Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

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.

 

I am not venting or using this public forum as a means,so if i appear or more posts are to some, on the aggressive side, that does not mean i am an aggressive individual, i am not very good putting into words, in a polite or in such a manner that other's have the ability to do.

 

That said, it does not mean that i am wrong, and that reason or capability does not necessarily mean that they are right, others can see that.

 

In answer to your three short questions, if a solicitor is found to have made profit by fabricating a legal contract, do you not think a and b; would be superseded in any appeal under c?, in LAW.

 

I am politely asking the question, can or could a solicitor (a) make legal representation on my behalf, without a contract to represent to act (b) and incur and make profit without a legitimate contract in place, to incur and make profit.

 

It is a simple question, but no-one who believes that i may be wrong on everything, seem to want to avoid answering, thanks in advance.

[Vauban]

In answer to your three short questions, if a solicitor is found to have made profit by fabricating a legal contract, do you not think a and b; would be superseded in any appeal under c?, in LAW.

 

No, I don't believe it would (though I am not a lawyer, and only have my personal experience to draw upon). Though you don't say so explicitly, I am interpreting your answer to my question a) as a "no".

 

There is a clear process and timescale for lodging an appeal, and if you do not adhere to these then I understand that the option of appealing falls away - regardless of the merits of the case. The Court should have indicated to you how long you have to do this - but from recollection it is not all that long. Perhaps others can advise about this.

[woad]

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.

 

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.

 

Thanks BazzaS, I sit corrected It was my understanding that he had submitted a claim, the court sent paperwork, but Callum [claims] never received it, hence the action "never reached court". I was sure this is what he wrote, several pages into the thread. But I think you can understand why I misunderstood! (I'm going to try to re-follow the thread from Post 1 to the post where he mentions not receiving the paper work)

 

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.

 

I have read - and tried to understand - the thread from post 1 of this thread, but I gather that several threads have been merged into one, which adds to the tortuous reading, especially when replies are not always replies to a particular message.

 

Regardless, my mind boggles at the patience displayed from yourself and Ganymede!

[Ganymede]

 

In answer to your three short questions, if a solicitor is found to have made profit by fabricating a legal contract, do you not think a and b; would be superseded in any appeal under c?, in LAW.

 

 

No, as I don't believe that there has been any "fabrication" and if there was then how could you sue the Defendant for professional negligence if you never instructed them?

 

 

 

I am politely asking the question, can or could a solicitor (a) make legal representation on my behalf, without a contract to represent to act (b) and incur and make profit without a legitimate contract in place, to incur and make profit.

 

It is a simple question, but no-one who believes that i may be wrong on everything, seem to want to avoid answering, thanks in advance.

 

 

Please can you answer a simple question for me in return?

 

Have you at any point signed a retainer/contract/CFA/ T&Cs etc with the Defendant?

[woad]

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.

 

No, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty, it is not up to the defendant to prove that they are innocent. For example, lets assume you are a solicitor. I could not take you to Court with a simple allegation that you represented me without a contract in place, and rely on a guilty verdict simply because you were unable to provide "proof" that a contract was in place; first of all, I would have to demonstrate that the work was actually undertaken, and undertaken on my behalf.

 

If I then tried to claim that you had acted fraudulently in claiming your costs from a third party (the supposed defendant in the case I allegedly employed you for), I firstly face the issue that I am effectively striking out my first allegation (that no contract was in place), but also face an issue whether I have the standing to bring a fraud case, because I was not defrauded.

 

If a court found that my earlier claim was invalid because you could demonstrate that a contract was in place, then the second allegation fails automatically; you were acting under instruction and claimed costs from the defendant.

 

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.

 

You started a sentence with "if" but didn't finish it. "if he is told to produce evidence, " there should be a "then...." instead, you wander off into an opinion of CPR. If someone is instructed, what?

 

Quite apart, if you are refering to Notice to Admit Facts, this is NOT a defendant being TOLD to produce anything, it is simply a form that allows each party to agree facts that are not in dispute; it is NOT an 'order' to produce evidence!

