Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

No you haven't got evidence to prove any of that. At all.

 

It's all irrelevant to your appeal though.

 

Oh but i have.

 

And to claim the evidence could not be relied upon in Court at a later date is also not entirely true GM.

[callum1999]

Here is another letter sent by Dodgy and Son Solicitors to the Council hours before the disrepair claim was compromised.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 06th January 2016 as well as earlier communication dated 16th December 2015.

 

We understand our client reported to your Housing office the incident whereby he fell in the lean-to and of course if this matter goes further would be willing to give evidence to that effect.

 

The documentation that we have provided shows clear evidence of his reporting the injury at that time, although it does not detail where he sustained his injuries.

 

However and no doubt his own evidence would be accepted by a Court on this backed up as well will be reports from your staff.

 

Whilst noting the position taking by the insurance company, we have not seen the correspondence between our client and the insurance company and do not know whether this was basis of you not accepting liability in respect of the lean to in any event which has been positioned before.

 

We have advised our client concerning the likely damages that could be recovered in respect of such injury and whilst accepting our client the notes also clearly say that a cause of stress has undoubtedly been issues which have not exactly helped his recovery.

 

Whilst discussions carry on of course the repair has yet to be undertaking and the danger to our client and his family continues as well as any potential claim for stress and inconvenience.

 

Interesting and the fifth paragraph which deals with liability and not accepting liability in respect of the lean to in any event which has been positioned before?

 

Now denying liability for the sake of denying liability and within the three year period, and thereafter being forced to admit liability after the three year limitation, now there is a thought.

 

Interesting and the fifth paragraph which deals with liability and not accepting liability in respect of the lean to in any event which has been positioned before?

 

Now denying liability for the sake of denying liability and within the three year period, and thereafter being forced to admit liability after the three year limitation, now there is a thought.

 

Shall we all deny liability for three years thats a good idea because after three years we can all rely on GM law of not being subject to a claim because those are the rules. of the Court.

[Ganymede]

Shall we all deny liability for three years thats a good idea because after three years we can all rely on GM law of not being subject to a claim because those are the rules. of the Court.

 

Absolutely yes they can deny liability for 3 or 30 years.

 

It's up to you to then start Court proceedings with the 3 year limitation period otherwise your claim is automatically statute barred.

 

This is not my law, this is national law set by Parliament and supported many times over by the highest Courts in the land.

 

Oh but i have.

 

And to claim the evidence could not be relied upon in Court at a later date is also not entirely true GM.

 

No, you currently have zero evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. None at all.

[woad]

You can believe what you want.

 

And to my knowledge no to your final paragraph.

 

Would have been a lot easier on the solicitor to produce any proof of funding needed for a contract to be valid rather than vigorously breaching the rules and procedures that were there for him to show this.

 

If and as by magic he and his allies suddenly decide that they do not want to breach the rules and the regulations and produce it now, i would assume or suppose such a fete so late in the day would be very odd, do you not agree?

 

Well if the answer is "no" (they have not produced a contract), why do you keep saying that the solicitor had fabricated a contract?

[callum1999]

No, you currently have zero evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. None at all.

 

But i do GM would you like me to give you some more or am i now past the point when it matters not what i state the mindset you have now adopted is in complete denial regardless of what you are actually being presented on this forum.

In denial

[Ganymede]

But i do GM would you like me to give you some more or am i now past the point when it matters not what i state the mindset you have now adopted is in complete denial regardless of what you are actually being presented on this forum.

In denial

 

Yes please.

 

Post up this evidence as we're all willing to help you if we can.

[BazzaS]

But i do GM would you like me to give you some more

 

5+ months and 45+ pages into the thread, and

a) the OP is returning to the same old themes,

b) still hasn't posted the whole of the defence, and

c) still is producing "evidence" (or what they think passes for it!) in 'dribs and drabs'.

 

Do us all a favour (but, primarily, yourself a favour!). Post up all the information you:

i) have been asked for

ii) think proves your case / proves your point, if you think it relevant, even if it hadn't been asked for yet.

 

If you had done so from the off, perhaps you'd have been able to amend your PofC and prevented the strike-out.

 

Of particular relevance currently:

A) the defence the other side filed (you posted up to paragraph 14 on 7th June, but we've been asking for the rest in the 3 months and 40-odd pages since.....)

B) any appeal filed (and how filed, with what documents, and when).

