Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found it cheers Dave!!   I think focusing on lack of compliance with legislation should be the one, seeing as we just lost the case to them by not complying, it will be worth pointing it out. I also want to poi t out their m.o. Which is less than honourable to say the least. Hopefully the judge will side with the little old lady and not the peoppe who use deceit to line their pockets!!   She said she is happy to speak up but is kindly asking for assistance in the form of a bullet pointed printed paper for her to take in so she can read out her points and leave it at that (without rambling).    Straight and to the point!!    Daves post #66 is legendary 🙌    Thanks for the help guys 😊    Let's kick some ass    
    • I differ from my site team colleague slightly in the the six-month rule applies if you have asserted your rights within the six months. My understanding is that you haven't asserted your rights during that time. In other words you haven't informed them that you are giving them a single opportunity to repair and if they decline or if the repair fails then you are rejecting the car for a refund. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On that basis, you are covered by the consumer rights act but not in terms of the right to reject. You are covered under the consumer rights act in that you are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time. You don't have to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale – although that's what they will try to tell you and even the motoring ombudsman will try to tell you that. But the motoring ombudsman is an industry led organisation which pretends to be an ombudsman but in fact favours the industry and its advice is wrong and even deceptive. I think you should start off by writing both to the finance company and also to the dealership. Describe the fault to them. Send them the evidence you have that the windscreen was incorrectly fitted and the damage which has been caused as a result. Send in the quotation for the work and require them to respond within seven days and that they must agree that the work will be carried out by a competent professional an authorised repairer. Not one of their cheapskate once. Also, you will want them to agree to provide you with a courtesy car. Also have you incurred any expenses associated with this? Travel, car hire, cost of inspections –?? Have you told us the name of the finance company? My site team colleague is correct that if they cause any trouble then you should see them as co-defendants. You can be certain that they will put their hands up. It will go to court. You would sue them for the cost of the work. You would recover your costs of the installation plus your court costs. I don't think you will be able to sue for the rejection of the vehicle on the basis of what you tell us in terms of having not asserted your rights. However you will be able to recover the cost of all the works – making good everything so that the car is in the condition that it would have been in had the replacement windscreen been properly fitted. I wonder who fitted the replacement windscreen? I think I would be out to sue them as well. Post the draft of your letter to the dealership and also to the finance company here so that we can have a look before you send it off. Incidentally to answer your question about what should you do immediately,  I would suggest that you send the letter tomorrow. Wait until the end of the week. If they don't respond or if they respond negatively, then write to them immediately and tell them that you are not prepared to do without the vehicle. As they have failed to respond to your putting work in hand and you will be approaching them for the costs of all the repairs and if they cause you any difficulty in you will simply sue them. A bill of about £4000 is easy. It puts you within the small claims track so there is no risk of costs even if you lose – which is most unlikely on the basis of what you say
    • Thanks I have been reading quite a few this one got me as it did say they have instructed them to take legal action but thanks again your a legend 
    • Yes we will be emailing them. We have kept a log of all conversations with everyone involved and backed up conversations with emails 👍
    • 'they' dont send court letters. only a sheriffs court can do that if the debt OWNER is brave enough to request they raise a court claim......... unlike E&W the scottish legal system is far more geared toward empowering the consumer and always put claimants to strict 1000% proof they are the legal owner of a debt, are legally due payment and hold the all the correct enforceable paperwork. just read a few Nolan SPC threads... dx  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Surge in 'DIY' justice sparks guidelines for lawyers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3254 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.

 

What's this 39% your referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.

 

You're missing the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way £120 per hour isn't a lot if you look at how much some tradesmen charge per hour. Iv just a few quotes for a handyman and the average is £150 per hour. i doubt if they have studied A levels, 3 years to study for a degree, 1- 2 years. to study for the LPC, professional skills course etcetera. Anyway some solicitors now charge fixed fees.

 

Unskilled tradesman £150 per hour.!!!

Post an advert here and you will have thousands of people offering to do your unskilled handyman work perhaps as little as £75 an hour (sic).

 

What planet are you on?

(Planet lawyer/investment banker it would seem - particularly as you apparently can't do basic maths - 39% rounded)

 

 

and I don't doubt you are referring to the £150 first hour emergency call out for skilled and registered plumbers or electricians, which is hardly a reasonable comparison to a £120+ standard hourly rate, sometime during office hours when you get around to it, for adding a name and address to a template from word.

 

.. else you could perhaps do it yourself as we are having to do to get a job done - let alone competently.

The Tory Legacy

Record high: Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling: Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

 “Do I want to spend every Friday for the next five years in Clacton?”

Farage, Feb 2024 talking smack about the Peninsula town

.. before he decided he wanted their votes

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't win an argument just be rude.

 

Youve not explained the 39% at all. Are you saying a solicitor gets a 39% uplift on their salary?

 

Anyway you obviously have some sort of hatred for the legal profession hense your rude and insulting attitude. Your ignorant of what solicitors do and answering any more of your ranting posts is pointless. Will be ignoring you from now on, I come on here to help people.