 

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

 

It is not a theory, it is the fundamental principle of UK Law; the presumption of innocence. EVERY Court case starts from the basis that the defendant is innocent of the allegation, and considers evidence. Heck, even disputing a speeding ticket starts with the presumption of innocence, but the Police are generally able to provide a preponderance of evidence to prove guilt... (and yes, I am aware that there is bad legislation that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, these are not relevant)

 

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,

 

It is up to you to demonstrate that the DP Act has been broken

 

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,

 

What knowledge? Who has this "knowledge"? "Knowledge" is not evidence. To be honest, this sentence as written is meaningless; how is a solicitor breaching professional standards by failing to prove innocence? Unless there was a prior court verdict or censure from the SRA regarding some professional "abuse", or demonstration of such in court, this is not "knowledge", let alone evidence. At best it is your opinion, however well- or ill- founded.

 

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....

 

But you haven't provided any [i[evidence[/i] you are stating that the solicitor breached the DPA and referring to "knowledge" of not proving their innocence of something. This is not evidence.

 

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,

 

You might want to re-read that. There is either evidence that suggests some is guilty, or there is no evidence in which case they are innocent QED!

 

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.

 

Making a 'profit' is not a crime. It has to be proven that the solicitor acted without basis. For example, if a solicitor one day submitted a claim to the council that his client broke the heel of her shoe and her ankle tripping on a loose paving stone, the claim being for £1540 made up of £40 for the broken shoe and £1500 legal costs. The council pays. It is later discovered that the claimant never existed. Then the solicitor has acted fraudulently, and the Council should take the appropriate action.

 

Now, let us consider that the claimant did exist, and had instructed the solicitor to proceed, but later discovers that she could have claimed for the injuries suffered. Has the solicitor acted fraudulently? No. Has the solicitor acted negligently in not claiming for injury - debatable; did he advise her that she had a claim? If no, then arguably he did not meet the professional standard required. If yes, did she instruct him to make a claim? If yes, then again it is arguable he did not meet the professional standard required. However, if she did not instruct him to claim then no, he met the standard.

 

Now, lets assume that the solicitor and claimant never signed an agreement (contract). The matter then is whether the solicitor had a basis to represent the client, given she continued to instruct him and at no point said "hey, why are you continuing to work on this after our initial meeting? Who will pay for all this? Where is the agreement to proceed, detailing costs, etc?"

 

Until that matter is decided, it cannot be established whether the solicitors subsequent claim recovering costs from the Council was legitimate or not.

 

And the claimant cannot claim fraud, as she was not defrauded by the solicitor; she has no standing for a fraud action.

 

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.

 

If you fail to act in accordance with CPR, it is not "hiding and defending" by the other side, it is you not following the relevant procedure.

 

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.

 

No, but an accusation of fraud is not automatic guilt of fraud. First of all, it has to be established if it was fraud!

[woad]

I am not venting or using this public forum as a means,so if i appear or more posts are to some, on the aggressive side, that does not mean i am an aggressive individual, i am not very good putting into words, in a polite or in such a manner that other's have the ability to do.

 

Then please, please, please read and re-read, aloud perhaps, exactly what you have typed before pressing the "post reply" button. As I said earlier, everyone's English grammar skills are different, no one is expected to be a genius. But it would help if you removed some of the commas, stuck to shorter and more precise sentences, and stopped trying to roll several points into one sentence. Perhaps use bullet points?

 

In answer to your three short questions, if a solicitor is found to have made profit by fabricating a legal contract, do you not think a and b; would be superseded in any appeal under c?, in LAW.

 

I am politely asking the question, can or could a solicitor (a) make legal representation on my behalf, without a contract to represent to act (b) and incur and make profit without a legitimate contract in place, to incur and make profit.

 

It is a simple question, but no-one who believes that i may be wrong on everything, seem to want to avoid answering, thanks in advance.

 

Callum, regardless of grammar skills, this is a perfect example of where you are hindering rather than help us help you. Vauban asked three simple questions. Yet instead of answering them, you reply with a question. Question A could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Question B with a figure of "xx days". Question C with a simple statement that started with "on the basis that...." and then listed a few brief points. Any further questions from you could have been left until the end of your reply.

