Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

You've posted what you think could be valid grounds of appeal : who else believes they are valid?.

You haven't posted the details of any actual appeal application.

 

And on what basis do you believe any application to appeal will be treated any different or rightly considered as the others that have been ignored?

[BazzaS]

And on what basis do you believe any application to appeal will be treated any different or rightly considered as the others that have been ignored?

 

1) you had 21 days to appeal. Did you actually do so rather than "notify them of intent to appeal" (which means nothing)

 

2) why would an appeal be treated any differently?

Well, if it had valid grounds, and was well drafted with a persuasive argument : it'd succeed.

 

However, I agree that likely it would be refused permission or (if heard) denied. Not due to unfairness, but because you don't have grounds, can't draft a persuasive argument and can't follow procedure.....

[callum1999]

Time to close this...? Then you can assist other posters ?

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

I am not telling certain posters to give advice.

 

Because the forum feels that others would be better served advising others ive no problem with that.

 

But to close a genuine thread because others would be better served by certain posters and on a public forum seems a bit harsh.

 

If the posters who would be better off advising others want to do that i am not stopping them so why should the thread be closed based on their advice rather than how the forum should be, to seek advice.

 

It is your call but you should not let a few dictate who what and why the forum is here to help people like me.

[callum1999]

1) you had 21 days to appeal. Did you actually do so rather than "notify them of intent to appeal" (which means nothing)

 

2) why would an appeal be treated any differently?

Well, if it had valid grounds, and was well drafted with a persuasive argument : it'd succeed.

 

However, I agree that likely it would be refused permission or (if heard) denied. Not due to unfairness, but because you don't have grounds, can't draft a persuasive argument and can't follow procedure.....

 

Whether it had valid grounds or not, your opinion.

 

Why would the court consider this application if they have not considered other applications?

[BazzaS]

Whether it had valid grounds or not, your opinion.

 

Why would the court consider this application if they have not considered other applications?

 

Different judge,different level of judge.

 

Yet your problem will remain.

Your problem isn't that the court has erred.

Your problem is you had a poor case to start with, and what little chance of success you had you lost with poor drafting and lack of understanding of (and lack of compliance with) the CPR.

 

The fact that you can't even consider that possibility, and persist in blaming an "unfair" and "biased" or "erroneous" court : why you'll continue to get nowhere, and continue to spout nonsense.

 

If you don't appeal, or you do and they deny permission to appeal, or hear the appeal and reject it,you'll just say how unfair it is, rather than accept: you just weren't up to presenting your case coherently with a persuasive argument.

[AndyOrch]

Andy

 

I am not telling certain posters to give advice.

 

Because the forum feels that others would be better served advising others ive no problem with that.

 

But to close a genuine thread because others would be better served by certain posters and on a public forum seems a bit harsh.

 

If the posters who would be better off advising others want to do that i am not stopping them so why should the thread be closed based on their advice rather than how the forum should be, to seek advice.

 

It is your call but you should not let a few dictate who what and why the forum is here to help people like me.

 

Im not sure you do genuinely wish to be helped Calum...thats the opinion I am getting from your responses.If you can scan in and post a copy of your Appellant’s notice (Appeal Notice) then it will prove that you are appealing the decision and not just generally stringing posters along.

 

I await your upload....49 pages is more than enough space to resolve your problem.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[callum1999]

Im not sure you do genuinely wish to be helped Calum...thats the opinion I am getting from your responses.If you can scan in and post a copy of your Appellant’s notice (Appeal Notice) then it will prove that you are appealing the decision and not just generally stringing posters along.

 

I await your upload....49 pages is more than enough space to resolve your problem.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

But my problem is not being resolved.

 

This is now the fourth time that i have now asked what the procedure and how would a solicitor would claim public funding from the Legal Aid for representing a client and under the Legal Aid at Court criteria.

 

It is a straight forward question but know one seems to know the answer.

[callum1999]

But my problem is not being resolved.

 

This is now the fourth time that i have now asked what the procedure and how would a solicitor would claim public funding from the Legal Aid for representing a client and under the Legal Aid at Court criteria.

 

It is a straight forward question but know one seems to know the answer.

 

But there always seems to be an answer to how the solicitor has acted correctly.

 

Surely if a professional and regardless of how that professional has conducted himself cannot and is unable to proof put himself or herself as to be placed in a position to even be in a position to act negligent as a professional its makes no difference anyway its all irrelevent.

[Ganymede]

Of course it had merit, the solicitor as well as applying for an injunction could have applied for a Section 33 as their evidence clearly would suggest.