 

Last comment though, your not adding anything to the discusion at all, as Gandymede said, your missing point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets keep this civil chaps......

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters. Remember a lot of posters that come to CAG are probably legally qualified and provide good free advice and others are very vulnerable and desperately need help. Should we really put people off posting.

 

If someone truly believes theyve been treated badly by a law firm, then they can start a thread on CAG to receive help. That's what its for, consumer help.

 

 

Isn't it obvious that 39 is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh? ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters.

 

Absolutely. Physician heal thyself, although I do note you qualify your protection only to lawyers.

(£150 unskilled handymen indeed!)

 

Yes I have had exclusively bad experiences in the very few interactions I have had with lawyers and I can only honestly relate to my own experiences without relying on hearsay.

If an emergency plumber had done as bad a job as those lawyers I experienced i would not have paid them, but of course that isn't a viable option with lawyers whatever crap they deliver.

If you are a lawyer, which I am doubting, then I am sure you would realise just how any complaints against lawyers go - worse than pointless.

 

But referencing some hearsay, it does seem clear that there do appear to be a few lawyers here who do offer what appears to be excellent advice out of the goodness of their hearts, so I can judge from that that there are at least a few conscientious lawyers despite me never experiencing one.

 

So I would say to you stop trying to justify your position by denigrating others. Justification by detailing your worth and value would go down far better.

 

 

Isn't it obvious that 39% is the difference between £18000 and £25000? Good at research, eh? ;)

;) I wasn't going to tell him. It seemed to me that the simple meaning was blatantly obvious to anyone with a far lesser education than he claims.

"I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'."

The Tory Legacy

Record high: Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling: Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

 “Do I want to spend every Friday for the next five years in Clacton?”

Farage, Feb 2024 talking smack about the Peninsula town

.. before he decided he wanted their votes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I'm for or against the reduction in legal aid.

 

Like any person I consider reasonable, I think that legal aid should be available to all,

but it also seems to me that the runaway costs of what would seem to be too often incompetent and uncaring lawyers who fester on the guaranteed income whatever their ability or performance, too often effectively paid for by tax and/or the hidden tax of increased premiums to everyone just cannot go on.

The Tory Legacy

Record high: Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling: Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

 “Do I want to spend every Friday for the next five years in Clacton?”

Farage, Feb 2024 talking smack about the Peninsula town

.. before he decided he wanted their votes

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £150 per hour was a typo obviously. Meant per day. Perhaps a better comparison would be an accountancy firm. I know someone who qualified in 2013 and his firm charged between £125-£150 per hour for his services. Is that normal, no idea. Is £120 usual for a solicitors firm, yes it is. We live in a free market economy. However many solicitors now offer fixed fees. I'm currently paying a firm

£2, 500 for probate and a house sale and that included VAT and disbursements. I don't think that's bad and I'm getting an excellent service. Very quick and updating me 1- 2 times a week. Always answer my emails within a few hours. I'm very pleased. Actually paying the estate agent more.

 

My qualifications? Think what you like. I know what my qualifications are and if certain posters on this thread want to call me a liar and want to insult me. So be it

 

 

 

 

I stand by post #32. Can we all now try and be civil and stick to the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely. Physician heal thyself, although I do note you qualify your protection only to lawyers.

(£150 unskilled handymen indeed!)

 

Yes I have had exclusively bad experiences in the very few interactions I have had with lawyers and I can only honestly relate to my own experiences without relying on hearsay.

If an emergency plumber had done as bad a job as those lawyers I experienced i would not have paid them, but of course that isn't a viable option with lawyers whatever crap they deliver.

If you are a lawyer, which I am doubting, then I am sure you would realise just how any complaints against lawyers go - worse than pointless.

 

But referencing some hearsay, it does seem clear that there do appear to be a few lawyers here who do offer what appears to be excellent advice out of the goodness of their hearts, so I can judge from that that there are at least a few conscientious lawyers despite me never experiencing one.

 

So I would say to you stop trying to justify your position by denigrating others. Justification by detailing your worth and value would go down far better.

 

 

 

;) I wasn't going to tell him. It seemed to me that the simple meaning was blatantly obvious to anyone with a far lesser education than he claims.

"I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learnt a lot from the conversation exchanges on this thread.

 

Note that you are a long time poster. Sorry if this thread has turned it to what it has, suppose you've seen this happen before.

 

Not all people want to litigate themselves, find it far to daunting. Others do very well diy and good look to them.

 

What about the others? The cuts to legal aid are hurting some people greatly. Take family cases, for example contact issues. Shouldn't the government be thinking differently in that its better for the child/children see both parents and in turn this beneficial for society as a whole. For some, mainly fathers, they can't afford to pay a solicitor, the whole situation is just wrong.

 

 

Now the government seems to be turning this into "its all the greedy law firms fault innit" and people are falling for it. But how much did the average law firm make out of legal aid? Can the government legally make solicitors/barristers give their services free? I doubt it.