 

Also, you say that the solicitor "fabricated " a contract. Are you saying that they have produced a contract?

[callum1999]

No, as I don't believe that there has been any "fabrication" and if there was then how could you sue the Defendant for professional negligence if you never instructed them?

 

 

 

 

 

Please can you answer a simple question for me in return?

 

Have you at any point signed a retainer/contract/CFA/ T&Cs etc with the Defendant?

 

How would a client know the contract was being fabricated by a solicitor, the client is giving instructions, that a valid contract was in place, since established as being yet another misrepresentation.

 

And no i have not, in answer to the second paragraph, but i know an extremely good handwriting expert if what i foresee is going to happen next, it just will add up.

[callum1999]

No, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty, it is not up to the defendant to prove that they are innocent. For example, lets assume you are a solicitor. I could not take you to Court with a simple allegation that you represented me without a contract in place, and rely on a guilty verdict simply because you were unable to provide "proof" that a contract was in place; first of all, I would have to demonstrate that the work was actually undertaken, and undertaken on my behalf.

 

If I then tried to claim that you had acted fraudulently in claiming your costs from a third party (the supposed defendant in the case I allegedly employed you for), I firstly face the issue that I am effectively striking out my first allegation (that no contract was in place), but also face an issue whether I have the standing to bring a fraud case, because I was not defrauded.

 

If a court found that my earlier claim was invalid because you could demonstrate that a contract was in place, then the second allegation fails automatically; you were acting under instruction and claimed costs from the defendant.

 

 

 

You started a sentence with "if" but didn't finish it. "if he is told to produce evidence, " there should be a "then...." instead, you wander off into an opinion of CPR. If someone is instructed, what?

 

Quite apart, if you are refering to Notice to Admit Facts, this is NOT a defendant being TOLD to produce anything, it is simply a form that allows each party to agree facts that are not in dispute; it is NOT an 'order' to produce evidence!

 

 

 

It is not a theory, it is the fundamental principle of UK Law; the presumption of innocence. EVERY Court case starts from the basis that the defendant is innocent of the allegation, and considers evidence. Heck, even disputing a speeding ticket starts with the presumption of innocence, but the Police are generally able to provide a preponderance of evidence to prove guilt... (and yes, I am aware that there is bad legislation that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, these are not relevant)

 

 

 

It is up to you to demonstrate that the DP Act has been broken

 

 

 

What knowledge? Who has this "knowledge"? "Knowledge" is not evidence. To be honest, this sentence as written is meaningless; how is a solicitor breaching professional standards by failing to prove innocence? Unless there was a prior court verdict or censure from the SRA regarding some professional "abuse", or demonstration of such in court, this is not "knowledge", let alone evidence. At best it is your opinion, however well- or ill- founded.

 

 

 

But you haven't provided any [i[evidence[/i] you are stating that the solicitor breached the DPA and referring to "knowledge" of not proving their innocence of something. This is not evidence.

 

 

 

You might want to re-read that. There is either evidence that suggests some is guilty, or there is no evidence in which case they are innocent QED!

 

 

 

Making a 'profit' is not a crime. It has to be proven that the solicitor acted without basis. For example, if a solicitor one day submitted a claim to the council that his client broke the heel of her shoe and her ankle tripping on a loose paving stone, the claim being for £1540 made up of £40 for the broken shoe and £1500 legal costs. The council pays. It is later discovered that the claimant never existed. Then the solicitor has acted fraudulently, and the Council should take the appropriate action.

 

Now, let us consider that the claimant did exist, and had instructed the solicitor to proceed, but later discovers that she could have claimed for the injuries suffered. Has the solicitor acted fraudulently? No. Has the solicitor acted negligently in not claiming for injury - debatable; did he advise her that she had a claim? If no, then arguably he did not meet the professional standard required. If yes, did she instruct him to make a claim? If yes, then again it is arguable he did not meet the professional standard required. However, if she did not instruct him to claim then no, he met the standard.

