Solicitor/negligence claim:

[Ganymede]

Callum, please can you tell us with a simple yes or no answer if you received a letter from the Defendant telling you that your PI claim was statute barred already like they claim in their Defence?

 

This is very important to your appeal.

[callum1999]

Callum, please can you tell us with a simple yes or no answer if you received a letter from the Defendant telling you that your PI claim was statute barred already like they claim in their Defence?

 

This is very important to your appeal.

 

Not that i can recall.

 

I received little bit no correspondence from the solicitor if i am being honest.

 

Once i made the formal complaint against him his secretary would email what he was stating which again was not very much.

[Ganymede]

Not that i can recall.

 

I received little bit no correspondence from the solicitor if i am being honest.

 

Once i made the formal complaint against him his secretary would email what he was stating which again was not very much.

 

You'll need to do better than "not that I can recall" if you get your appeal.

 

If the other side produce copies of letters they claim they sent you then it's likely that the Court would believe that on the balance of probability they were sent.

 

If the other side can so that they sent you letters or emails advising you that your claim was already statute barred then that is your main negligence claim gone.

 

All you would be left with is your complaint about them being slow to act which wouldn't constitute professional negligence.

[callum1999]

So am i to assume that if such letter was sent this would have been produced before or after they had requested my medical file for the PI claim was giving to them?

 

They also failed to explain the terms of the agreement..

[Ganymede]

You might be getting confused as you can either include an injury claim under the disrepair protocol or you can make a separate injury claim under the personal injury protocol.

 

If they were including the injury claim under the disrepair protocol then the correct procedure would be to obtain copies of your medical records to prove your injury.

 

Nothing wrong with what they did there.

[callum1999]

Chronology of PI claim.

 

29/0913 Initial details taking from the client with reference to the fact that the client suffered PI as a result of the disrepair May 2010. (this was the only meeting )

 

9 Months later-

 

18/06/2014 The client is advised that in relation to his PI claim (2110) limitation has expired.

 

02/07/2014 Solicitor chased Council for PI compensation.

 

29/07/2014 Solicitor advises Council that their offer is to low and reiterate that the client seeks repair of the lean-to as well as damages for PI detailed in their letter sent to Council on 02/07/2014

 

10/09/2014 Solicitor ask client for evidence from GP in respect of injuries sustained in 2010 which the client pays £50 for medical records to be released and considered by solicitor.

 

01/10/2014 Solicitor advises the Council that the offer of compensation is to low and not enough giving the injuries and stress.

 

02/10/2014 Council say that they have not received evidence of general damages or schedule of special damages but increase their offer.

 

03/11/2014 Solicitor advises client that the client needs to obtain evidence from his GP and state that in order to get around the limitation issue the Court have the discretion to dis-apply the 3 year limitation.

 

08/12/2014 Solicitors send Council copies of the clients GP and hospital records and argues that whilst three years has passed the Court would be no doubt sympathetic in applying the extension of time.

[Ganymede]

Thank you that is very useful.

 

Can you show us exactly what those last two letters say? (03/11/2014 and 08/12/2014).

 

It may be well just be posturing from your solicitor to the Council hoping that if they bluff the council will back down and make a better offer.

[callum1999]

Again i would ask what would be the standard of procedure that a solicitor would have to comply with in order to claim any legal funding from the Legal Aid under the Legal Help at Court scheme.

 

Would a request for payment be made once the funds had been exhausted, a yes or no would be very helpful if someone can enlighten me.

[callum1999]

Can you show us exactly what those last two letters say? (03/11/2014 and 08/12/2014).

 

It may be well just be posturing from your solicitor to the Council hoping that if they bluff the council will back down and make a better offer.

 

Lol, posturing.

[Ganymede]

Lol, posturing.

 

That's how litigation works.

[callum1999]

Lol, posturing.

 

What and in between pretending to act as a solicitor.

[callum1999]

That's how litigation works.

 

What being armed with evidence and medical evidence and not making a two minute application for the limitation on a PI claim to be merely extended which was what the evidence now quite clearly shows was the course of action he should could and would have succeeded in had he been in a position to do that.

 

Clearly and as with the other applications that his missed whilst representing me the client, had he had a legitimate contract in place he could have done so much more, he made the choices not me.

[callum1999]

So the myth that about the limitation has also now been put to bed.

 

Its a shame the judge who through the case out did not want to consider this evidence that he refused to even consider.

 

Like i have always maintained my one year old granddaughter could have got this claim struck out, if you are only motivated in considering one parties argument there can only be one outcome.

 

It is not clever it is just a few little people abusing what little authority they have been giving.

 

Miscarriage of justice, anyone ever been a victim of this

[BazzaS]

Lol, posturing.

 

That's how litigation works.

 

Absolutely.

The solicitor knows the council can use the statute bar as an absolute defence, and that the court MIGHT disapply it, not WILL disapply it.

 

They try and apply pressure in the council by saying "would be no doubt sympathetic in applying the extension of time."