[callum1999]

Well if the answer is "no" (they have not produced a contract), why do you keep saying that the solicitor had fabricated a contract?

 

Quite simple, but for a fabricated contract the solicitor would not have been able to act incur and claim legal costs and thereafter rely on the terms of a legitimate contract in a civil claim when it was the complete opposite under law.

 

To pretend and to create a contract when there was never a contract there when there should have been one and give that misrepresentation to either a client or a court is fabricating a document because that document never ever existed. (contract)..

[Ganymede]

Quite simple, but for a fabricated contract the solicitor would not have been able to act incur and claim legal costs and thereafter rely on the terms of a legitimate contract in a civil claim when it was the complete opposite under law.

 

To pretend and to create a contract when there was never a contract there when there should have been one and give that misrepresentation to either a client or a court is fabricating a document because that document never ever existed. (contract)..

 

Gibberish.

 

You instructed them and they acted.

 

There was no misrepresentation to you or the Court.

[woad]

Quite simple, but for a fabricated contract the solicitor would not have been able to act incur and claim legal costs and thereafter rely on the terms of a legitimate contract in a civil claim when it was the complete opposite under law.

 

To pretend and to create a contract when there was never a contract there when there should have been one and give that misrepresentation to either a client or a court is fabricating a document because that document never ever existed. (contract)..

 

Right, so what you really mean is that the solicitor has NOT fabricated a contract, rather, they are/were claiming a contract exists/existed, a position which you deny. This is subtly different, and a red herring - especially when you mentioned handwriting analysis. I really think you ought to read what you have typed, before you press the "reply" button, and think" do I need all these words - what should I remove".

 

So, there is no fabricated - or forged - contract (this does not rule out there is a contractual basis for the solicitor, or even a 'contract' per se that you have not yet told us about).

 

Now, once again. Rather than type dozens of words that leave us struggling to work out what you mean, can you please just post the rest of the solicitors defence, Callum, e.g. everything from 14. onwards.

[woad]

But i do GM would you like me to give you some more or am i now past the point when it matters not what i state the mindset you have now adopted is in complete denial regardless of what you are actually being presented on this forum.

In denial

 

Callum, do you realise that this is an internet self-help forum, and NOT THE COURT! Neither are we the solicitor. The only person with a "mindset in denial" is YOU. Regardless of what you are told, backed up with the necessary links to legislature and Court process, you deny everything you are fold and accuse us of "defending" the solicitor/courts, "hiding" behind the law/procedure. It is YOU who is in denial.

 

To the point where it has to be asked - "what are you doing here?" You came here asking for help, which BazzaS and Ganymede (chiefly, among others) have given in bucketloads. Yet you reject everything they tell you, and are convinved you know better. So, why are you asking? If you are so sure of your legal prowess, why not just file your appeal instead of posting on here?

[BazzaS]

 

So, why are you asking? If you are so sure of your legal prowess, why not just file your appeal instead of posting on here?

 

We don't know if he has actually filed the appeal (& if he has, when? and if it was filed correctly).

If not filed correctly, seeking permission, within 21 days of the strike-out, it doesn't have to be considered.

[honeybee13]

Can you remind people like me who can't keep up when the strike out was please, Bazza?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Can you remind people like me who can't keep up when the strike out was please, Bazza?

 

HB

 

OP posted on Thursday 18th August (24 days ago)

Claim struck out, now that is a surprise, NOT:-D

[callum1999]

Gibberish.

 

You instructed them and they acted.

 

There was no misrepresentation to you or the Court.

 

I may well have instructed the solicitor and he acted but the fact that he acted on a clients instructions without a legitimate contract in order to be in a position to take instructions is a misrepresentation if that is alleged or even committed the person who has giving instruction would not be liable nor accountable as you are suggestion GM.

 

If he acted on my my instructions knowing there was no contract in place and made profit from that act he has committed fraud.

 

Can a legal solicitor represent a client and make profit from making representation without any initial funds that would have to be in place for the contract to be viable, yes or no.

 

If the question is again avoided, the answer will be more obvious than it is today.

[callum1999]

OP posted on Thursday 18th August (24 days ago)

 

Notice of appeal was sent and within 7 days of the last Court Order.

[Ganymede]

I may well have instructed the solicitor and he acted but the fact that he acted on a clients instructions without a legitimate contract in order to be in a position to take instructions is a misrepresentation if that is alleged or even committed the person who has giving instruction would not be liable nor accountable as you are suggestion GM.

