Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just has an email about claim 1 - trial 7 days away     their solicitor- 'heres some further disclosure, your broker says you agreed to pg ' so just pay up and lets avoid cout!     cue list of emails between two people , with no one else cc'd or copied in   i said unless xx and xx have provided a witness st and are going to be cross examined at court, this is inadmissable hearsay (its never been disclosed) weve never seen or heard of any of it. (to note this was not presented as supplementary, paginated etc so obv was meant for my eyes only and hasnt been sent to court)   they may have had a lovely conversation, but where are we involved or proof this has been sent or included to us (it hasnt)   so bugger off
    • Hi Guys, just a quick update,  I now have all the information VCS hold on me and photos to show I was not in the fuel station as they claim. The date of the 14/02 has passed for their threat to take me to court how long should i expect to wait to hear from them? Also should i include in my appeal that the fact they couldn't issue me 2 x PCN's had this happened in a car park (as by their own charter you are allowed a 10 minute grace period) how can they do it on a private road, and as it is a private road when i asked them for a breakdown of the costs incurred that lead them to the figure of £100 they quoted to me the case of Bevis v parking eye to justify the amount, however i feel this is not relevant as this event took place in a car park. cheers
    • I think this needs to be settled in a court of law and I don't think any other method is at all acceptable. It needs to be open, transparent and beyond doubt.   As you have had a possible disclosure I think it is reasonable to to write them and inform them  the disclosure they have made is incomplete and so therefore they are still in breach of their strategy obligations. that you are extending your time before you issue proceedings buy a further 7-days but after that you will definitely be issuing proceedings and there won't be any further discussion. I think you have to take this approach in order to show the judge that you have been doing everything you can to be reasonable and to be co-operative even though they have failed in their duty.              
    • Yes photos could blow VCS case if they are trying the same company trope they have lost on before.
    • Well fingers crossed 🤞.then, I was surprised they posted a letter of assignation tbh, but guess I'll just have to wait and see
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Surge in 'DIY' justice sparks guidelines for lawyers


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2046 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html

 

 

Gove orders rich lawyers to stop whingeing about legal aid cuts and work for FREE to help poor victims of crime

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html#ixzz3duUVWvev

 

 

 

 

 

Wealthy lawyers were this morning ordered to do more to help poor families receive justice - by working for free instead of constantly asking for more taxpayers' cash to pay their bills.

 

New Justice Secretary Michael Gove said the amount of time lawyers worked free of charge - or 'pro bono' - for poor clients was not 'defensible'.

 

In his first speech in his new role, Mr Gove said there was now a 'two-nation' justice system which allowed the wealthy to enjoy 'gold standard' services while ordinary people were left 'at the mercy of grotesque inefficiencies'.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html#ixzz3duUiWIab

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

And... just in case anyone has a dig about my posting up a Daily Mail link..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/human-rights-reform-michael-gove-justice-secretary

 

 

 

Michael Gove, new Justice Secretary, wanted to bring back hanging

 

As a Times columnist, Michael Gove called for return of the noose and criticised Stephen Lawrence inquiry

 

 

Michael Gove, the new Justice Secretary, called for the return of the death penalty as a newspaper columnist.

 

 

Mr Gove said he supported the return of the noose out of “respect for democracy”, and because it would force the courts to act with “scrupulous fairness”.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11595776/Michael-Gove-new-Justice-Secretary-wanted-to-bring-back-hanging.html

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm... Work for free??!

 

Is Gove going to pay our bills and rent/mortgage etc?!!

 

Not all would be free, just for those who cannot afford legal representation. How would you address the injustice of those in such a position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all would be free, just for those who cannot afford legal representation. How would you address the injustice of those in such a position.

 

Less legal aid cuts. It's the government that should be sorting out the mess they created.

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.

 

 

Less legal aid cuts. It's the government that should be sorting out the mess they created.
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.

Indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article from 2010. Of course it is from the Daily Mail so presumably scaremongering !!

 

 

Since being established in 1949, legal aid has grown into a £2billion-a-year industry far removed from its original, noble, purpose of providing Britain’s poor with access to justice.

 

For precious little is now off limits to taxpayer-funded assistance.

 

Immigrants who have never set foot in the UK appealing against visa decisions... prisoners claiming their bed is too hard, or that it is unfair to make them give up hard-drugs in jail.

 

An army of 15,000 barristers (up from 2,000 in 1960) is ever willing to help them, growing nicely plump in the process.

