Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

Well, if your solicitor said that he would do something and he did not, there may be a case for negligence. The important thing with this kind of case is the detail. It needs to be clear from the email exactly what the solicitor said he would do.

 

Thank you for that, there were serious safety issues, that were highlighted by Shelter and why Shelter became involved, correct me if i am wrong, but if you instruct a solicitor to do something, and in this instance was to remove what not only the client, but the legal advisor's of an organization that deals with these matters on a daily basis, such instructions should be followed, and if not followed, a given reason by the solicitor to explain the reason's why those instructions should not be heeded.

[steampowered]

Thank you for that, there were serious safety issues, that were highlighted by Shelter and why Shelter became involved, correct me if i am wrong, but if you instruct a solicitor to do something, and in this instance was to remove what not only the client, but the legal advisor's of an organization that deals with these matters on a daily basis, such instructions should be followed, and if not followed, a given reason by the solicitor to explain the reason's why those instructions should not be heeded.

Yes, but remember the solicitor would only be able to take instructions from you. He wouldn't be able to take instructions from Shelter as they are a third party who do not have authority to incur legal costs on your behalf.

 

Its very difficult to say more about whether you do not do not have a case without really knowing the precise detail of what the solicitor agreed to do and what the emails said, but hopefully this thread at least gives you something to go on!

[callum1999]

Yes, but remember the solicitor would only be able to take instructions from you. He wouldn't be able to take instructions from Shelter as they are a third party who do not have authority to incur legal costs on your behalf.

 

Its very difficult to say more about whether you do not do not have a case without really knowing the precise detail of what the solicitor agreed to do and what the emails said, but hopefully this thread at least gives you something to go on!

 

Many thanks for that Steampowered, yes this has helped, on communicating with Shelter via email, they have stated that they contacted and were mindful as to remove the serious health and safety risk,and were of the opinion that an injunction to remove the risk should be adopted and initiated against the Council via the Courts, the solicitor failed to take that route, could this be deemed a breach of obligation or negligent for not doing what Shelter me and others have suggested as being the obvious route to remove the risk and save legal loss long term, as this took near on two years to remove the risk by demolishing the original out-house and replacing it with a new one? thanks

[steampowered]

Many thanks for that Steampowered, yes this has helped, on communicating with Shelter via email, they have stated that they contacted and were mindful as to remove the serious health and safety risk,and were of the opinion that an injunction to remove the risk should be adopted and initiated against the Council via the Courts, the solicitor failed to take that route, could this be deemed a breach of obligation or negligent for not doing what Shelter me and others have suggested as being the obvious route to remove the risk and save legal loss long term, as this took near on two years to remove the risk by demolishing the original out-house and replacing it with a new one? thanks

I suppose the key questions are as follows:

1) Did you ask the solicitor to apply for an injunction? The solicitor can't take instructions about your case from Shelter, so the request would need to have come from you.

2) If yes, did the solicitor agree to accept the instruction?

3) If yes, was the solicitor paid/funded to do the work on the injunction?

 

I suppose there could also be a complaint if the solicitor did not advise that seeking an injunction was a possible option open to you, but again that would depend on what the solicitor's engagement covered.

[callum1999]

I suppose the key questions are as follows:

1) Did you ask the solicitor to apply for an injunction? The solicitor can't take instructions about your case from Shelter, so the request would need to have come from you.

2) If yes, did the solicitor agree to accept the instruction?

3) If yes, was the solicitor paid/funded to do the work on the injunction?

 

I suppose there could also be a complaint if the solicitor did not advise that seeking an injunction was a possible option open to you, but again that would depend on what the solicitor's engagement covered.

 

Hi, yes i did ask for an injunction, and i am to assume the engagement covered under legal aid was for housing disrepair.

 

Liability was being denied by the Council, without justification, i would have thought a court order or advice to seek an injunction independently would have been a legal obligation or reserve as to rely upon giving the facts, not sure?

 

On further reading, if proven, the Council were in breach of section 11, which was and is a criminal offence, not a civil matter, as well as?

If that is the case, the solicitor could be seen as aiding and abetting the Council to commit that offence whilst be publicly funded to protect, quite serious i would have thought?

 

Well, if your solicitor said that he would do something and he did not, there may be a case for negligence. The important thing with this kind of case is the detail. It needs to be clear from the email exactly what the solicitor said he would do.

 

The solicitor said that his company do not deal with PI claims and that's the reason why the PI claim was not pursued, the companies own webpage claims they do PI claims on a CF agreement basis?