 

Now, lets assume that the solicitor and claimant never signed an agreement (contract). The matter then is whether the solicitor had a basis to represent the client, given she continued to instruct him and at no point said "hey, why are you continuing to work on this after our initial meeting? Who will pay for all this? Where is the agreement to proceed, detailing costs, etc?"

 

Until that matter is decided, it cannot be established whether the solicitors subsequent claim recovering costs from the Council was legitimate or not.

 

And the claimant cannot claim fraud, as she was not defrauded by the solicitor; she has no standing for a fraud action.

 

 

 

If you fail to act in accordance with CPR, it is not "hiding and defending" by the other side, it is you not following the relevant procedure.

 

 

 

No, but an accusation of fraud is not automatic guilt of fraud. First of all, it has to be established if it was fraud!

 

And i am afraid making profit for work that could never have been carried out and "but for" the client and the circumstances arising from what the claimant has giving.

 

Remember "but for" the claimant who should not have been represented, no costs could or would have been claimed from the Council., that is, unless you want to take out on who the profit has been based on, which unfortunately will never be the case, now hiding behind the Council seems to be the next step, the Council more likely than not, played a part in the fraud.

 

The solicitor anyway.

 

Makes no odds to me, the solicitor and adding the Council on the grounds of defrauding the public out of funding.

[callum1999]

Can someone please explain the process and the procedure a solicitor has to follow if he wants to claim from Legal Aid for their costs under a scheme.

 

When for argument sake would they present their bill for any initial would, like under the Legal Help a court scheme.

 

Would this be claimed as soon as the funding had been exhausted, or when the matter had been resolved>

[Ganymede]

And i am afraid making profit for work that could never have been carried out and "but for" the client and the circumstances arising from what the claimant has giving.

 

Remember "but for" the claimant who should not have been represented, no costs could or would have been claimed from the Council., that is, unless you want to take out on who the profit has been based on, which unfortunately will never be the case, now hiding behind the Council seems to be the next step, the Council more likely than not, played a part in the fraud.

 

The solicitor anyway.

 

Makes no odds to me, the solicitor and adding the Council on the grounds of defrauding the public out of funding.

 

None of that is of any concern to your claim and appeal though.

 

If the state have been defrauded then it's up to the state to go after the solicitor. It doesn't affect you.

 

You need to focus on the issues relevant to your claim and appeal.

[Ganymede]

 

And no i have not, in answer to the second paragraph

 

That would be very, very surprising in this day and age.

 

In any event, you were giving the Defendant both written and oral instructions and they were acting upon those instructions from you. The funding situation doesn't alter this, that is a different argument.

 

Who was paying for those actions from the solicitor is not relevant as your claim is that the Defendant was negligent in both delaying applying for an injunction and not reserving a right to being your PI claim.

[callum1999]

Can someone please explain the process and the procedure a solicitor has to follow if he wants to claim from Legal Aid for their costs under a scheme.

 

When for argument sake would they present their bill for any initial would, like under the Legal Help a court scheme.

 

Would this be claimed as soon as the funding had been exhausted, or when the matter had been resolved>

 

Any help on this would be appreciated.

 

That would be very, very surprising in this day and age.

 

In any event, you were giving the Defendant both written and oral instructions and they were acting upon those instructions from you. The funding situation doesn't alter this, that is a different argument.

 

Who was paying for those actions from the solicitor is not relevant as your claim is that the Defendant was negligent in both delaying applying for an injunction and not reserving a right to being your PI claim.

 

The funding situation is not a different argument though is it.

 

Funding be it, in place, privately or publicly funded would have needed to be in place for a solicitor to represent and earn from representing.

 

The solicitor has already admitted that he could not offer it privately and according to Legal Aid there was or is no trace of funding being paid by them.

 

So without funding in place, and without funding that would have been needed in any event to be able to represent a client why or how could that possibly work or benefit either party, unless a fabricated contract was presented when payment from Council was requested.

 

I would have rather had and i assume would have had the right to be able to rely on a professional who would had the funding available/in place to be or to act on a level as with one who would have funding giving the same case and factors.

 

Maybe if the solicitor had the correct funding in place, both the initial injunction and any rights to reserve further claims would have been of a motivational feature in the solicitors actions rather than working on a budget more suited for a case say for a claim for a broken finger.

[Ganymede]

Any help on this would be appreciated.

 

How is this relevant to your appeal?

 

The funding situation is not a different argument though is it.

 

Funding be i privately or publicly funded would have needed to be in place for a solicitor to represent and earn from representing.

 

The solicitor has already admitted that he could not offer it privately and according to Legal Aid there was or is no trace of funding being paid by them.

 

So without funding in place, and without funding that would have been needed in any event to be able to represent a client why or how could that possibly work or benefit either party.

 

I would have rather had and i assume would have had the right to be able to rely on a professional who would had the funding available/in place to be or to act on a level as with one who would have funding giving the same case and factors.

 

Maybe if the solicitor had the correct funding in place, both the initial injunction and any rights to reserve further claims would have been of a motivational feature in the solicitors actions rather than working on a budget more suited for a case say for a claim for a broken finger.

 

 

If your solicitor didn't have funding in place, that's just tough and means he wouldn't get paid.

 

Are you now alleging that the reason for the delays in obtaining the injuction was that he wasn't getting paid so let his standards slip as a result? Was this in your PoC?

 

What you will need to show is that these delays weren't just bad service but negligent.

[callum1999]

This is important and would part my appeal, or amendment to appeal..

[Ganymede]

This is important and would part my appeal, or amendment to appeal..

 

What amendment to your appeal?!!

[callum1999]

If your solicitor didn't have funding in place, that's just tough and means he wouldn't get paid.

 

Are you now alleging that the reason for the delays in obtaining the injuction was that he wasn't getting paid so let his standards slip as a result? Was this in your PoC?

 

What you will need to show is that these delays weren't just bad service but negligent.

 

But it does not work like that though does it, not unless the firm were a charity whilst representing me, should i ask them?

 

If he did not have funding in place he would not be able to represent a client, unless he was a LiP which was not the case.

 

So let me get this straight, a qualified solicitor can act for a client without the funding needed to be in a position to be able to represent to the same standards as a solicitor with the correct funding needed, nah, i don't think so somehow.

 

It may be as you put it "tough" on the solicitor, but be assured a client need not be put at the same risk.

 

How is this relevant to your appeal?

 

GM could you please tell me the process and the procedure that a solicitor would have to follow to claim public funding from LA.

 

The solicitor for the other-side told the judge that my case was funded by legal funding, but there is no proof of this.

 

Legal Aid have confirmed this, should the solicitor have told the judge this in evidence, if it was not true before and used in evidence to have case struck out.

 

Is this another misrepresentation, or is Callum barking up at the wrong tree again, thanks in advance.

[Ganymede]

But it does not work like that though does it, not unless the firm were a charity whilst representing me, should i ask them?

 

If he did not have funding in place he would not be able to represent a client, unless he was a LiP which was not the case.

 

So let me get this straight, a qualified solicitor can act for a client without the funding needed to be in a position to be able to represent to the same standards as a solicitor with the correct funding needed, nah, i don't think so somehow.

 

It may be as you put it "tough" on the solicitor, but be assured a client need not be put at the same risk.

 

What risk were you put at?

 

Are you saying that he let his professional standards slip as he didn't know he was getting paid at the end of it or not?

 

The solicitor was under the same professional obligations to act in your best interest etc regardless of what kind of funding was in place (or not as you claim).

 

GM could you please tell me the process and the procedure that a solicitor would have to follow to claim public funding from LA.

 

The solicitor for the other-side told the judge that my case was funded by legal funding, but there is no proof of this.

 

Legal Aid have confirmed this, should the solicitor have told the judge this in evidence, if it was not true before and used in evidence to have case struck out.

 

Is this another misrepresentation, or is Callum barking up at the wrong tree again, thanks in advance.

 

 

My opinion is that you're barking up the wrong tree with the funding.

 

The funding was absolutely nothing to do with why your claim was struck out.

 

It was struck out because your PoC was inadequate regarding the professional negligence argument.

 

Also because the PI claim argument was a total non starter and doomed to failure from the start.

[callum1999]

My opinion is that you're barking up the wrong tree with the funding.

 

The funding was absolutely nothing to do with why your claim was struck out.

 

It was struck out because your PoC was inadequate regarding the professional negligence argument.

 

Also because the PI claim argument was a total non starter and doomed to failure from the start.

 

Well it was struck out on the provision that the solicitor was being funded by LA.

 

Do you believe any judge would strike a claim out, if he or she was told, the case was not funded at all, yes or no?

 

The claim was struck out on evidence the other-side were allowed to be able to put forward.

 

Central to the evidence that they successfully relied upon and but for the evidence being used was that the solicitor was initially working under a contract/retainer that had been triggered and valid by means of securing public funding.

 

Again, this was not true according to Legal Aid.

 

As for the original claim being doomed from the start, i disagree, as did the solicitor, again whilst representing me, when he should not have been representing me, he made it clear to the Council that any court would and giving the circumstances allow an extension to the limitation period.

 

He actually got something right, but again failed when instructed and on the provision that he could represent me, which as we know, was not the case but at least he was thinking about me and not his own pockets at that time..

[Ganymede]

Well it was struck out on the provision that the solicitor was being funded by LA.

Do you believe any judge would strike a claim out, if he or she was told, the case was not funded at all, yes or no?

 

No, not at all. It has nothing to do with the Court, that is a solicitor/client issue.

 

 

 

The claim was struck out on evidence the other-side were allowed to be able to put forward.

 

Central to the evidence that they successfully relied upon and but for the evidence being used was that the solicitor was initially working under a contract/retainer that had been triggered and valid by means of securing public funding.

 

Again, this was not true according to Legal Aid.

 

 

You constantly refuse to post up the last part of the Defence so we can only go on what you have told us.

 

 

 

As for the original claim being doomed from the start, i disagree, as did the solicitor, again whilst representing me, when he should not have been representing me, he made it clear to the Council that any court would and giving the circumstances allow an extension to the limitation period.

 

He actually got something right, but again failed when instructed and on the provision that he could represent me, which as we know, was not the case but at least he was thinking about me and not his own pockets at that time..

 

You are wrong. End of.

 

The Defence you posted even quotes a letter from the Defendant telling you that your PI claim was dead and gone (me paraphrasing) so they agreed with me as well.

[callum1999]

No, not at all. It has nothing to do with the Court, that is a solicitor/client issue.

 

 

 

 

 

You constantly refuse to post up the last part of the Defence so we can only go on what you have told us.

 

 

 

 

 

You are wrong. End of.

 

The Defence you posted even quotes a letter from the Defendant telling you that your PI claim was dead and gone (me paraphrasing) so they agreed with me as well.

 

It has nothing to do with Court, what a Court would allow a solicitor to lie and plead that he was working under a legitimate contract which would need to be in place for him to act and thereafter defend.

 

Why are you and others so adamant that solicitors are exceptional to the rule of working under an agreed and lawful contract.

 

And the defendant is hardly going to put in his defence the material or the letters that showed the limitation period could be avoided, are they.

 

We have a solicitor who is telling the Court that he is not negligent, but in theory, or in the real world, no other business or occupation would plead a defence when there is no defence to rely upon in any event, no contract.

 

Not only was he negligent, that negligence has now been established and on a contract that never was, you could not make it up.

 

What risk were you put at?

 

Are you saying that he let his professional standards slip as he didn't know he was getting paid at the end of it or not?

 

The solicitor was under the same professional obligations to act in your best interest etc regardless of what kind of funding was in place (or not as you claim).

 

Was he, and no you are wrong, he may have been under some form of made up obligation, but for it to be as you have put it "professional"; a contract would have been in place that would term the agreement and would include a level of professionalism that he clearly lacked at key stages.

 

Contracts are there for a reason, it is to protect parties, in events like this one.

 

He has pretended to act under a profession and hehas also pretended to act like a professional to the judge and court, the bloke is a fully fledged FRAUD, who on this occasion has cocked up, period.

