Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

You wouldn't be asking that if you had read and understood CPR 24 and its associated PD. Post up what you think is the relevant paragraph.

 

Im sorry for asking the question and not knowing the answer, i almost forgot that this is a public forum which enables members of the public to ask questions in the hope of getting sensible replies.

 

If i were as clever as you Dave, i would not need to ask others, tick tock

 

Well, you were posting about the evidence, and it being "fraud" on 9th July.

 

 

Mind you, your attitude towards the court's time limits has already prevented you appealing a strike out (of your PI claim), since you didn't do so in time.

Tick, tock.

 

I have no attitude towards the Courts time limits, quite the reverse.

 

Its irrelevant, limitations can be extended, period.

[BazzaS]

Im sorry for asking the question and not knowing the answer, i almost forgot that this is a public forum which enables members of the public to ask questions in the hope of getting sensible replies.

 

If i were as clever as you Dave, i would not need to ask others, tick tock

 

You asked a question. I answered and pointed you to the resource.

A resource you need to use unless you want to rely on others to do all the work for you. So, I suspect rational people will consider that a "sensible reply".

You asked a further question on the same issue : I replied and again pointed you to the resource.

 

 

What isn't sensible is showing no sign of having looked at the resource, which was shown by your third question on the same issue.

 

You are also the one saying "it's not rocket science"....

 

CAG is a self-help site. You need to start helping yourself......

You could start by not arguing the toss anytime someone disagrees with your asessment that you have a cast iron case, perfectly executed, and follow by doing the "self-help" and not expecting to be "spoon fed".....

 

BTW, which is the relevant paragraph?

 

I have no attitude towards the Courts time limits, quite the reverse.

 

Its irrelevant, limitations can be extended, period.

 

"Can be" does not mean "will be".

You aren't a strong enough advocate, using compelling arguments (and the overiding principle) to get court's to disregard time limits.

You've failed once (or didn't try), so why would they this time?

[callum1999]

OK, so what is the "new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence”, that would convince the Court of Appeal to order a retrial?

 

Double jeopardy remains the default, not the exemption.

 

You are funny, how have you know reached the Court of Appeal?

 

This one would go straight to Crown Court, and depending on the plea, supported by a jury>>

[BazzaS]

OK, so what is the "new, compelling, reliable and substantial evidence”, that would convince the Court of Appeal to order a retrial?.

 

You are funny, how have you know reached the Court of Appeal?

 

This one would go straight to Crown Court, and depending on the plea, supported by a jury>>

 

So, who has to grant permission for a retrial in a "double jeopardy" case? If not the Court of Appeal?

[callum1999]

"Can be" does not mean "will be".

You aren't a strong enough advocate, using compelling arguments (and the overiding principle) to get court's to disregard time limits.

You've failed once (or didn't try), so why would they this time?

 

"Will be" dose not mean "Can be"

 

Lets turn this round, you tell me why they would not consider extending the limitation, and bearing in mind what you have just said about "being strong enough, i might be wrong but i would assume a litigant as a opposed to a professional solicitor, cough, would be cut a bit of slack, your theory>>

[BazzaS]

"Will be" dose not mean "Can be"

 

Lets turn this round, you tell me why they would not consider extending the limitation, and bearing in mind what you have just said about "being strong enough, i might be wrong but i would assume a litigant as a opposed to a professional solicitor, cough, would be cut a bit of slack, your theory>>

 

LiP's get "cut some slack".

But there is proportionality and the over-riding objective.

 

LiP's don't get to do as they wish, or assume they don't have to apply within time limits.

 

The whole matter gets looked at : and with such a weak case, poorly presented : not a chance.

[callum1999]

Who is stating LiP's get to do what they want, oh the irony.

 

Unlike this solicitor, who not only has taking about three miles of slack but the public has funded this adventure, how jolly.

 

Final paragraph, again, it is merely your opnion, so again, it is irrelevant.

