Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

I don't really understand what point you are making with regards to the contract, to be honest.

 

You instructed the solicitor so there was surely a contract in place, written or not. I don't really understand the relevance of the funding.

 

In any event it is too late to start raising issues on appeal if they were not originally in your particulars of claim.

 

For a client to instruct and for a solicitor to represent there has to be a legitimate contract in place, and the process for a legitimate contract to be in place.

 

If it is discovered before, during or even after civil proceedings have been issued, that a solicitor has been acting and without a contract in place such immunity or protection under the CPR would not be an issue giving the actions of the solicitor.

 

If the solicitor has acted and without a contract to act for a client, this would be classed as fraud, so any pleadings, applications and Orders would be null and void and again based on facts that could only be relied upon (defence) applications would be/ nor could be giving/considered as both have been on the assumption that a contract was in place, that was not and is not the case in this matter imo.

[woad]

For a client to instruct and for a solicitor to represent there has to be a legitimate contract in place, and the process for a legitimate contract to be in place.

 

If it is discovered before, during or even after civil proceedings have been issued, that a solicitor has been acting and without a contract in place such immunity or protection under the CPR would not be an issue giving the actions of the solicitor.

 

If the solicitor has acted and without a contract to act for a client, this would be classed as fraud, so any pleadings, applications and Orders would be null and void and again based on facts that could only be relied upon (defence) applications would be/ nor could be giving/considered as both have been on the assumption that a contract was in place, that was not and is not the case in this matter imo.

 

OK, cutting to the chase, did you instruct the solicitor? Forget whether they have or have not provided a contract, did you instruct the solicitor?

 

If yes, then

 

a) did you sign a contract?

b) discuss and agree how the solicitor would be paid?

 

If no, then why did you allow them to represent you for two years without an agreement?

 

It matters not at this moment whether they have provided a copy of the [signed] contract, just please give brief answers.

[callum1999]

Is this for the appeal or the contempt of court action???

 

Might help if you posted in plain English, rather than attempting to write in 'legalese', as your sentences end up convoluted and difficult to understand.

 

If there was no legitimate contract in place, i would have assumed a number of actions could be enforceable, which would include contempt and any appeal process.

 

It is not that the solicitor or those representing them have not been asked to show that there was a contract in place, they are currently breaching n Act that would allow them and me to show there was one in place, they have declined, why, there could only be one motive, it was never there in the first place, nor when i have requested proof of it...

[callum1999]

OK, cutting to the chase, did you instruct the solicitor? Forget whether they have or have not provided a contract, did you instruct the solicitor?

 

If yes, then

 

a) did you sign a contract?

b) discuss and agree how the solicitor would be paid?

 

If no, then why did you allow them to represent you for two years without an agreement?

 

It matters not at this moment whether they have provided a copy of the [signed] contract, just please give brief answers.

 

No i cannot recall signing a contract, the only face to face meeting i had with the firm was a thirty minute meeting after the case after they agreed to take the case over, from Shelter, and this was with a junior solicitor who never represented me thereafter that meeting.

 

The meeting was predominately to discuss the merits of my case, and that was the only meeting i had with that firm in two years, everything else was conducted by email.

[BazzaS]

OK, cutting to the chase, did you instruct the solicitor? Forget whether they have or have not provided a contract, did you instruct the solicitor?

 

30th March, page 1 of the thread

 

Before the disrepair claim was compromised, I instructed the solicitor to reserve any rights that I had to pursue the PI injury.

 

So, he instructed the solicitor .....

 

 

If no, then why did you allow them to represent you for two years without an agreement?

 

Which I alluded to on 14th July.

But you signed the agreement?

You didn't say "no, I never asked you to act for me!" ; in fact you did agree to them acting for you, given

 

 

So, you instructed them!.

 

Then you signed the agreement, settling the claim.

 

Now you want to claim

a) They shouldn't have been acting for you. Yet, you instructed them.

b) They shouldn't have agreed a compromise agreement : but you agreed it and signed.

c) They made you lose the chance to persue a PI claim ; but it was already statute barred when they took it on, so it was already lost and you have suffered no new harm as a result of their actions.

 

As ever, the OP is covering the same ground over and over, asking the same questions, which (given the lack of new information) invites the same replies. However, the OP seems to be hopeful if they ask enough times they'll get to hear the answer they want, instead.

 

The OP also hasn't clearly stated if they have lodged their appeal (also seeking permission to appeal ....) or not....

[woad]

No i cannot recall signing a contract, the only face to face meeting i had with the firm was a thirty minute meeting after the case after they agreed to take the case over, from Shelter, and this was with a junior solicitor who never represented me thereafter that meeting.

 

The meeting was predominately to discuss the merits of my case, and that was the only meeting i had with that firm in two years, everything else was conducted by email.

 

1. After what/which case?

2. Why did you allow them to represent you for two years in the absence of a contract (or a document perhaps labelled Terms & Conditions)?

[callum1999]

Whether or not a client gives instructions is irrelevant.

 

What is relevent that if those instructions have been giving, and the solicitor was not in a position to act on those instructions, the responsibility or liability to establish whether the solicitor has the right (contract) as to represent, such obligation would fall firmly into the lap of the solicitor, who was not in a legal position as to take instructions, in any event.

 

To blame a client for giving instructions when the instructions should and could not have been acted on, PUTS THE LIABILITY not on the client, but evidently the solicitor who just to remind, made profit from acting without a legitimate contract to act, nor to profit.

 

Its would be deemed a fraudulent act if any other working organisation made profit by fabricating a contract, solicitors are not immune from what others need to comply with, what makes you or anyone else for that matter to firmly believe solicitors are so different, it does not work like that, they have no such privileges, and they certainly have no rights to recreate the law of contract, when they have been outed for not having one..

[callum1999]

1. After what/which case?

2. Why did you allow them to represent you for two years in the absence of a contract (or a document perhaps labelled Terms & Conditions)?

 

It is nothing to do with whether i allowed them to represent me without a contract for two years.

 

It is why the represented me for two years and without a contract.

 

The whole purpose of a contract is to protect both parties rights, the fact that they did not produce one, nor was i provided with one, loses any rights the solicitor could have to rely on that contract ( to act) in the absence of one, anyone affected by that fact, will not have to hazard a guess as to whether those profiting are profiting without a legitimate contract in place, as should have been the case, ironically from a professional who would know the law of contract, a solicitor....

[woad]

It is nothing to do with whether i allowed them to represent me without a contract for two years.

 

It is why the represented me for two years and without a contract.

 

The whole purpose of a contract is to protect both parties rights, the fact that they did not produce one, nor was i provided with one, loses any rights the solicitor could have to rely on that contract ( to act) in the absence of one, anyone affected by that fact, will not have to hazard a guess as to whether those profiting are profiting without a legitimate contract in place, as should have been the case, ironically from a professional who would know the law of contract, a solicitor....

 

Callum, it would help us to help to YOU if you could just answer questions as asked, especially when they are basic, fundamental questions.

 

I'll ask again: as you were evidently aware that they were representing you for two years, why did you allow them to do so?

 

And after which case; your earlier post mentioned "after the case", so, which case?

[callum1999]

FRAUD ACT 2006

 

2, Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he;

 

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation and,

 

(b) intends, by making the representation

 

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

 

(ii) to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A representation is false if;

 

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

 

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to thev state of mind;

 

(a) the person making the representation or, and

 

(b) any other person.

 

(4) A representation may be expressed or implied.

 

(5) For the purpose of this section as representation may be regarded as made of it ( or anything implying it ) is submitted in any form to any system

or devise designed to receive , convey or respond to communications ( with or without human intervention).

 

Making profit, and making the profit without a legitimate contract as to represent, any solicitor and on the evidence, or lack of, as is the case, would more likely, than not likely; be liable to be criminally prosecuted if what is being alleged,and with no evidence to suggest otherwise, that the solicitor has committed fraudulent act, which on balance of probabilities and the nature of offence, would be in the public interest to investigate/charge giving the profit gained from the act.

 

Think this Act and section would cover what has gone on with this case, in my humble opinion, time will tell.

[callum1999]

Callum, it would help us to help to YOU if you could just answer questions as asked, especially when they are basic, fundamental questions.

 

I'll ask again: as you were evidently aware that they were representing you for two years, why did you allow them to do so?

 

And after which case; your earlier post mentioned "after the case", so, which case?

 

I can only repeat that it is irrelevant what, i a client allowed a solicitor to do, but for argument sake, i had no reason/nor was giving a reason not to allow them to represent me, but for and had they disclosed what is being alleged now, no legitimate contract in place, would you allow someone to legally represent you? No, and that is the defining fact or point of law, i would assume.

 

I have previously mentioned "the merits of the case" would you like to show where i have said "after the case" and i will give you the basic fundamental answers if you point them out.

[BazzaS]

would you like to show where i have said "after the case" and i will give you the basic fundamental answers if you point them out.

 

 

You want to know where you said "after the case"? You posted it at 19:39 yesterday (4th August).

 

the only face to face meeting i had with the firm was a thirty minute meeting after the case after they agreed to take the case over, from Shelter,

 

You may have meant to only say "after they agreed to take the case over",but you have typed both

a) "afer the case", and

b) "ater they agreed to take the case over" !

[Vauban]

I can only repeat that it is irrelevant ...

 

To be honest, I think this is all irrelevant and unlikely to help you to mount an appeal - assuming that you are still within time to do so. My understanding (but I'm not a lawyer) is that you won't be able to appeal any of the court's "findings of fact" but only either due process or misinterpretations of the legal principle. Nothing - and I'm afraid I do mean nothing - that you have written here addresses either of these points. So I think you are going to struggle if you are serious about appealing this outcome (rather than just venting).

 

The circumstances around the venue of the court do not constitute a failure of process, as others have repeatedly stated, and the questions about the nature of your relationship with the solicitor are either not relevant to the case you presented (in your particulars of claim and their defence) or have now been considered by the court and rejected. It has no bearing, as far as I can see, on the grounds for a successful appeal.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have experience of successfully taking a large company to court as a litigant in person (where they were represented by a London barrister). And I have to say - and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but make the point for anyone reading this thread who might also be facing litigation - that if you conduct yourself in court (and in preparation for court) in the way you have engaged others here, with tendentious, aggressive and largely irrelevant argument then it is a recipe for disaster. Rhetoric isn't the same thing as legal argument.

 

I am sorry to be blunt, but you are in a hole here. And doubling down with no obvious prospect of success isn't a smart strategy. Perhaps if you could answer, clearly and without obfuscation, the questions others have put to you, people here might be able to offer you some ideas. But it seems unlikely to me, to be honest.

[callum1999]

To be honest, I think this is all irrelevant and unlikely to help you to mount an appeal - assuming that you are still within time to do so. My understanding (but I'm not a lawyer) is that you won't be able to appeal any of the court's "findings of fact" but only either due process or misinterpretations of the legal principle. Nothing - and I'm afraid I do mean nothing - that you have written here addresses either of these points. So I think you are going to struggle if you are serious about appealing this outcome (rather than just venting).

 

The circumstances around the venue of the court do not constitute a failure of process, as others have repeatedly stated, and the questions about the nature of your relationship with the solicitor are either not relevant to the case you presented (in your particulars of claim and their defence) or have now been considered by the court and rejected. It has no bearing, as far as I can see, on the grounds for a successful appeal.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have experience of successfully taking a large company to court as a litigant in person (where they were represented by a London barrister). And I have to say - and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but make the point for anyone reading this thread who might also be facing litigation - that if you conduct yourself in court (and in preparation for court) in the way you have engaged others here, with tendentious, aggressive and largely irrelevant argument then it is a recipe for disaster. Rhetoric isn't the same thing as legal argument.

 

I am sorry to be blunt, but you are in a hole here. And doubling down with no obvious prospect of success isn't a smart strategy. Perhaps if you could answer, clearly and without obfuscation, the questions others have put to you, people here might be able to offer you some ideas. But it seems unlikely to me, to be honest.

 

Vauban,

 

Thank you for your reply, it is appreciated.

 

I feel that i have giving reasoned observation and asked a number of significant points that could undermined and prove the solicitor was negligent.

 

Problem is, everyone seems to be adamant that the solicitor has done no wrong, when he obviously has, and the focus has been based on what i not allegedly done under the CPR, and that makes what the solicitor has done, as acceptable.

 

In other-words and to date, the solicitor and the majority of answers that have been giving in this thread, would advocate that it makes no difference because the rules and the procedures needed to be adopted, have not been adopted... therefore the solicitor is of the hook and what i claim is wrong, not base on facts, but on a set of rules, wrong.

 

A solicitor working without a legitimate contract as to profit under criminal proceedings, and making profit from that misrepresentation, do you honestly believe all this sheltering behind a set of Civil rules could be or should i say, would be allowed, under that legislation?

 

Seems to me that unless all the evidence in Civil proceedings are filed even after discovery and with the time limits set, that evidence is inadmissible, that is the excuse being used, and imo, that is not justice, its the complete reverse.

 

If someone is misrepresenting someone else and without the documentation to establish such right, and to make profit from that misrepresentation, i am saying that is fraud, the law would suggest that was fraud, what do you feel making profit from a misrepresentation amounts too?

[woad]

I'm wondering if the solicitors were actually acting on Shelter's behalf... My understanding from Callum's narratve is that he contacted Shelter, and Shelter referred him to Solicitor A. He then instructed Solicitor A.

 

Is it possible that Shelter contacted Solicitor A, and that Solicitor A was actually working for Shelter on Callum's behalf? I don't know if this can be done.

 

 

Callum, as Vauban has put so eloquently, if you cannot provide clear and simple answers to simple questions, then we are limited in the help we can provide.

 

The questions asked are relevant, even asking why you continued to engage with the solicitors for two years in the apparent absence of contract is relevant; if you cannot give a clear concise answer here - among people who are on your side and trying to help you - how would you answer that question in Court?

 

If someone gives you an answer you do not like, or which does not fit with your perception of the relevant legislation, it does NOT mean that they are siding with the solicitor. And frankly, after asking for help and then not just rejecting answers but abusing the person giving them is ungrateful to say the least.

 

You have a habit of advancing a theory or opinion, and then within a post or two taking that theory as a "fact". For example, it is not a fact that the Solicitor acted fraudulently, it is your opinion. You seem to think that because the solicitor never produced a copy of the contract in Court it 'proves' that they were covering up their fraudulent actions.

 

Whilst overlooking that the case never arrived at Court...

 

Hence why I ask why did you continue to allow Solicitor A to act on your behalf for two years, never once (seemingly) asking "how is this going to be paid for?", let alone "I cannot pay you, please stop acting for me".

 

I understand that you posted only part of the Solicitors defence earlier in the thread. Perhaps you could furnish us with the entire defence, it might clear up several points...

 

Look, no one is against you, but we don't have the full story, and when we ask for it you reply "it is irrelevant". You run the risk of alienating supporters, and subsequently being ignored.

[honeybee13]

Vauban,

 

Thank you for your reply, it is appreciated.

 

I feel that i have giving reasoned observation and asked a number of significant points that could undermined and prove the solicitor was negligent.

 

Problem is, everyone seems to be adamant that the solicitor has done no wrong, when he obviously has, and the focus has been based on what i not allegedly done under the CPR, and that makes what the solicitor has done, as acceptable.

 

In other-words and to date, the solicitor and the majority of answers that have been giving in this thread, would advocate that it makes no difference because the rules and the procedures needed to be adopted, have not been adopted... therefore the solicitor is of the hook and what i claim is wrong, not base on facts, but on a set of rules, wrong.

 

A solicitor working without a legitimate contract as to profit under criminal proceedings, and making profit from that misrepresentation, do you honestly believe all this sheltering behind a set of Civil rules could be or should i say, would be allowed, under that legislation?

 

Seems to me that unless all the evidence in Civil proceedings are filed even after discovery and with the time limits set, that evidence is inadmissible, that is the excuse being used, and imo, that is not justice, its the complete reverse.

 

If someone is misrepresenting someone else and without the documentation to establish such right, and to make profit from that misrepresentation, i am saying that is fraud, the law would suggest that was fraud, what do you feel making profit from a misrepresentation amounts too?

 

Callum, my impression is that it's more to do with how you ran the case.

 

It's all very interesting what you've said, but are you introducing arguments that you didn't put in your paperwork to the court before the hearing?

 

I stand to be corrected, but if you're trying to add information at this stage, I think you could struggle.

 

HB

[Ganymede]

FRAUD ACT 2006

 

2, Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he;

 

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation and,

 

(b) intends, by making the representation

 

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

 

(ii) to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A representation is false if;

 

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

 

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to thev state of mind;

 

(a) the person making the representation or, and

 

(b) any other person.

 

(4) A representation may be expressed or implied.

 

(5) For the purpose of this section as representation may be regarded as made of it ( or anything implying it ) is submitted in any form to any system

or devise designed to receive , convey or respond to communications ( with or without human intervention).

 

Making profit, and making the profit without a legitimate contract as to represent, any solicitor and on the evidence, or lack of, as is the case, would more likely, than not likely; be liable to be criminally prosecuted if what is being alleged,and with no evidence to suggest otherwise, that the solicitor has committed fraudulent act, which on balance of probabilities and the nature of offence, would be in the public interest to investigate/charge giving the profit gained from the act.

 

Think this Act and section would cover what has gone on with this case, in my humble opinion, time will tell.

 

 

I don't agree that any fraud has taken place from what you have told us.

[callum1999]

I'm wondering if the solicitors were actually acting on Shelter's behalf... My understanding from Callum's narratve is that he contacted Shelter, and Shelter referred him to Solicitor A. He then instructed Solicitor A.

 

Is it possible that Shelter contacted Solicitor A, and that Solicitor A was actually working for Shelter on Callum's behalf? I don't know if this can be done.

 

 

Callum, as Vauban has put so eloquently, if you cannot provide clear and simple answers to simple questions, then we are limited in the help we can provide.

 

The questions asked are relevant, even asking why you continued to engage with the solicitors for two years in the apparent absence of contract is relevant; if you cannot give a clear concise answer here - among people who are on your side and trying to help you - how would you answer that question in Court?

 

If someone gives you an answer you do not like, or which does not fit with your perception of the relevant legislation, it does NOT mean that they are siding with the solicitor. And frankly, after asking for help and then not just rejecting answers but abusing the person giving them is ungrateful to say the least.

 

You have a habit of advancing a theory or opinion, and then within a post or two taking that theory as a "fact". For example, it is not a fact that the Solicitor acted fraudulently, it is your opinion. You seem to think that because the solicitor never produced a copy of the contract in Court it 'proves' that they were covering up their fraudulent actions.

 

Whilst overlooking that the case never arrived at Court...

 

Hence why I ask why did you continue to allow Solicitor A to act on your behalf for two years, never once (seemingly) asking "how is this going to be paid for?", let alone "I cannot pay you, please stop acting for me".

 

I understand that you posted only part of the Solicitors defence earlier in the thread. Perhaps you could furnish us with the entire defence, it might clear up several points...

 

Look, no one is against you, but we don't have the full story, and when we ask for it you reply "it is irrelevant". You run the risk of alienating supporters, and subsequently being ignored.

 

No, the solicitor was not acting for Shelter, the file from Shelter which contained all the details and what Shelter had advised the solicitor to do, in order to act on my behalf has been provided by them, which would include any public funding that they would have needed, but have never proofed, as to be able to legally represent me.

 

Evidently, Shelter had no difficulty in establishing how they were helping me and duly provided the form CW1 that i would have signed for the solicitor to to continue to act which has still yet to be shown, despite repeated requests, which would include Orders that all previous Court/Judges have also pushed under the carpet, and for obvious reasons.

 

Why are you concerned about what was in their defence, if there was no legitimate contract in place, i'm afraid any defence would be worth the paper it has been printed on.

 

If there was a legitimate contract in place, which is denied, a defence would have been valid, but no-one can place any reliance on a defence if the basic's were never implemented to thereafter rely and contend what was never in place for a defence to hold any substance (solicitor/client contract agreement) retainer.

[callum1999]

I don't agree that any fraud has taken place from what you have told us.

 

OK, so am i right in thinking that a qualified solicitor can act, or pretend to act for a client, and make profit, without contract nor agreement to the contract being signed by both parties (binding)

 

The solicitor failing to disclose information, is that not fraud? the ICO and any Act covering such a criminal offence, would prove otherwise, it is a fraudulent act not to disclose information when requested, especially when the rules governing the storage and providing the information, has been, still is and will remain being violated because such information never ever existed.., hence why t cannot be produced and hence, why the Fraud Act 2006 continues to be a contravening feature, added to all the other discrepancies that have been committed by the solicitor and his firm, to date.

[Ganymede]

OK, so am i right in thinking that a qualified solicitor can act, or pretend to act for a client, and make profit, without contract nor agreement to the contract being signed by both parties (binding)

 

The solicitor failing to disclose information, is that not fraud? the ICO and any Act covering such a criminal offence, would prove otherwise, it is a fraudulent act not to disclose information when requested, especially when the rules governing the storage and providing the information, has been, still is and will remain being violated because such information never ever existed.., hence why t cannot be produced and hence, why the Fraud Act 2006 continues to be a contravening feature, added to all the other discrepancies that have been committed by the solicitor and his firm, to date.

 

But you did sign paperwork and did instruct them to act for you.

 

And no I would not say failing to provide a copy of the paperwork you've signed is fraud.

[callum1999]

But you did sign paperwork and did instruct them to act for you.

 

And no I would not say failing to provide a copy of the paperwork you've signed is fraud.

 

Have i, and who witnessed this, the paperwork that was signed?

 

Strange as it appears, but if that were to be the case, why would any individual or company for that matter, not want to proof this, and breach a number of provisions to show in order to show this, very odd.

[callum1999]

Have i, and who witnessed this, the paperwork that was signed?

 

Strange as it appears, but if that were to be the case, why would any individual or company for that matter, not want to proof this, and breach a number of provisions to show in order to show this, very odd.

 

Maybe the application for full legal aid, and the appeal that was alleged to have been completed, will also shed some light on documents being signed, just a thought.

[trebormoinet]

An interesting thread, I am probably off the mark here regarding most of what has been said, boggles my mind legal jargon, but does this link have any relevence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[Ganymede]

Have i, and who witnessed this, the paperwork that was signed?

 

Strange as it appears, but if that were to be the case, why would any individual or company for that matter, not want to proof this, and breach a number of provisions to show in order to show this, very odd.

 

You tell us.

 

You must've signed some paperwork otherwise why would you be so adamant about it being disclosed?

[woad]

Have i, and who witnessed this, the paperwork that was signed?

 

Strange as it appears, but if that were to be the case, why would any individual or company for that matter, not want to proof this, and breach a number of provisions to show in order to show this, very odd.

 

 

What do you mean by "proof this"? You use this term a lot, and it does not make sense.

 

What "provisions to show" have they breached?

 

Once again, please try to use simple sentences, removing commas and unnecessary phrases, it make understanding what you are writing much easier.