If the solicitor was informing me of, which evidently is not true, surely requesting that i pay a £50 fee for my medical records to be seen and analysed by the Councils solicitor is a breach of Data Protection if the solicitor has advised me that he cannot deal with the PI side of my case.

[Ganymede]

The solicitor said that his company do not deal with PI claims and that's the reason why the PI claim was not pursued, the companies own webpage claims they do PI claims on a CF agreement basis?

 

Maybe you should name the law firm so we can look? They don't have to accept your instructions for a PI claim on a CFA basis.

 

 

If the solicitor was informing me of, which evidently is not true, surely requesting that i pay a £50 fee for my medical records to be seen and analysed by the Councils solicitor is a breach of Data Protection if the solicitor has advised me that he cannot deal with the PI side of my case.

 

No, it's not.

[callum1999]

Maybe you should name the law firm so we can look? They don't have to accept your instructions for a PI claim on a CFA basis.

 

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

Whilst i agree that the solicitor does not have to accept instructions for a PI claim, those instructions and any rights i had were denied on the grounds that the solicitor misrepresented his firm by claiming the company do not deal with PI claims, period, which as i now understand was not the case, they did, and they still do PI claims, which begs the question, why tell me the opposite when in fact any merits of a PI claim could have been established at that time.

If the solicitor has stated that he had nothing to do with any PI claim, why allow the Council sight of my medical records if they were not relevant or within the scope that he was being paid to represent, thanks in advance.

[Ganymede]

Whilst i agree that the solicitor does not have to accept instructions for a PI claim, those instructions and any rights i had were denied on the grounds that the solicitor misrepresented his firm by claiming the company do not deal with PI claims, period, which as i now understand was not the case, they did, and they still do PI claims, which begs the question, why tell me the opposite when in fact any merits of a PI claim could have been established at that time.

 

No you weren't denied any rights, there were literally 100s of other law firms your could have instructed for your PI claim on a CFA basis instead.

 

 

 

If the solicitor has stated that he had nothing to do with any PI claim, why allow the Council sight of my medical records if they were not relevant or within the scope that he was being paid to represent, thanks in advance.

 

Obtaining your medical records would be standard procedure for investigating your claim and establishing liability. If the PI claim is minor it can be included under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Cases but obviously GP records would be needed to establish if this was the case or not.

[callum1999]

Whilst i agree that there are many other law firms who deal with PI claims, the very fact that this solicitor was (a) instructed by SHELTER to deal with the case/s, (b) add to that, that this was a blatant misrepresentation as it has now been established, and despite what the solicitor advised, they could have taking on the PI claim, but for that misrepresentation which again and i would assume prove negligence, as such advice was evidently negligent.

 

Medical records were requested not based on liability, the solicitor suddenly requested that i pay for these records for the Council to consider, when i made it clear that i was going to reserve my right to pursue a PI claim in the event, so the email communication would confirm this as opposed to liability. thanks

Edited April 13, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Ganymede]

Whilst i agree that there are many other law firms who deal with PI claims, the very fact that this solicitor was (a) instructed by SHELTER to deal with the case/s, (b) add to that, that this was a blatant misrepresentation as it has now been established, and despite what the solicitor advised, they could have taking on the PI claim, but for that misrepresentation which again and i would assume prove negligence, as such advice was evidently negligent.

 

 

No, you were the client. They were instructed by you.

 

There is no "misrepresentation" as you put it. There is no obligation for the solicitors to sign a CFA with your for the PI claim if they chose not to accept the instructions.

 

You had 3 years to find and instruct another firm of solicitors. Why didn't you?

 

 

Medical records were requested not based on liability, the solicitor suddenly requested that i pay for these records for the Council to consider, when i made it clear that i was going to reserve my right to pursue a PI claim in the event, so the email communication would confirm this as opposed to liability. thanks

 

There is more than one reason for obtaining medical records and the Council seeing them would not have prejudiced your personal injury claim.

[callum1999]

But how could i instruct the solicitor who misrepresented his company by claiming they do not do PI claims, which was not entirely true?

 

If that were to be the case, which is denied, he had a legal obligation to advice me to look elsewhere, he did not.

 

The email communication evidently shows the medical records were solely based on the Council increasing any compromise agreement as a result of the PI, which the solicitor has wrongly advised he could not deal with, data protection breached.

[BazzaS]

But how could i instruct the solicitor who misrepresented his company by claiming they do not do PI claims, which was not entirely true?

