Charging orders - a salutory tale

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks for Clarifying.

[dx100uk]

its funny how only successful cases get a detailed report trumpetting using 'a' solictor

RE:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?250651-Court-Papers-arrived-DebtControl-V-Cabot-MSDW&p=3285086

yet this one failed to get one

 

dx

[Debtcontrol]

Hello, I am really sorry to hear about your experience. I hope you get it fully resolved to your complete satisfaction and adequately compensated.

All the best.

DC.

[Ganymede]

the person concerned unfortunately is not a solicitor, nor a legal executive nor even a (registered) paralegal- (as far as my enquiries can ascertain - he just works for a solicitors- and i have yet to work out just how involved a legally qualified person was involved

You do not need to be registered to be a paralegal, unlike a solicitor, and the term itself is very generic anyway and can include legal assistants, litigation executives etc so I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

far from being desperate- and having handled all my cases myself successfully- it was more a case of "giving" what was a very strong defence to a CFA lawyer so that they could give the other side a bloody nose in costs! whereas i couldn't do that.....

 

but as you say- be wary of people pretending to be what they are not.

 

i think now, on hindsight that every poster on the forum should be made to include a footer as to their qualifications.

 

I'm not sure if that is a good idea to be honest as it may put people off from helping if they are scared of professional negligence claims when they only come on here in their spare time to help out etc.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Reminds me of when I went to Germany on a coach trip. The driver had to stop as he had run out of time on his tachograph.

Someone shouted "Is there anybody on the coach with PSV?", and my friend piped up "Elsa's an SRN if that's any good?"

[caro]

You do not need to be registered to be a paralegal, unlike a solicitor, and the term itself is very generic anyway and can include legal assistants, litigation executives etc so I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

Unless of course you are under the impression that you are paying for a solicitor, in which case you should expect a solicitor to deal with it. I would expect a professional to make clear exactly what and who is being paid for.

 

 

I'm not sure if that is a good idea to be honest as it may put people off from helping if they are scared of professional negligence claims when they only come on here in their spare time to help out etc.

 

One of the reasons why we advise people to keep all information on their threads is to protect themselves and those advising them. People should always check out the information provided and decide for themselves what is best for them.

 

Most people on this site are not professionals (or at least not in the legal profession) but if they claim to be then it doesn't seem unreasonable that they should provide some evidence to substantiate that. If they come on and just give good advice then they have nothing to worry about. Of course there are some who give the impression they are professionals and do nothing to rectify that impression if they aren't.

 

I have no doubt that even the best litigators lose at times, and there is no shame in that. The problem in DD's case is that he was not informed of what had been done and was abandoned just prior to court without being given all the information he needed to go to court.

 

IMHO that is not the act of a professional, but I guess it depends on your interpretation of professional.

[oilyrag]

Hi Caro,

 

Whilst I have disagreed with some of the things you have said in the past, on these points you have my full agreement. At this moment I have a PM to bankfodder in the process about very prolific posters whose advice I believe should be treated with caution and verified properly before being acted upon.

 

I have been clear in my own stance in that I am not legally qualified just going through the mangle with our OC but I am a professional engineer and have been for most of my life, therefore I am not stupid and do not expect to be treated as such by these people with somewhat dubious credentials. I am aware of others who have felt the same and of people who will not join CAG because of this and other bad experiences on others forums. sadly by some of the same people.

 

regards

oilyrag

[caro]

I'm sure there are many on CAG who give dubious advice but it's up to each individual to decide. The site team are no more qualified than anyone else to decide what is good advice and what is bad, and it would be presumptuous of us to say what is right and what is wrong for people.

 

If advice is given in good faith, I don't have a problem with it, and if it's bad advice, then if it's on a thread there is the opportunity for it to be discussed and debated so everyone can learn. Even if advice is bad, if it's left and corrected it is there for others in the future to read, so if they have the same ideas, they can see why it's not the way to go,

[oilyrag]

Unfortunately, it would seem that many good technical threads turn into a haranguing match and seemingly ego trips which does put people off who would benefit tremendously from our collective albeit amateur efforts. I have always counselled caution and at times been denigrated for doing so but let us all try and put things over so that the new kid on the block does not leave in even deeper despair, thinking their plight is a hopeless case because of what we have all collectively said.

 

The resident experts should not baulk all the time when they are "put to strict proof" should they?

 

Thats all

Best regards

oilyrag.

[Ganymede]

One of the reasons why we advise people to keep all information on their threads is to protect themselves and those advising them. People should always check out the information provided and decide for themselves what is best for them.

 

Most people on this site are not professionals (or at least not in the legal profession) but if they claim to be then it doesn't seem unreasonable that they should provide some evidence to substantiate that. If they come on and just give good advice then they have nothing to worry about. Of course there are some who give the impression they are professionals and do nothing to rectify that impression if they aren't.

 

I have no doubt that even the best litigators lose at times, and there is no shame in that. The problem in DD's case is that he was not informed of what had been done and was abandoned just prior to court without being given all the information he needed to go to court.

 

IMHO that is not the act of a professional, but I guess it depends on your interpretation of professional.

 

 

 

I agree with that completely.

 

However, a solicitor even has to be careful chatting in the pub with his mates as their advice can be relied on and can be open to professional negligence claims.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Ganymede

[caro]

I too tend to err on the side of caution. I just don't like people taking unnecessary risks, particularly if they are likely to be worse off if things don't go to plan, as happened to DD. Of course if methods are to be tried and tested there need to be risk-takers, but IMO it's essential to be aware of the risks

 

If people can just stick to a discussion without littering informative threads with offensive personal remarks it can really help to push the boundaries and find new ways forward which benefit everyone in the long run.

 

If you disagree with a point of view it shouldn't be problem to give a reasoned explanation. The goalposts seem to constantly change and we are much stronger and likely to progress further if we work together.

 

It would be a boring world if we all thought the same though.

[sunflower99]

HI DDI am so sorry to hear of your awful expereince with your solictors and hope you suceed in getting your complaints upheld. and you are fully compensated for their incompetence x