 

They know the court likely won't allow the disapplication of the statute bar but want to remind the Council of the possibility (and that they tried to get the council to settle), as a tactical move.

 

It seems the OP wants to find fault, even when they were trying to ensure the OP got something, not nothing.

 

What being armed with evidence and medical evidence and not making a two minute application for the limitation on a PI claim to be merely extended which was what the evidence now quite clearly shows was the course of action he should could and would have succeeded in had he been in a position to do that.

 

Clearly and as with the other applications that his missed whilst representing me the client, had he had a legitimate contract in place he could have done so much more, he made the choices not me.

 

 

With the fact you had commenced a PI claim and it had been struck out, it is highly unlikely you would have been allowed to have the statute bar disapplied.

[Ganymede]

What being armed with evidence and medical evidence and not making a two minute application for the limitation on a PI claim to be merely extended which was what the evidence now quite clearly shows was the course of action he should could and would have succeeded in had he been in a position to do that.

 

Clearly and as with the other applications that his missed whilst representing me the client, had he had a legitimate contract in place he could have done so much more, he made the choices not me.

 

An application for relief from sanctions and to disapply the limitation period under section 33 is nowhere near a two minute application. It is a long, complicated application and it would have almost certainly resulted in an adverse costs order against you if it had succeed, which I don't think it would have.

 

It's a red herring anyway as you had already issued you PI and had it struck out so the application wouldn't be to disapply the limitation period anyway, it would be to set aside the strike out and reinstate your claim. This would have been even less likely to succeed in my opinion.

 

The only realistic choice your solicitor had was to try and include your injury claim within the disrepair protocol.

[Ganymede]

So the myth that about the limitation has also now been put to bed.

 

Its a shame the judge who through the case out did not want to consider this evidence that he refused to even consider.

 

Like i have always maintained my one year old granddaughter could have got this claim struck out, if you are only motivated in considering one parties argument there can only be one outcome.

 

It is not clever it is just a few little people abusing what little authority they have been giving.

 

Miscarriage of justice, anyone ever been a victim of this

 

 

There is no myth and nothing has been put to bed at all, quite the opposite in fact.

 

The limitation period is strictly enforced and it is very, very difficult to get around with the Court.

 

But as I said previously, it's a red herring as the correct procedure would be to apply to reinstate your stuck out claim.

 

A section 33 application isn't relevant here.

[woad]

Not that i can recall.

 

I received little bit no correspondence from the solicitor if i am being honest.

 

Once i made the formal complaint against him his secretary would email what he was stating which again was not very much.

 

Earlier in the thread you mention several items of correspondence from the solicitor,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim&p=4924732&viewfull=1#post4924732

 

"I have gone through all the emails received and two there are two that stand out.

 

The first one states we await legal aid before we can continue with your case, and on the refusal of legal aid, we do not do conditional fee agreements for this type of work!!!! as has been suggested by Legal Aid to us."

 

Despite asking several times, you have yet to reveal the contents of the second that 'stood out'.

 

Please Callum, you can only be helped if you provide the information asked - regardless of whether you think it is relevant or not, it all has to be taken into account. Just like the complate defence that the solicitor filed, which are still waiting for (paragraphs 15 onwards).

 

Whilst letters can be considered "compelling", emails complete with the full email header can be more so, as they demonstrate the date and time of sending. Please, post up the remainder of the defence, and other relevant emails.

[callum1999]

There is no myth and nothing has been put to bed at all, quite the opposite in fact.

 

The limitation period is strictly enforced and it is very, very difficult to get around with the Court.

 

But as I said previously, it's a red herring as the correct procedure would be to apply to reinstate your stuck out claim.

 

A section 33 application isn't relevant here.

 

But it can be enforced GM SECTION 33.

 

As could an application to reinstate the claim.

 

The case has be thrown out as in any event it would be status barred that's what the other-side and others have claimed on this thread.

 

The chronology of facts shows (a) the solicitor was aware of Section 33 and has clearly stated to the Council this course of action was viable, to claim that this was a red-hearing because they did not got go after the correct application to either extend the limitation or to re-instate the claim makes no sense.

 

Or are you now of the opinion that because the solicitors own evidence would now demonstrate a Section 33 could have been applied for you are now highlighting that it matters not because in any event they went after the wrong order because the latter of the two applications was the only way forward?

[BazzaS]

The solicitor mentions the section 33 to try to apply pressure on the council, but knows it is only a theoretical possibility, and won't actually happen in real life. So, it isn't "a red herring" but a tactical ploy to try to get the best outcome for you.

 

If the council ignore it (knowing it is an empty threat) or reply "we don't share your confidence in the court agreeing, so make that application if you want to" ; you've not lost anything.

 

So, it was a valid tactical ploy, but doesn't mean S.33 had any chance of being used to disapply the statute bar : trying to use it to claim that you WOULD have had the bar disapplied wouldn't pass muster in court.

 

You also COULD have applied to have the strike out set-aside, but again : due to the time elapsed no realistic prospect of success.