 

Anyway i am off for some tea now, give you time to calm down.

 

A note to who runs this site.

 

I am genuinely trying to seek advice on here, but each and every post is being hijacked by one poster.

 

I have not got a problem with him, but if his intentions are to get the thread removed, so be it.

 

I would have assumed this site is far bigger than one individual who fails to be able to control himself if you dare oppose him.

 

A bit of a bully, never let the bully win.

[BazzaS]

A note to who runs this site.

 

I am genuinely trying to seek advice on here, but each and every post is being hijacked by one poster.

 

I have not got a problem with him, but if his intentions are to get the thread removed, so be it.

 

I would have assumed this site is far bigger than one individual who fails to be able to control himself if you dare oppose him.

 

A bit of a bully, never let the bully win.

 

 

If you believe I'm bullying you : report me (via "report post", on any of my posts) to the site team.

 

It is up to the site team if they wish to close a thread, although I do question "I am genuinely trying to seek advice on here" : as your response to replies that don't agree with you that you have a strong argument / are going about things the right way, tend to indicate you want agreement, not advice.

 

However, my final contribution is to highlight a previous post for anyone considering replying to the OP (who keeps finding new ways of asking the same old, same old) :

 

You asked a question. I answered and pointed you to the resource.

A resource you need to use unless you want to rely on others to do all the work for you. So, I suspect rational people will consider that a "sensible reply".

You asked a further question on the same issue : I replied and again pointed you to the resource.

 

What isn't sensible is showing no sign of having looked at the resource, which was shown by your third question on the same issue.

 

You are also the one saying "it's not rocket science"....

 

CAG is a self-help site. You need to start helping yourself......

You could start by not arguing the toss anytime someone disagrees with your asessment that you have a cast iron case, perfectly executed, and follow by doing the "self-help" and not expecting to be "spoon fed".....

 

I can only hope any CAG'ers considering replying to the OP take a few minutes to look back on the OP's responses and use that info to decide if the OP wants advice or merely affirmation , and if they wish to expend the energy to respond.

[Ganymede]

Who is stating LiP's get to do what they want, oh the irony.

 

Unlike this solicitor, who not only has taking about three miles of slack but the public has funded this adventure, how jolly.

 

Final paragraph, again, it is merely your opnion, so again, it is irrelevant.

 

Anyway i am off for some tea now, give you time to calm down.

 

Whilst a LiP will get cut some slack limitation periods are very strictly enforced by the Courts and s.33 applications for it to be disapplied are rarely successful.

 

No the claim was struck out because because i did not comply with an order, that i did not receive from the court, and the limitation if that was an issue, and at that time could have been extended.

 

This law firm wasn't involved with this claim though and wasn't responsible for your case being struck out.

 

You should have made an application at the time on the basis that you did not receive the Court Order in the post.

 

It's far too late now though, but that's not the fault of this solicitor.

[callum1999]

If you believe I'm bullying you : report me (via "report post", on any of my posts) to the site team.

 

It is up to the site team if they wish to close a thread, although I do question "I am genuinely trying to seek advice on here" : as your response to replies that don't agree with you that you have a strong argument / are going about things the right way, tend to indicate you want agreement, not advice.

 

However, my final contribution is to highlight a previous post for anyone considering replying to the OP (who keeps finding new ways of asking the same old, same old) :

 

 

 

I can only hope any CAG'ers considering replying to the OP take a few minutes to look back on the OP's responses and use that info to decide if the OP wants advice or merely affirmation , and if they wish to expend the energy to respond.

 

You could not bully me, on the internet or in real life, fool.

 

You strike me as a bully, my opinion, that's not to say you are bullying me, im just stating how i persevere you in real life.

 

This site was designed to help people, not judge, are you ok with that?, you have the facility to PM me.....

[AndyOrch]

Lets keep this civil chaps....either ignore each other or I will have to close the thread.

