HMCTS to gain my authority for records to be released. My point, just another example of how the systems drags it heels and just do what they like and when they like but will jump through hoops everytime the DWP wants to rely on correct and proper process. Is the fact that the Tribunal now are wanting to look at my medical evidence a positive or yet another negative that will need dealing with, thanks SF -
And you are aiming that who? Or are you the judge and the jury, think about it? As for any misunderstanding of what has been written, i'm all ears mate. Continue or just ignore the thread, no-one has got your arm behind your back have they, freedom of speech, freedom to view, goodnight.
-
Some on here at looking as a mean's of getting to the actual root, by deflecting and going round the long way to establish what has actually happened here, remembering there are two different accounts to how someone died, carry on. Was it a fall or was it a TV that caused the death, obviously one or the other. Meanwhile the OP has to make quite sure that they should, could or otherwise have a realistic but non blaming view before they take the obvious route of establishing who and not if is responsible. If it was my dad, I would be fighting his corner, not relying on ifs, buts or maybe's, that right or should I say excuse was exhausted when two different accounts were laid as a reason why his head, but not his chest was the reason why the poor bloke died. But remember this happened in a hospital, BazzaS defence, so it never really happened, you decide.
-
No offence taking, I just know how solicitors or some of them work/
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS