Solicitor/negligence claim:

[woad]

Callum, this paragraph is a perfect example of why you need to be more concise, and drop the attempts at legalese.

 

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.

 

I interpret it as "Shelter have passed me a copy of their file, which details the case, and the actions they suggested the solicitor undertook"

 

But the sentence "which would include any public funding... to represent me" is gobbledegook. It isn't clear whether you mean

 

a) The file contains details of the Legal Aid/Help funding

b) Shelter advised that public legal funding be sought (and if so, by whom - you or the solicitor?)

 

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.

 

The manner in which you have written is confusing; how can Shelter have provided a form which is still yet to be show? Have they provided you a blank CW1 (which would be meaningless), a part-completed CW1 form from long ago (and if so, when was it dated and who, if anyone has signed it?)

 

You are now saying that there were multiple Court Orders for the solicitors to produce a copy the signed CW1? When were these Orders obtained? This is the first time you have mentioned Court Orders.

 

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.

 

Because we are trying to get a complete picture from you! Look, as an example it took many many posts before you disclosed a vital piece of information regarding your PI claim; the fact it happened over 3 years prior to you contacting the solicitor.

 

In the same way as we ask questions that you brush aside with "it is irrelevant", if you don't provide information they it is difficult to provide answers. And frankly, when you continue to avoid providing such information, it starts to come across that perhaps you are deliberately hiding something.

 

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.

 

My Babel fish failed at this point, I'm sorry. I think what you are saying is "their defence is baseless as no contract was in place". Yes?

 

Fine. Now, can you please type up the remainder of their defence - you know, the bit you never completed a few weeks ago because your computer crashed... Yes, we are interested in it, as we need to see the whole defence in order to assist you.

[callum1999]

You tell us.

 

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

 

It is not a question of me being adamant about it being disclosed.

 

The solicitor has an obligatory duty to disclose, when requested, material of facts (documents) if a client request such information, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the six year period of storage under the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

I am not adamant as you have suggested that i have must have signed something, quite the reverse, i am relying n the DPA and SRA to show that anyone who is acting adamant, is the solicitor who is adamant in not showing a legitimate contract was in place, for him to represent me.

 

And he is now having to breach, and has breached by failing to comply with the rules, as he and not me, was adamant not to comply, because the material is, was and never will be there to prove otherwise.

 

The problem this solicitor, his firm and those employed within the Council who clearly engineered and orchestrated this non-event will be magnified to a more serious issue, of the public footing the bill for the solicitor and anyone else responsible in the profit he made, unlawfully and by means of fabricating events.

[callum1999]

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

 

Thank you for that trebormoinet, appreciated, and very helpful.

[callum1999]

Solicitor is now claiming he applied and appealed for legal aid, very odd.

 

Add this to the fact that he could not take on the case, on a fee paying basis, which again, was a pack of lies, i have asked them to provide their Charity reference number, not sure if i will get an answer though, if history is anything to go by.

[SuperVillain]

Solicitor is now claiming he applied and appealed for legal aid, very odd.

 

Add this to the fact that he could not take on the case, on a fee paying basis, which again, was a pack of lies, i have asked them to provide their Charity reference number, not sure if i will get an answer though, if history is anything to go by.

 

What do you mean "now" claiming - are you saying the Defendant/Respondent has contacted you?

 

If so what have they said in full?

[woad]

Thank you for that trebormoinet, appreciated, and very helpful.

 

And of absolutely no relevance or help in this case...

[callum1999]

Thank you for that trebormoinet, appreciated, and very helpful.

 

The second paragraph makes interesting reading, as for being off the mark on what has been said; i would say that in pointing this out, would dismiss a lot of the theories that a solicitor can pretend and invent as and when it suits them.

 

Another boxed ticked, so to speak, thanks.

[Ganymede]

It is not a question of me being adamant about it being disclosed.

 

The solicitor has an obligatory duty to disclose, when requested, material of facts (documents) if a client request such information, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the six year period of storage under the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

I am not adamant as you have suggested that i have must have signed something, quite the reverse, i am relying n the DPA and SRA to show that anyone who is acting adamant, is the solicitor who is adamant in not showing a legitimate contract was in place, for him to represent me.

 

And he is now having to breach, and has breached by failing to comply with the rules, as he and not me, was adamant not to comply, because the material is, was and never will be there to prove otherwise.