 

Andy

[callum1999]

This law firm wasn't involved with this claim though and wasn't responsible for your case being struck out.

 

You should have made an application at the time on the basis that you did not receive the Court Order in the post.

 

It's far too late now though, but that's not the fault of this solicitor.

 

You could not make it up, how could anyone know that they have not received a court order, and make an application??, if they never received it, in the first place.

 

Sorry, but it is the solicitors fault, he was instructed to reserve the clients right to pursue the clients right to pursue a claim, he failed, despite acknowledging that fact.

 

That obligation and statutory duty was well and truly breached, that's not me stating the obvious, but in any working environment, there are standards that have to be met, why solicitors feel they are immune from such standards, is a probable reason why you have more than one Organisation keeping tabs on how they behave and act, or is that just a coincident?? strange that.

 

Lets keep this civil chaps....either ignore each other or I will have to close the thread.

 

Andy

 

Andy i am looking for advice, that is all

I have nothing more to say to BazzaS, (Dave) i will ignore and thank you for giving such notice

[Ganymede]

You could not make it up, how could anyone know that they have not received a court order, and make an application??, if they never received it, in the first place.

 

Sorry, but it is the solicitors fault, he was instructed to reserve the clients right to pursue the clients right to pursue a claim, he failed, despite acknowledging that fact.

 

That obligation and statutory duty was well and truly breached, that's not me stating the obvious, but in any working environment, there are standards that have to be met, why solicitors feel they are immune from such standards, is a probable reason why you have more than one Organisation keeping tabs on how they behave and act, or is that just a coincident?? strange that.

 

 

 

Andy i am looking for advice, that is all

I have nothing more to say to BazzaS, (Dave) i will ignore and thank you for giving such notice

 

As soon as you found out that the claim had been struck out as you had never received the Order was the appropriate time to make an application for relief.

 

The solicitor reserving the right has nothing to do with it.

[callum1999]

Can i apply under Rule 32.18 (Notice To Admit Facts) for the Court to make such an order on application?

 

I have but to no avail, invited the Defendants to provide, but they are refusing.

 

These facts are in my opinion relevant to the case, and should be considered by the Judge, if say for argument, i apply to strike defence out.

 

If i cannot rely on those facts, this puts me at a disadvantage, any advice would as always, be appreciated.

 

As soon as you found out that the claim had been struck out as you had never received the Order was the appropriate time to make an application for relief.

 

The solicitor reserving the right has nothing to do with it.

 

The solicitor was instructed and thereafter, agreed to reserve any PI claims that i had or could have had against the Council, whether or not any previous PI claim was struck out had nothing to do with the solicitor, evidently, he was not legally representing me at that time..

[Ganymede]

Can i apply under Rule 32.18 (Notice To Admit Facts) for the Court to make such an order on application?

 

I have but to no avail, invited the Defendants to provide, but they are refusing.

 

These facts are in my opinion relevant to the case, and should be considered by the Judge, if say for argument, i apply to strike defence out.

 

If i cannot rely on those facts, this puts me at a disadvantage, any advice would as always, be appreciated.

 

You have been told, no you cannot.

 

They disagree with your "facts" so the Judge will rule on them at the trial.

 

The solicitor was instructed and thereafter, agreed to reserve any PI claims that i had or could have had against the Council, whether or not any previous PI claim was struck out had nothing to do with the solicitor, evidently, he was not legally representing me at that time..

 

That is totally backwards.

 

The damage had already been done by you.

 

The solicitor cannot "reserve a right" on a PI claim that had already been litigated on and struck out. It was done.

[callum1999]

They have not agreed nor disagreed with my facts, if that were to be the case, they would have complied with the order which would afford them and state why "they disagree with my facts"

 

They have indicated that they are not prepared to admit the facts, purely for financial reasons, yea right, they know if they admit to the facts their weak case becomes even more weak and hanging by a thread.

 

That is totally backwards.