 

Add to that the solicitor could have also appealed the strike out claim which would not have been subject to any limitation periods that is three applications missed and probably because there was no funding nor a legitimate contract for the solicitor to make one application to the Court let alone make three.

 

He just was not interested in working for the profit which he will have to pay back because that is public funding that would have been more better served on the old or the vulnerable rather than being sat in some two bob solicitors bank account who has the morals of a water rat.

 

 

Ok I'm not sure how many more times I can say this, but a section 33 application is NOT RELEVANT as you had already issued your claim and had or struck out. Not making an incorrect application was not negligence by your solicitor.

 

An application to set aside or appeal the strike out MIGHT have succeeded had you done it straight away at the time. However, the solicitor was under no obligation to make this application for you as you would almost certainly have had to pay the other side's legal costs and not awarded your own so you would have had to pay your own solicitor privately to make the application. Not doing so was not negligence by the solicitor.

 

As far as I can tell an application for an injunction was eventually applied for and it succeeded.

[honeybee13]

But my problem is not being resolved.

 

This is now the fourth time that i have now asked what the procedure and how would a solicitor would claim public funding from the Legal Aid for representing a client and under the Legal Aid at Court criteria.

 

It is a straight forward question but know one seems to know the answer.

 

I imagine the information is on the LAA's website.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/legal-aid-agency

 

HB

[woad]

It's increasingly obvious that the OP fails to take any responsibillity for his (in)actions in life, and immediately resorts to blaming others when the consequences of his actions "bite him in the ass".

 

For those unaware, he has a separate thread concerning car tax. In his first post he accuses the DVLA of "breaching the direct debit scheme" by not collecting the monthly payment for his car tax. The second accuses them of incompetence, and in usual Callum logic somehow contorts a negative (the bank not confirming he had cancelled the DD) into proof of their incompetence.

 

It's only later - after a 6 month period - he reveals that the DD was unpaid due to insufficient funds in his account. No 'breach of the DD scheme", no incompetence on the part of the DVLA, just Calum failing to manage his life.

 

As of last night, it appears that the car he owned and taxed last September, is apparently registered to a car club, and it is the club that has not taxed it... I think.

 

I think the OP has an attitude to life of "but it's not my fault" when consequences plainly are. Any attempt at tackling core issues head on are deflected with "it's irrelevant" or just plain ignored.

 

Mods, I suggest this thread is closed. Unless Callum provides the remainder of the defence, as has been asked on over a dozen occasions, no one can provide any advice as the full facts have not been disclosed, and I doubt ever will be. FWIW, given a comment about "knowing a handwriting expert" and the continual reference to a fabricated contract, it would not surprise me to read the final line in the defence "a contract was signed on the xx yyyy and we will produce a copy at hearing".

 

Quite apart, such advice is rejected, often in a hostile manner, and then his story changes. Any attempts at assistance fall on deaf ears, unless it is advice that he wants to hear.

[honeybee13]

Post #975 and some subsequent replies refer, Woad.

 

HB

[callum1999]

It's increasingly obvious that the OP fails to take any responsibillity for his (in)actions in life, and immediately resorts to blaming others when the consequences of his actions "bite him in the ass".

 

For those unaware, he has a separate thread concerning car tax. In his first post he accuses the DVLA of "breaching the direct debit scheme" by not collecting the monthly payment for his car tax. The second accuses them of incompetence, and in usual Callum logic somehow contorts a negative (the bank not confirming he had cancelled the DD) into proof of their incompetence.

 

It's only later - after a 6 month period - he reveals that the DD was unpaid due to insufficient funds in his account. No 'breach of the DD scheme", no incompetence on the part of the DVLA, just Calum failing to manage his life.

 

As of last night, it appears that the car he owned and taxed last September, is apparently registered to a car club, and it is the club that has not taxed it... I think.

 

I think the OP has an attitude to life of "but it's not my fault" when consequences plainly are. Any attempt at tackling core issues head on are deflected with "it's irrelevant" or just plain ignored.

 

Mods, I suggest this thread is closed. Unless Callum provides the remainder of the defence, as has been asked on over a dozen occasions, no one can provide any advice as the full facts have not been disclosed, and I doubt ever will be. FWIW, given a comment about "knowing a handwriting expert" and the continual reference to a fabricated contract, it would not surprise me to read the final line in the defence "a contract was signed on the xx yyyy and we will produce a copy at hearing".

 

Quite apart, such advice is rejected, often in a hostile manner, and then his story changes. Any attempts at assistance fall on deaf ears, unless it is advice that he wants to hear.

 

Double poster aint that right Barry.

 

As for producing the contract at the hearing, comedy gold.