[Ganymede]

But it can be enforced GM SECTION 33.

 

As could an application to reinstate the claim.

 

The case has be thrown out as in any event it would be status barred that's what the other-side and others have claimed on this thread.

 

The chronology of facts shows (a) the solicitor was aware of Section 33 and has clearly stated to the Council this course of action was viable, to claim that this was a red-hearing because they did not got go after the correct application to either extend the limitation or to re-instate the claim makes no sense.

 

Or are you now of the opinion that because the solicitors own evidence would now demonstrate a Section 33 could have been applied for you are now highlighting that it matters not because in any event they went after the wrong order because the latter of the two applications was the only way forward?

 

No it can't, what are you basing this on?

 

It's yet more nonsense and faux legal speak.

 

The chronology of facts as you put it shows absolutely nothing. That your solicitor tried to bluff the Council by threatening a section 33 application is not evidence of anything, especially not that the Court would allow any such application (it wouldn't).

 

The solicitor could have told the council that the moon was made of cheese, it wouldn't be evidence that it was or make it true.

[callum1999]

No it can't, what are you basing this on?

 

It's yet more nonsense and faux legal speak.

 

The chronology of facts as you put it shows absolutely nothing. That your solicitor tried to bluff the Council by threatening a section 33 application is not evidence of anything, especially not that the Court would allow any such application (it wouldn't).

 

The solicitor could have told the council that the moon was made of cheese, it wouldn't be evidence that it was or make it true.

 

Go on then, i have giving reasons and why the solicitor was in evidence advocating and with good reason section 33, the red herring theory is just that, a myth and another excuse, you tell me why neither applications were applied including the one that puffed and chipped away from the original application because the solicitor was that clever that he deflected and ignored following correct procedure because he failed not once but twice.

 

And he still made a profit:lol:, a fraud and not a very good one tbh.

[Ganymede]

Go on then, i have giving reasons and why the solicitor was in evidence advocating and with good reason section 33, the red herring theory is just that, a myth and another excuse, you tell me why neither applications were applied including the one that puffed and chipped away from the original application because the solicitor was hat clever that he deflected and ignored following correct procedure because he failed not once but twice.

 

And he still made a profit:lol:

 

This is gobbledygook and doesn't even make sense. You haven't given any reasons at all.

 

A section 33 application would not have been the correct application to make (you should have appealed/set aside your strike out). Even if it was then the Court would not allow it after such a long time. Despite what you think the limitation period is strictly enforced by the Court.

 

I assume that you didn't tell the solicitor that you had already made a PI claim that was struck out. However, even if you did then Bazza has already explained that threatening the council with a section 33 application was just tactics and a bluff.

[callum1999]

The solicitor mentions the section 33 to try to apply pressure on the council, but knows it is only a theoretical possibility, and won't actually happen in real life. So, it isn't "a red herring" but a tactical ploy to try to get the best outcome for you.

 

If the council ignore it (knowing it is an empty threat) or reply "we don't share your confidence in the court agreeing, so make that application if you want to" ; you've not lost anything.

 

So, it was a valid tactical ploy, but doesn't mean S.33 had any chance of being used to disapply the statute bar : trying to use it to claim that you WOULD have had the bar disapplied wouldn't pass muster in court.

 

You also COULD have applied to have the strike out set-aside, but again : due to the time elapsed no realistic prospect of success.

 

And pigs will fly as well, as per norm ifs buts and just maybe's, BUT NO REAL SUBSTANCE.

[Ganymede]

And pigs will fly as well, as per norm ifs buts and just maybe's, BUT NO REAL SUBSTANCE.

 

The only one with little substance to their argument is you.

 

Bazza is telling you how it is.

[callum1999]

This is gobbledygook and doesn't even make sense. You haven't given any reasons at all.

 

A section 33 application would not have been the correct application to make (you should have appealed/set aside your strike out). Even if it was then the Court would not allow it after such a long time. Despite what you think the limitation period is strictly enforced by the Court.

 

I assume that you didn't tell the solicitor that you had already made a PI claim that was struck out. However, even if you did then Bazza has already explained that threatening the council with a section 33 application was just tactics and a bluff.

 

OK i get it because Bazza says it was just a bluff lol, it must be true and set in stone, if only.

 

And why are you assuming again it is much easier to deal in fact rather than keep assuming but on the other hand we will just rely on the assumption that section 33 was JUST TACTICS AND ONE BIG BLUFF

 

Still this must be true about the tactics and not forgetting the bluff the solicitor is a professional when it comes to this, PREMIERE LEAGUE standard.

 

He is that good at it that those representing him are blessed with the same enigma, bluffing the last judge (cougth) or wannabee judge that never will.

 

The only one with little substance to their argument is you.

 

Bazza is telling you how it is.

 

What the same Bazza who before today saying that the claim was status barred but now has suddenly decided on the fact of evidence that hold on the claim was not just status barred the solicitor was merely bluffing, lol, you could not make it up Gn.