 

Meanwhile, ambulance chasing solicitors lodge compensation claims in their thousands, in the knowledge that, if successful, they could

claim vast sums from the defendant

 

The result is a public sector, from schools to hospitals, paralysed by health and safety mania, as officials desperately try to avoid a crippling lawsuit.

 

That is why we warmly welcome yesterday’s proposals by the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to slash £350million from the legal aid budget, while ending gratuitous abuse of the ‘no-win no-fee’ system.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1329896/Kenneth-Clarke-An-overdue-end-abuse-legal-aid.html#ixzz3dxpgCpe9

 

 

In future, state aid will be available only in cases where ‘life or liberty’ is at stake. Prisoners, people suing the NHS, would-be migrants, trivial personal injury cases and parents suing schools for excluding unruly children will all miss out.

 

At the same time, legal costs in ‘no win no fee’ civil cases, from libel to medical negligence, will be taken from any damages awarded to the victorious claimant — preventing lawyers from making a separate claim on the finances of the defendant.

 

 

 

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

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.

 

Weren't they paid in doubloons back then (before they went on to guineas)?

\Mind you there isn't a doubloon symbol on a standard KB is there?

 

I take it that was at the time when a head butler received a shilling and 10pence a year?

 

:/

"In every respect, he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity"

Boris Johnson on Dominic Cummings' Covid field trips

 

£288 million pounds a week - The ADDITIONAL cost of Brexit customs bureaucracy alone - stuff that on the side of a bus.

 

Its official: Boris 'The Liar' Johnsons word is not worth the paper its written on

Link to post
Share on other sites
Article from 2010. Of course it is from the Daily Mail so presumably scaremongering !!

 

Total nonsense from the Daily Fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make silly jokes all you want, doesn't alter the truth. My knowledge is current. Of course some solicitors are on very high pay but not all.

 

Anyway, just because your on a high salary doesn't mean you should give out free services. My plumber, before he started to slow down, was earning over £50,000 a year, should he have offered his services free to certain members of society?

 

 

 

Weren't they paid in doubloons back then (before they went on to guineas)?

\Mind you there isn't a doubloon symbol on a standard KB is there?

 

I take it that was at the time when a head butler received a shilling and 10pence a year?

 

:/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the "trivial pi cases" and suing hospitals" comments. So what should we have, medical negligence going unanswered, people injured, losing wages, suffering health problems and the victim just takes it on the chin?

 

Let's face it, the government is just trying to limit the liability of their chums in the insurance industry etcetera. Won't effect the rich because they will still afford to claim.

 

 

 

 

Total nonsense from the Daily Fail.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I liked the "trivial pi cases" and suing hospitals" comments. So what should we have, medical negligence going unanswered, people injured, losing wages, suffering health problems and the victim just takes it on the chin?

 

Let's face it, the government is just trying to limit the liability of their chums in the insurance industry etcetera. Won't effect the rich because they will still afford to claim.

 

Preaching to the choir mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Now thats the real issue.

A few newly qualified lawyers getting 18,000 (most getting vastly more), and us getting incompetent unqualified 'lawyers'/assistants charged at £120+ per hour for sending a standard letter, with little except nodding relevance to our case.

 

Makes me laugh

 

I don't doubt it one whit.

"In every respect, he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity"

Boris Johnson on Dominic Cummings' Covid field trips

 

£288 million pounds a week - The ADDITIONAL cost of Brexit customs bureaucracy alone - stuff that on the side of a bus.

 

Its official: Boris 'The Liar' Johnsons word is not worth the paper its written on

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now thats the real issue.

A few newly qualified lawyers getting 18,000 (most getting vastly more), and us getting incompetent unqualified 'lawyers'/assistants charged at £120+ per hour for sending a standard letter, with little except nodding relevance to our case.

 

 

 

I don't doubt it one whit.

 

I wouldn't call mid 20s "vastly more."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't call mid 20s "vastly more."

 

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.

"In every respect, he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity"

Boris Johnson on Dominic Cummings' Covid field trips

 

£288 million pounds a week - The ADDITIONAL cost of Brexit customs bureaucracy alone - stuff that on the side of a bus.

 

Its official: Boris 'The Liar' Johnsons word is not worth the paper its written on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what you mean by unqualified doest it. Most non solicitors have a law degree and some the LPC and many years iof practical experience. Also there's the qualified legal execs. The amount charged depends on experience and qualifications and all staff have a supervising solicitor anyway.

 

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.

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...