 

The damage had already been done by you.

 

The solicitor cannot "reserve a right" on a PI claim that had already been litigated on and struck out. It was done.

 

Yes he can and he should have, liability when the claim was struck out due to not receiving such notice was not damaged caused by me, it had not been litigated, neither me nor the Court are responsible for the actions of a third party (PO) and not to mention the Council were denying liability, used to secure a judgement, cannot rely on that now could they??

[Ganymede]

The Defence stands as their admission/denial of the facts.

 

You need to continue with the Court process.

[callum1999]

Am i right into believing i can amend the POC, and to include fraud and breaching data protection to the claim form.

 

This would now be supported by those who determined both acts and on the balance of evidence, considered and adjudged are of the same opinion as me.

 

When a solicitor goes beyond remit, lies about funding not being available and also has the audacity to get a client to pay to disclose sensitive medical information to a third party, he is in a lot of trouble, still he knew the risks and he knew that when he took those risks how vulnerable his client was, at that time, which most certainly will not help his cause, that is for sure.

[Ganymede]

Yes he can and he should have, liability when the claim was struck out due to not receiving such notice was not damaged caused by me, it had not been litigated, neither me nor the Court are responsible for the actions of a third party (PO) and not to mention the Council were denying liability, used to secure a judgement, cannot rely on that now could they??

 

The claim was litigated on as Court proceedings were issued. You didn't comply with an Order (not your fault) so it was stuck out.

 

You can't just ignore the original claim and assume that you can start the claim again in the future. You only get one bite of the cherry.

 

Liability has nothing to do with it.

 

Ultimately, the solicitor cannot reserve a right to bring a PI claim where you've already done it and had it struck out. You needed to deal with it at the time.

[callum1999]

The Defence stands as their admission/denial of the facts.

 

You need to continue with the Court process.

 

So, there is no need for the MOJ to include rule 32.18 in the rules, based on what you are stating.

 

So why when i was requested to provide further evidence to the POC by the same people denying me further evidence, could this not be drawn and on your theory, on the POC, excactly the same principle, the difference being i provided further facts, maybe because i have not got nothing to hide.

 

The claim was litigated on as Court proceedings were issued. You didn't comply with an Order (not your fault) so it was stuck out.

 

You can't just ignore the original claim and assume that you can start the claim again in the future. You only get one bite of the cherry.

 

Liability has nothing to do with it.

 

Ultimately, the solicitor cannot reserve a right to bring a PI claim where you've already done it and had it struck out. You needed to deal with it at the time.

 

Liability has nothing to do with it, had the Council admitted liability, which was always going to be the case, would there application to strike out, been successful? No.

 

They have secured n order by stating and relying on something that was incorrect and successfully relied on that indirection (denying liability) as a means of gaining an order.

 

My solicitor was in agreement with me and wrote to the Council pointing out why the claim that was struck out should be reconsidered by what the solicitor described as being a sympathetic court would give an extension.

 

None of what you are saying was being said by the solicitor, why is that?

[Ganymede]

So, there is no need for the MOJ to include rule 32.18 in the rules, based on what you are stating.

 

So why when i was requested to provide further evidence to the POC by the same people denying me further evidence, could this not be drawn and on your theory, on the POC, excactly the same principle, the difference being i provided further facts, maybe because i have not got nothing to hide.

 

It isn't a theory, it's how it is.

 

You're misunderstanding the point here. Move on.

 

So, there is no need for the MOJ to include rule 32.18 in the rules, based on what you are stating.

 

So why when i was requested to provide further evidence to the POC by the same people denying me further evidence, could this not be drawn and on your theory, on the POC, excactly the same principle, the difference being i provided further facts, maybe because i have not got nothing to hide.

 

 

 

Liability has nothing to do with it, had the Council admitted liability, which was always going to be the case, would there application to strike out, been successful? No.

 

They have secured n order by stating and relying on something that was incorrect and successfully relied on that indirection (denying liability) as a means of gaining an order.

 

My solicitor was in agreement with me and wrote to the Council pointing out why the claim that was struck out should be reconsidered by what the solicitor described as being a sympathetic court would give an extension.

 

None of what you are saying was being said by the solicitor, why is that?

 

You need to get over the fact that liability was denied. It's their right in an adversarial Court system and as the Claimant the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim, not for them.

 

Your solicitor didn't deal with PI claims by their own admission so who knows why they said that.

 

Even if they were PI specialists there's no guarantee that the Court would have been sympathetic.

 

Am i right into believing i can amend the POC, and to include fraud and breaching data protection to the claim form.

 

This would now be supported by those who determined both acts and on the balance of evidence, considered and adjudged are of the same opinion as me.

 

When a solicitor goes beyond remit, lies about funding not being available and also has the audacity to get a client to pay to disclose sensitive medical information to a third party, he is in a lot of trouble, still he knew the risks and he knew that when he took those risks how vulnerable his client was, at that time, which most certainly will not help his cause, that is for sure.

 

You cannot amend the PoC without the permission of the Court. You need to pay a fee of £255 to the Court and have a hearing.

 

However, at this stage in the claim I would not rate your odds as particularly good.

 

If, and it's a big if, your application succeeds it's unlikely you'll get your fee back and may have to pay the other side's costs of dealing with your application to amend.

[callum1999]

You need to get over the fact that liability was denied. It's their right in an adversarial Court system and as the Claimant the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim, not for them.

 

Your solicitor didn't deal with PI claims by their own admission so who knows why they said that.

 

Even if they were PI specialists there's no guarantee that the Court would have been sympathetic.

 

Maybe the reason "they said that" was that the solicitor and the firm do and did deal with PI claims but as with a number of other factors, led the client (me) to believe that they didn't, knowing full well that this was not entirely true, they did, and on checking their website today, still do.

 

Which begs the question, why tell me (the client) that there was no funding available because they have never done this type of work before, but still continued and beyond remit, to profit??, and at the public expense?

[Ganymede]

Maybe the reason "they said that" was that the solicitor and the firm do and did deal with PI claims but as with a number of other factors, led the client (me) to believe that they didn't, knowing full well that this was not entirely true, they did, and on checking their website today, still do.

 

Which begs the question, why tell me (the client) that there was no funding available because they have never done this type of work before, but still continued and beyond remit, to profit??, and at the public expense?

 

You're blurring the issues and need to deal with them one at a time.

 

They are under no obligation to offer to take your PI claim on a CFA (no win no fee) basis if they don't want to. Especially as by the time you approached the solicitors the claim was struck out and statute barred.

 

The issue of making the injury claim as part of your disrepair claim is separate.

[callum1999]

You're blurring the issues and need to deal with them one at a time.

 

They are under no obligation to offer to take your PI claim on a CFA (no win no fee) basis if they don't want to. Especially as by the time you approached the solicitors the claim was struck out and statute barred.

 

The issue of making the injury claim as part of your disrepair claim is separate.

 

They may not be under any obligation to offer a CFA or take on a PI claim GM, but to claim they could do neither, whilst advising/representing a client, was that within the boundaries???

 

So if the solicitor evidently states his company do not do PI claims and evidently fails to reserve, after being instructed by a client to obliged with either, why has the client or more importantly why has the solicitor not only requested the medical evidence, but also disclosed this sensitive material to a number of third parties.

 

Was this yet another misrepresentation/act as to drag the case out, whilst making profit???, or just a geniune mistake to add to all the other mistakes,

[Ganymede]

Yes they can advertise PI claims but refuse to take your claim on. I wouldn't take it on a CFA either as it had already been issued, struck out and statute barred. Misrepresentation has nothing to do with it.

 

For the hundredth time, there was no "right to reserve" as stated above the PI claim was already struck out and over.