[Ganymede]

It has nothing to do with Court, what a Court would allow a solicitor to lie and plead that he was working under a legitimate contract which would need to be in place for him to act and thereafter defend.

 

Why are you and others so adamant that solicitors are exceptional to the rule of working under an agreed and lawful contract.

 

And the defendant is hardly going to put in his defence the material or the letters that showed the limitation period could be avoided, are they.

 

We have a solicitor who is telling the Court that he is not negligent, but in theory, or in the real world, no other business or occupation would plead a defence when there is no defence to rely upon in any event, no contract.

 

Not only was he negligent, that negligence has now been established and on a contract that never was, you could not make it up.

 

What are you talking about? No negligence has been established or proven and your claim is currently struck out and dead in the water.

 

Ok what letters or emails do you have from the Defendant where they say that limitation won't be an issue?? Please copy and paste them here.

 

Was he, and no you are wrong, he may have been under some form of made up obligation, but for it to be as you have put it "professional"; a contract would have been in place that would term the agreement and would include a level of professionalism that he clearly lacked at key stages.

 

Contracts are there for a reason, it is to protect parties, in events like this one.

 

He has pretended to act under a profession and hehas also pretended to act like a professional to the judge and court, the bloke is a fully fledged FRAUD, who on this occasion has cocked up, period.

 

No it is not fully fledged fraud. No close. Not even close.

 

And as for the professional duties on a solicitor, they are not made up at all and exist from the first time you instruct the solicitor. The levels of service don't seem great but are they do bad to be negligent? What did the delays in getting the injuction do?

[callum1999]

No it is not fully fledged fraud. No close. Not even close.

 

And as for the professional duties on a solicitor, they are not made up at all and exist from the first time you instruct the solicitor. The levels of service don't seem great but are they do bad to be negligent? What did the delays in getting the injuction do?

 

Sorry GM, but i disagree.

 

Any professional and in any working capacity who pretends to act where a contract is binding and cannot show proof of this and makes profit from the misrepresentation is classed as a fraudulent act.

 

It matters not nor is it now important what level of service the solicitor gave or never gave now, that privilege that do date he has relied on would only be reserved or could be reserved by a solicitor who was working under a binding contract.

[Ganymede]

Sorry GM, but i disagree.

 

Any professional and in any working capacity who pretends to act where a contract is binding and cannot show proof of this and makes profit from the misrepresentation is classed as a fraudulent act.

 

It matters not nor is it now important what level of service the solicitor gave or never gave now, that privilege that do date he has relied on would only be reserved or could be reserved by a solicitor who was working under a binding contract.

 

He wasn't pretending to act. He was acting on your verbal and written instructions.

 

Where was the fraud? Who was the victim?

 

Please show us by reference to the relevant legislation exactly where the solicitor has committed fraud?

[callum1999]

That's right GM, he was acting on my verbal instructions, whilst pretending to be able to act on those instructions, qualified or not qualified he could only have taking a clients instructions if he had put himself in a position of being able to.

 

There is not one strand of proof that could support this significant fact, quite the reverse.

 

Who was the victim? you tell me, was it the poor overworked solicitor working for the local council?

 

What i do know is that but for the circumstances and but for taking the case on, no crime could have possibly been committed anyone and that would include the solicitor, or should i say, the part time solicitor who claims a full time rate from the public purse but for my circumstances.

 

Could he have made profit, but the breaches being made by the Council or did he just dragged me into office one frosty morning, or did he accept the case and this after a Charitable organisation loaded him with the evidence to put right what was obviously wrong.

[Ganymede]

You do know that verbal instructions are equally as valid.

 

I still don't believe that you never signed any paperwork with this firm though. Why would you have made an application for disclosure of the retainer or contract etc if you already knew 100% that it didn't exist because you never signed one?!

 

Even if there was a fraudulent act committed (which I don't believe happened) it has absolutely nothing to do with your negligence claim that was struck out. Your claim was struck out because of you and your poorly pleaded claim.

 

Please can you show us exactly what the Defence said in writing to you about being able to get an extension to the limitation period as it may help your appeal.

 

Can you also please explain what you meant by your "amended appeal" a couple of pages back?!