 

Also I don't know about barristers, but many solicitors firms do offer free hourly consultations. Although these free sessions are aimed at securing clients, perhaps this could be expanded to pointing someone in the right direction to do it themselves. After all, peoples financial situations change and if they've previously had good free advice they may use the firm for something else on a paying basis. I suppose ad access to justice is eroded further, we will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the government seems to be turning this into "its all the greedy law firms fault innit" and people are falling for it. But how much did the average law firm make out of legal aid? Can the government legally make solicitors/barristers give their services free? I doubt it.

 

I don't believe the government have turned this into 'greedy lawyers', the people have seen enough, and had enough, to make up their own minds.

 

and of course the government could make it a requirement for law firms to give a percentage of their time, even the SRA has requirements which must be met.

How could you not know that?

 

Surely A far better approach would be in formally simplifying and documenting legal processes so that many straight-forward things could be dealt with without lawyers, just as CAG does here so well with its templates?

The Tory Legacy

Record high: Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling: Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

 “Do I want to spend every Friday for the next five years in Clacton?”

Farage, Feb 2024 talking smack about the Peninsula town

.. before he decided he wanted their votes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Site team - when are you going to do something about these nasty personal insults by some Posters. I have the unaltered post #38 in my mail box and basically its disgusting. I've also been accused of lying about my qualifications by the same poster. Not happy at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing people to work for free?!

 

I thought slavery was abolished. ;)

 

LOL

Of course they wont be working for free, it would more likely be a requirement for them to give a little in return for access to the lucrative legal aid payments, and/or so that their pressure (err self regulatory) group would use it for leverage in saying what a good bunch they are.

:wink:

The Tory Legacy

Record high: Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling: Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

 “Do I want to spend every Friday for the next five years in Clacton?”

Farage, Feb 2024 talking smack about the Peninsula town

.. before he decided he wanted their votes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
A surge in the number of people representing themselves in court has prompted legal organisations to draft guidelines for lawyers who come up against people who find themselves in court without legal representation.

 

The guidelines have been developed by the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and the Law Society in response to the rising numbers of people representing themselves in court without a lawyer as a result of cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small-claims limit and the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

 

The practical guidelines are relevant to the civil and family courts and tribunals where there has been an influx of people who cannot afford to instruct a lawyer, have not been able to obtain free legal advice and often have no alternative other than to embark on 'do it yourself' justice.

 

The guidelines discuss how far lawyers can help unrepresented people without this conflicting with their duties to their own clients. Lawyers are advised to communicate clearly and avoid technical language or legal jargon, or to explain jargon to the unrepresented party where it cannot be avoided.

 

 

The guidelines are available to download below.

 

 

Good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, enormous changes are coming in the justice system which ought to make things much fairer for everyone - including the judges. They are fed up with dealing with so many LIPs when the adversarial system is not suited to it.Lord Justice Thomas, interviewed today by Joshua Rosenberg on Law in Action (BBC Radio 4, available online and repeated Thursday 25 June at 8.00 pm) said some truly radical things which are backed by other top judges. Michael Gove says he will be taking these up.

 

Criminal judge 'advised' me to get legal representation or at least legal advice. I complained to the court about giving such legal advice as they're not supposed to. Had the advice been good, I probably wouldn't have complained.

 

UK lawyers are the **** of the earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job. Lawyers aren't voluntary workers, they have bills like everyone else. Access to justice has been eroded by the government and nobody else and now they want to pass the buck.

 

Work ? Do lawyers do 'work' ?

 

They should only be paid by results, not 'work'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't win an argument just be rude.

 

Youve not explained the 39% at all. Are you saying a solicitor gets a 39% uplift on their salary?

 

Anyway you obviously have some sort of hatred for the legal profession hense your rude and insulting attitude. Your ignorant of what solicitors do and answering any more of your ranting posts is pointless. Will be ignoring you from now on, I come on here to help people.

 

Last comment though, your not adding anything to the discusion at all, as Gandymede said, your missing point.

 

Since when is honesty being rude ?

We know what solicitors do - rip people off

Judging by the errors in your post, your computer screen will be covered in Tipp-Ex.

I wouldn't be surprised if your calculator was covered in it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see how this thread can help or inform anyone when its turned in to people coming out with lazy cliches or stereotypes about the legal profession and snide personal attacks against other posters. Remember a lot of posters that come to CAG are probably legally qualified and provide good free advice and others are very vulnerable and desperately need help. Should we really put people off posting.

 

If someone truly believes theyve been treated badly by a law firm, then they can start a thread on CAG to receive help. That's what its for, consumer help.

 

I guess that's what the legally qualified claim - that they're vulnerable and desperately need help.

 

Ok then, what's the best way to deal with all these rogue lawyers ? You'd thing the'd do something themselves about all the bad ones but maybe they are all bad.

 

Anyway, if there are any good ones that would like to help me, I now insist on £10k up front - refunded on satisfactory 'work'. It's the only way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Site team - when are you going to do something about these nasty personal insults by some Posters. I have the unaltered post #38 in my mail box and basically its disgusting. I've also been accused of lying about my qualifications by the same poster. Not happy at all.

 

Simple answer is to stop upsetting people. Listen to what they have to say and deal with your own (in)actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...