 

If he acted on my my instructions knowing there was no contract in place and made profit from that act he has committed fraud.

 

Can a legal solicitor represent a client and make profit from making representation without any initial funds that would have to be in place for the contract to be viable, yes or no.

 

If the question is again avoided, the answer will be more obvious than it is today.

 

You have been told that you don't necessarily need a written retainer or contract to take instructions.

 

You have also been told that funding and the retainer can be two separate things and you can have one without the other.

[BazzaS]

Notice of appeal was sent and within 7 days of the last Court Order.

 

On / before the 25th August?

 

Yet, on the 29th August you were still asking for help with formulating your appeal

(In response to HB asking if you still needed help)

Yes HB, and thanks.

 

On 31st August you were asking about bypassing the County Court

 

Can i leapfrog the appeal procedure within the CC and go straight to the High Court, because i do not have any confidence in the County Court that has dealt with my claim.??

 

So, who knows what you think you have filed, and what you have actually filed (bearing in mind the two may not be synonymous!)

 

What EXACTLY was sent? "Notice of appeal"? or

 

"Request for Permission to appeal, with the appeal itself, and all the supporting documents, on the correct forms"?

 

If you are saying that you've actually appealed, please post up the details of which forms you have submitted, with the details of the wording of the request for permission and the wording of the appeal itself.

[callum1999]

You have been told that you don't necessarily need a written retainer or contract to take instructions.

 

You have also been told that funding and the retainer can be two separate things and you can have one without the other.

 

But there was no funding nor a retainer in place how could either counteract either if there is no proof to suggest funding or a retainer was in place.

 

I assume what you are saying is that if there was funding in place or if there was a contract in place a solicitor can take instructions from a client regardless.

 

On that theory either one or both would have to be in place before a solicitor can take instructions.

 

What happens if the solicitor cannot document either a retainer or a retainer based on funding?

[callum1999]

But there was no funding nor a retainer in place how could either counteract either if there is no proof to suggest funding or a retainer was in place.

 

I assume what you are saying is that if there was funding in place or if there was a contract in place a solicitor can take instructions from a client regardless.

 

On that theory either one or both would have to be in place before a solicitor can take instructions.

 

What happens if the solicitor cannot document either a retainer or a retainer based on funding?

 

Like i have correctly pointed out, notice was giving.

[BazzaS]

Like i have correctly pointed out, notice was giving.

 

"Notice" that you plan to appeal means nothing, if you didn't then seek permission to appeal, and actually appeal, in time.

Sending the court "notice" rather than the actual applications is like "peeing in a wetsuit" : it'll give you a nice warm feeling but make no difference to anything else.

 

I seem to recall GM told you that sending the court "notice of intent" rather than the actual applications was pointless : compliance with procedure really isn't your strong suit, is it?

[BazzaS]

I seem to recall GM told you that sending the court "notice of intent" rather than the actual applications was pointless

 

It was on 23rd August:

 

You can, but it's pointless. All the Court will accept is the actual appeal application within the prescribed time limit.

 

If you don't send the appeal application, and only send a letter notifying the Court that at some point you intend to appeal, you will be out of time when you eventually send off your appeal application.

[Ganymede]

But there was no funding nor a retainer in place how could either counteract either if there is no proof to suggest funding or a retainer was in place.

 

I assume what you are saying is that if there was funding in place or if there was a contract in place a solicitor can take instructions from a client regardless.

 

On that theory either one or both would have to be in place before a solicitor can take instructions.

 

What happens if the solicitor cannot document either a retainer or a retainer based on funding?

 

I don't think it's relevant as you have not been charged for the work done so you have suffered no damage or loss.

 

I still don't believe you that you never signed a single piece of paperwork with the solicitors though.

[woad]

Perhaps it's in the second letter Calum referred to, but never actually posted the details of, sometime around the 16th July in this thread.

[Vauban]

I think that we are all being required by the OP to speculate on too much, given his reluctance to answer straightforward questions directly. So it is difficult to know how to help: in fact, it is unclear whether we are really being asked for any help at all. But if the OP has not lodged his appeal with the court - in the correct way and in time - then this must all be academic, surely?

 

For what it is worth, I'm afraid - from a genuinely impartial reading of the (admittedly quite confused) thread - I can see nothing that would give the OP any hope that an appeal would be successful, even if he had got around to lodging one. Sorry I cannot offer anything more constructive.