 

As the court is the complete opposite building to where the solicitors are based and could be seen from where the hearing was the judge was not prepared to make an adjournment for me to again request the proof of contract.

 

I even invited the solicitors barrister to pop of there before the hearing to go and ask his client for the contract.

 

There was no contract and there was no funding, period.

 

And if all this suddenly appears from nowhere the solicitor will be following form he is not the brightest tbh.

[BazzaS]

Double poster aint that right Barry.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting : why not state it unequivocally?

[callum1999]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting : why not state it unequivocally?

 

What with contract or the fact that you are the only Barry on planet earth.

 

Be yourself Barry the DNA is evident.

[BazzaS]

Double poster aint that right Barry.

 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting : why not state it unequivocally?

 

What with contract or the fact that you are the only Barry on planet earth.

 

Be yourself Barry the DNA is evident.

 

If you are making an accusation, have the courage to state it clearly.

Otherwise people can draw their own conclusions as to your stability, reliability, and courage (or lack thereof)......

 

Is this just a desperate attempt to keep this thread active, bearing in mind that you haven't posted details of your appeal, as requested by a member of the site team?

[stu007]

It would actually be helpful if you uploaded what you have been asked for in Post#981 by Andyorch if you want further assistance.

[callum1999]

If you are making an accusation, have the courage to state it clearly.

Otherwise people can draw their own conclusions as to your stability, reliability, and courage (or lack thereof)......

 

Is this just a desperate attempt to keep this thread active, bearing in mind that you haven't posted details of your appeal, as requested by a member of the site team?

 

Yea i am so desperate to keep a thread on a public forum active.

 

How old are you for goodness sake.

 

Answer the question about how a solicitor presents a bill to the LA for payment whilst representing a client under a CW1.

 

You seem to have all other mythological reasons as to present the solicitor as being whiter than white but you go AWOL when it comes to really proven what this character really is, odd that.

[callum1999]

It would actually be helpful if you uploaded what you have been asked for in Post#981 by Andyorch if you want further assistance.

 

If you want me to post the entire defence ive got no problem with that it is just the time and effort that will not make any difference imo.

 

Why is everyone so adamant in what has been alleged in a defence will change what has actually happened.

 

But i will.

[stu007]

We will await your Upload

[BazzaS]

If you want me to post the entire defence ive got no problem with that it is just the time and effort that will not make any difference imo.

 

Why is everyone so adamant in what has been alleged in a defence will change what has actually happened.

 

But i will.

 

You've been asked for the defence for a couple of months now.

 

Andyorch wasn't asking about the defence per se, but about your appeal, given things have moved past the defence alone, due to the strike out.

Im not sure you do genuinely wish to be helped Calum...thats the opinion I am getting from your responses.If you can scan in and post a copy of your Appellant’s notice (Appeal Notice) then it will prove that you are appealing the decision and not just generally stringing posters along.

 

I await your upload....49 pages is more than enough space to resolve your problem.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

So, if you are going to post just one, make it the appeal, as a member of the site team has requested.

If you want to post both their defence and your appeal : so much the better.

 

Site team : worth closing the thread until Callum complies with Andyorch's reasonable request? (He's had a day to do so, has replied to the thread a couple of times since, and is only now saying he'll post the defence ; not what Andyorch was asking for!)

[AndyOrch]

Thread now closed.....until proof of the appeal is uploaded.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[callum1999]

Would failing to disclose the originals of any client's file and on request and within the limitation that a firm of solicitors have to store such date contravene the relevant section under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Failing to disclose.

[BazzaS]

Would failing to disclose the originals of any client's file and on request and within the limitation that a firm of solicitors have to store such date contravene the relevant section under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Failing to disclose.

 

You've had an answer regarding section 2, on the thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462017-Solicitor-negligence-claim/page50 (which was clsoed by the site team at page 50, pending you posting your appeal details......)

Regarding the same facts, you asked for the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?469652-Since-when&p=4947928#post4947928 to be closed.

 

Now you are asking about section 3?.

No, it wouldn't contravene section 3. There is no NEW gain (or risk of loss), no legal duty to disclose, and no dishonesty.

 

How many times do you need to be told the same information?. Presenting the same information and asking the same question (even if in slightly different ways) : you'll get the same answers.

Haven't you reported this to the police (or so you say) already?

[callum1999]

Would failing to disclose the originals of any client's file and on request and within the limitation that a firm of solicitors have to store such date contravene the relevant section under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

Failing to disclose.

 

Just looked at the sentencing that the Courts give for fraud and it would appear that because of the trust issues that would involve a legal representative they would be more severe than your average fraudster.

 

I suppose the abuse of trust giving is considered before sentencing.