 

The problem this solicitor, his firm and those employed within the Council who clearly engineered and orchestrated this non-event will be magnified to a more serious issue, of the public footing the bill for the solicitor and anyone else responsible in the profit he made, unlawfully and by means of fabricating events.

 

So you're saying that you DID sign some paperwork with the solicitors then, otherwise there would be nothing to disclose and no breach of the DPA.

[BazzaS]

i have asked them to provide their Charity reference number.

 

Whose Charity reference number? Shelter?

Or are you saying the solicitor is a charity?

 

Solicitors can do charitable work (pro bono) but it would be very unusual for them to be a charity, though there are charities (e.g. https://www.lawworks.org.uk/about-us) who act to introduce litigants to pro bono lawyers.

[callum1999]

So you're saying that you DID sign some paperwork with the solicitors then, otherwise there would be nothing to disclose and no breach of the DPA.

 

Am i, where?

[callum1999]

Whose Charity reference number? Shelter?

Or are you saying the solicitor is a charity?

 

Solicitors can do charitable work (pro bono) but it would be very unusual for them to be a charity, though there are charities (e.g. https://www.lawworks.org.uk/about-us) who act to introduce litigants to pro bono lawyers.

 

That is so reassuring, lets hope more litigants, take heed, and jump at the chance, when giving, to take the opportunity and the needed effort to take advice from a " pro bono lawyer" , if only i was told this at the start of this thread..

[BazzaS]

That is so reassuring, lets hope more litigants, take heed, and jump at the chance, when giving, to take the opportunity and the needed effort to take advice from a " pro bono lawyer" , if only i was told this at the start of this thread..

 

You had no need of a pro bono solicitor at the start of this thread though, as you had already been offered a CFA..... (If you declined the offer of a CFA as you didn't trust solicitors to "do it properly", why would you trust a pro bono solicitor any more than a CFA solicitor)?

 

But, you are diverting attention from the question you haven't answered:

 

Whose Charity reference number? Shelter?

Or are you saying the solicitor is a charity?

[Ganymede]

Am i, where?

 

Yes, you are by constantly going on about the solicitor disclosing a copy of their contract with you.

 

Why would you be asking for and making applications for a document that you know does not exist?!

[BazzaS]

Yes, you are by constantly going on about the solicitor disclosing a copy of their contract with you.

 

Why would you be asking for and making applications for a document that you know does not exist?!

 

Indeed, as they can't produce it if it doesn't exist.

 

The "correct way" to have the court conclude it doesn't exist is either:

a) (by the 'criminal law' route) : by a prosecution where it is shown to have not existed, which can then be relied on in a civil court, or

b) (by the 'civil law' route): highlighting in the (should have been amended!) PofC that the contract never existed, putting them to proof that it did exist - if they then state it existed but can't show that, the court will conclude it didn't exist. Mind you, the OP will still face the twin problems that

i) they instructed the solicitor (which they may struggle to explain!), and

ii) they didn't amend the PofC before the case was struck out, so they have 'missed the boat' unless they can get the strike-out appealed. Note that they'd have to get the strike-out annulled and THEN amend their PofC ; they won't be able to claim "I want the contract issue considered as part of my appeal", since it wasn't in their PofC prior to the strike out .....

 

OP, How goes the appeal? have you filed:

a) for permission?

b) the appeal?

[woad]

The second paragraph makes interesting reading, as for being off the mark on what has been said; i would say that in pointing this out, would dismiss a lot of the theories that a solicitor can pretend and invent as and when it suits them.

 

Another boxed ticked, so to speak, thanks.

 

No, it isn't! It is of NO bearing at all to this (your case) AT ALL WHATSOEVER. It has NO bearing in a Court, it is nothing to do with legal evidence (or lack thereof) AT ALL, "lack of evidence" - or "evidence of absence" whatever you wish to call it, has no bearing in a court.

 

Which part of this do you fail to understand?

 

And where on on earth are you getting "a lot of the theories that a solicitor can pretend"... what theories, where, and from whom? No one in this thread has ever suggested any such theory.

[woad]

That is so reassuring, lets hope more litigants, take heed, and jump at the chance, when giving, to take the opportunity and the needed effort to take advice from a " pro bono lawyer" , if only i was told this at the start of this thread..

 

Perhaps if you had been somewhat clearer at the start in what you were seeking help with, and forthcoming with ALL the facts, then seeking the pro bono services of a solicitor would probably have been advised.

[trebormoinet]

No, it isn't! It is of NO bearing at all to this (your case) AT ALL WHATSOEVER. It has NO bearing in a Court, it is nothing to do with legal evidence (or lack thereof) AT ALL, "lack of evidence" - or "evidence of absence" whatever you wish to call it, has no bearing in a court.

 

Which part of this do you fail to understand?

 

And where on on earth are you getting "a lot of the theories that a solicitor can pretend"... what theories, where, and from whom? No one in this thread has ever suggested any such theory.

 

Woad please forgive me ignorance and I do not wish to add to the confusion but why are you sure the link irrelevant, I presumed all law rested on the balance of probabilities guided by logical arguments and evidence, I ask this out of curiosity and interest not that I think your wrong.

[SuperVillain]

Woad please forgive me ignorance and I do not wish to add to the confusion but why are you sure the link irrelevant, I presumed all law rested on the balance of probabilities guided by logical arguments and evidence, I ask this out of curiosity and interest not that I think your wrong.

 

Well we don't know the actual basis of this appeal, and whether permission to appeal was applied for. This has been asked many times to no avail.

 

If there's no permission to appeal, the appeal won't be considered. End of story.

 

If permission was applied for and is given, then taking a complete and utter stab in the dark based on previous postings the appeal revolves around an application made by the other side to strike out the OPs Particulars of Claim, as the OP feels the evidence he presented for the application wasn't considered properly by the Judge - aka a procedural irregularity.

 

Although this is all the OP's words. If the appeal is going ahead a transcript of the hearing will most likely need to be obtained. If what the Judge actually said was that he had considered the evidence and doesn't attach any weight and/or relevance to it then OP is back at square 1. As far as I can tell the evidence that wasn't considered was an advice/opinion from a lawyer looking into the negligence. But that doesn't help the defective PoC.

 

None of the above changes the fact that the PoC weren't great and didn't sufficiently detail the basis of the negligence claim against the solicitors. This was the crux of the solicitors' defence - at least the part we've seen. The PoC were not (to our knowledge) amended. So nothing has changed. Literally.

 

The philosophical stuff from the wikipedia link doesn't change or assist any of the above.

[woad]

Woad please forgive me ignorance and I do not wish to add to the confusion but why are you sure the link irrelevant, I presumed all law rested on the balance of probabilities guided by logical arguments and evidence, I ask this out of curiosity and interest not that I think your wrong.

 

UK Law is based on a principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty. Otherwise, the principle would be "presumed guilty until proven innocent" - consider the case of a (wholly innocent) individual attempting to prove they did not commit a crime - how do you prove a negative? It is almost impossible.

 

UK Law does not "rest on the balance of probabilities guided by logical arguments and evidence"; the standard of proof ti "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal trials, and "balance of probabilities" in civil trials.

 

Finally, the wikipedia entry you linked to relates to logic, and not law. The two are not intertwined. The section titled "proof and evidence" is NOT related to legal "proof" or "evidence", but logic and reasoning.

 

Nor is it related to res ipsa loquitur (in literal terms, it speaks for itself), in common law where the facts make it self-evident that responsibility lies with the other party (note to Callum- facts as in established facts, not opinion!)

[woad]

Well we don't know the actual basis of this appeal, and whether permission to appeal was applied for. This has been asked many times to no avail.

 

If there's no permission to appeal, the appeal won't be considered. End of story.

 

If permission was applied for and is given, then taking a complete and utter stab in the dark based on previous postings the appeal revolves around an application made by the other side to strike out the OPs Particulars of Claim, as the OP feels the evidence he presented for the application wasn't considered properly by the Judge - aka a procedural irregularity.

 

Although this is all the OP's words. If the appeal is going ahead a transcript of the hearing will most likely need to be obtained. If what the Judge actually said was that he had considered the evidence and doesn't attach any weight and/or relevance to it then OP is back at square 1. As far as I can tell the evidence that wasn't considered was an advice/opinion from a lawyer looking into the negligence. But that doesn't help the defective PoC.

 

None of the above changes the fact that the PoC weren't great and didn't sufficiently detail the basis of the negligence claim against the solicitors. This was the crux of the solicitors' defence - at least the part we've seen. The PoC were not (to our knowledge) amended. So nothing has changed. Literally.

 

The philosophical stuff from the wikipedia link doesn't change or assist any of the above.

 

It's a shame there is no "like" button.

 

In addition, despite being asked countless times, Callum has not furnished us with the solicitor's full defense, has refused to clarify the number of "cases" (or a clear time line of events from the initial accident), does not understand the meaning many legal terms - and refuses to accept he is wrong despite being shown the correct meanings (to give an example, "Notice of Facts", which he interprets as an "order to produce evidence).

 

He also has a habit of partial disclosure, for example: he initially wanted to claim for professional negligence for failing to claim/reserve the right to claim for personal injury. What he failed to tell us, was that any claim was statute barred as the injury happened over three years prior to meeting with the solicitor, thus was time-barred. Initially, this was not his fault as "the council refused to admit liability thus it time out". Further on he stated that he had claimed, but the Court hadn't sent him documentation (so his claim failed to reach Court) - in other words "not my fault", but not "I failed in my responsibility to manage my case".

When this failed, he "suddenly" remembered that he hadn't signed a contract with the solicitor, so his "grounds" for appeal are - somehow - the solicitor has defrauded the council...

 

Despite this, people are still willing to help him, even if only to avoid what will in all probability end as a very expensive mistake on his part; apparently the other party has already been awarded costs of £9000.... However, people can only help if they are in possession of the facts, not dribs, drabs, and opinion dressed up in garbled legalese.

[BazzaS]

It's a shame there is no "like" button.

 

In addition, despite being asked countless times, Callum has not furnished us with the solicitor's full defense, has refused to clarify the number of "cases" (or a clear time line of events from the initial accident), does not understand the meaning many legal terms - and refuses to accept he is wrong despite being shown the correct meanings (to give an example, "Notice of Facts", which he interprets as an "order to produce evidence).

 

He also has a habit of partial disclosure, for example: he initially wanted to claim for professional negligence for failing to claim/reserve the right to claim for personal injury. What he failed to tell us, was that any claim was statute barred as the injury happened over three years prior to meeting with the solicitor, thus was time-barred. Initially, this was not his fault as "the council refused to admit liability thus it time out". Further on he stated that he had claimed, but the Court hadn't sent him documentation (so his claim failed to reach Court) - in other words "not my fault", but not "I failed in my responsibility to manage my case".

When this failed, he "suddenly" remembered that he hadn't signed a contract with the solicitor, so his "grounds" for appeal are - somehow - the solicitor has defrauded the council...

 

Despite this, people are still willing to help him, even if only to avoid what will in all probability end as a very expensive mistake on his part; apparently the other party has already been awarded costs of £9000.... However, people can only help if they are in possession of the facts, not dribs, drabs, and opinion dressed up in garbled legalese.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiments in your post at all. Just one factual correction:

The OP's PI claim against the council did reach court. It was struck out for non-compliance, and the OP didn't appeal that strike-out in time.

 

7th June, post 118,

The DEFENCE Ganymede reads:

...........

11. The Defendant further understands that the Claimant previously made a claim against the Council in respect of injuries that he sustained in this incident, but the Claimants claim was struck out for failure to comply with the Courts directions.

 

12. The Claimant first attended the Defendants offices on 24 September 2013 By this stage, the PI claim in respect of the incident on 29 May 2010 was time barred. The Claimant was advised of this in a letter dated 18 June 2014 which stated:

 

there is difficulty so far as any claim you want to pursue so far as personal injury is concerned in that by the time you came to see us the three year year limitation on such claim had expired so the amount of damages you recover from that must be taking out of the equation.

.....

 

7th June, post 120, regarding the claim against the Council:

 

An Allocation questionnaire was sent by the Court, i did not receive it.

 

What the defence fails to mention, is that i wrote and notified the Court and was fully entitled to appeal the decision.

 

Mind you, there is a difference between "entitled to appeal the decision", and "appealed the decision in the correct manner, within the requisite timescale" : which may be relevant to the OP's current struck out claim, too.

 

Your believing that that prior claim hadn't reached court is understandable, especially if you haven't followed this thread from day 1. 40+ pages, and the OP's "legal logic" (a misnomer, in their case, as there is little logic to their arguments and they can't produce statute or case law to back up their assertions) and (as you have highlighted), their "legalese" and convoluted sentence structure just serve to make things more confusing.

[trebormoinet]

Thank you for taking the time to respond and clarifying why you consider logical thinking and philosophy irrelevant and not intertwined in law, at least why the link was irrelevent in this case.

 

I do not wish to cloud the waters on this thread but I would in my opinion say that they are bred into the DNA of all legal systems, as I said it was out of interest I asked, and I do note you both have vast more experience in legal matters than I, reading both your previous posts, as I already confessed I am ignorant of most aspects of the law but I have a growing interest to learn, so I appreciate your answers.

[SuperVillain]

Thank you for taking the time to respond and clarifying why you consider logical thinking and philosophy irrelevant and not intertwined in law, at least why the link was irrelevent in this case.

 

I do not wish to cloud the waters on this thread but I would in my opinion say that they are bred into the DNA of all legal systems, as I said it was out of interest I asked, and I do note you both have vast more experience in legal matters than I, reading both your previous posts, as I already confessed I am ignorant of most aspects of the law but I have a growing interest to learn, so I appreciate your answers.

 

Lol judges make illogical decisions all the time. (Not in this matter though in my opinion)

 

I call that 'litigation risk' when advising a client on what might happen at a trial.

[callum1999]

UK Law is based on a principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty. Otherwise, the principle would be "presumed guilty until proven innocent" - consider the case of a (wholly innocent) individual attempting to prove they did not commit a crime - how do you prove a negative? It is almost impossible.

 

UK Law does not "rest on the balance of probabilities guided by logical arguments and evidence"; the standard of proof ti "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal trials, and "balance of probabilities" in civil trials.

 

Finally, the wikipedia entry you linked to relates to logic, and not law. The two are not intertwined. The section titled "proof and evidence" is NOT related to legal "proof" or "evidence", but logic and reasoning.

 

Nor is it related to res ipsa loquitur (in literal terms, it speaks for itself), in common law where the facts make it self-evident that responsibility lies with the other party (note to Callum- facts as in established facts, not opinion!)

 

And on those logic's, whilst the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the accused has to show, demonstrate and above all prove that he is innocent until proving guilty, and this would be to defend what he has been charged with, and in this instance, that would be to show beyond any reasonable doubt that he put himself in a position to legally represent a client (me) the fact that he is and has continued to breach laws and any professional criteria of standard as a means on on your "logic's" and failed to do this.

 

If he is told to produce something or show evidence that he is innocent, under criminal law, and unlike Civil law, where the solicitor and anyone vouching for his actions are quite clearly sheltering behind The Civil Procedure Rules, which are just that (Civil) and only that.

 

Put it this way, if the solicitor went before a judge and jury this afternoon, and your theory was considered by that Judge and Jury and the very fact that the judge and the jury would have to consider all the evidence, which would include the solicitor breaching the Data Protection Act as a means on not showing the proof that he could have legitimately represented a client, add to that, the knowledge that the same solicitor was also abusing and ignoring the standards as set by his profession, by again failing to proof, his innocence, this as far as any prosecution would prove beyond any reasonable doubt, and that logic and based on him breaching rules and procedures as a means of a defence would be laughed out of court and the Judge and the jury would have no difficulty in giving the most obvious verdict, Guilty, not on probabilities, not on a loophole or help from a judge/court, and on the balance of evidence, end of....

 

The problem the solicitor also faces and would be clearly relevant is would it be the public interest to prosecute him, as evidently, if he has been a naughty solicitor (as evidence would clearly suggest) or he lack of it, in this case, on the part of the solicitor, giving that the solicitor has made a tidy profit, and without a legitimate contract to make that profit, period, such profit and committed in those circumstances would most certainly pass any test of "in the public interest to prosecute" because that profit made by that solicitor was paid to him out of the public purse, and that makes by far a more serious matter for him, very serious.

 

And the hiding and all the defending which has been based on the CPR will not be as straight forward, this time around, any sense of immunity, protection evidence being ignored, have all now been exhausted, time will tell, but the predominant motives as to secure the ends of justice, is not if, but now, when in my humble opinion.

 

Fraud is fraud, there is no immunity, the first stage has now been played out and with the obvious outcome, lets see if for a second time the solicitor and all his allies want to chance it this time around, i very much hope so.

[Vauban]

I am puzzled, callum1999, why you are prepared to write long posts like that above, but refuse to answer simple questions that require only short factual answers. People will conclude that you are either deliberately hiding relevant facts or you are not genuinely serious about taking this any further, and simply want to vent. That's fine (my own reading of your thread persuades me there is nowhere for you to take this) but it does means no one here can help you any further, and that the thread has probably reached an end.

 

But perhaps one last try, with three short questions:

 

a) have you sought leave to appeal yet, and from who?;

b) how long do you understand you have to lodge an appeal?;

c) on what basis, in simple non-convoluted terms, are you seeking to appeal?

 

If you cannot, or don't wish (which is your prerogative), to answer these questions, then I think this has gone as far as it usefully can.