 

If that were to be the case, which is denied, he had a legal obligation to advice me to look elsewhere, he did not.

 

The email communication evidently shows the medical records were solely based on the Council increasing any compromise agreement as a result of the PI, which the solicitor has wrongly advised he could not deal with, data protection breached.

 

If you gave permission for them to have your personal data to deal with your claim, how was data protection breached, and breached by whom?

[callum1999]

If someone could advice n the obligations of a solicitor who has been given legal aid to remove a serious risk which would include risk to an electrical fire, by seeking an injuction against the Council to remove that risk, i would be obliged.

The solicitor allowed this serious risk to continue for near on two years, my argument is that this should have been his first course of action whilst representing me, seeking such orders their not only to protect tenants, but the clients of the tenants passed over by Shelter.

[BazzaS]

If someone could advice n the obligations of a solicitor who has been given legal aid to remove a serious risk which would include risk to an electrical fire, by seeking an injuction against the Council to remove that risk, i would be obliged.

The solicitor allowed this serious risk to continue for near on two years, my argument is that this should have been his first course of action whilst representing me, seeking such orders their not only to protect tenants, but the clients of the tenants passed over by Shelter.

 

How does this differ to the question(s) you've already asked that have been answered?

[callum1999]

Well, if your solicitor said that he would do something and he did not, there may be a case for negligence. The important thing with this kind of case is the detail. It needs to be clear from the email exactly what the solicitor said he would do.

 

Hi Steampowered, i gave instructions that if the Council did not agree to remove the risk within seven days, alternative action should be sought, solicitor acknowledged this but said to get Counsel's oponion, just as the Council had done in contacting a barrister on liability.

Counsel's opinion was never requested by solicitor?, despite promise.

 

If you gave permission for them to have your personal data to deal with your claim, how was data protection breached, and breached by whom?

 

Data Protection has been breached because my medical records were not relevant on what the solicitor was being paid to do, his job was for the disrepair of the property, and not any accidents as a result of that disrepair, he cannot in one breath say i cannot or will not represent you in regards to any PI claim, and then request evidence and personal data, which to remove any doubt was considered by the council, the very next day.

According to my solicitor, my PI claim had nothing to do with him, so why tell me to pay the fee to release the medical notes, that being the case ????

[BazzaS]

Data Protection has been breached because my medical records were not relevant on what the solicitor was being paid to do, his job was for the disrepair of the property, and not any accidents as a result of that disrepair, he cannot in one breath say i cannot or will not represent you in regards to any PI claim, and then request evidence and personal data, which to remove any doubt was considered by the council, the very next day.

According to my solicitor, my PI claim had nothing to do with him, so why tell me to pay the fee to release the medical notes, that being the case ????

 

So, who breached data protection and how?

Who viewed your data in breach of data protection, and are you claiming they had your permission or not?

[callum1999]

The solicitor breached DP, because my medical records had nothing to do with what he was representing me on.

The disrepair had nothing whatsoever to do my medical records, remember, the solicitor said he and his company do not deal with PI claims??

[BazzaS]

The solicitor breached DP, because my medical records had nothing to do with what he was representing me on.

The disrepair had nothing whatsoever to do my medical records, remember, the solicitor said he and his company do not deal with PI claims??

 

But you gave your consent. If you didn't want to give your solicitor permission you should have declined, or asked for more information on which to make your decision.

 

I still can't see how data protection is breached by acting within explicit permission to act.

[callum1999]

Consent was giving on the understanding that the data would be used and not for what was then established the solicitor could not represent me on, the PI claim.

That data had no bearing or any relevance on what the solicitor was being publicly funded to act on.

 

It is not for me to ask, decline or give permission on what I, the client feels is the correct way, that obligation is firmly placed on the professional who is paid to make those decisions, in this case, that solicitor

[Ganymede]

Data Protection has been breached because my medical records were not relevant on what the solicitor was being paid to do, his job was for the disrepair of the property, and not any accidents as a result of that disrepair, he cannot in one breath say i cannot or will not represent you in regards to any PI claim, and then request evidence and personal data, which to remove any doubt was considered by the council, the very next day.

According to my solicitor, my PI claim had nothing to do with him, so why tell me to pay the fee to release the medical notes, that being the case ????

 

So how have you suffered as a result? What is your loss?

[callum1999]

The information was protected, I unfortunately had a serious heart attack which resulted in lasting medical and mental conditions which includes severe PTSD.

 

According to the Councils own solicitor and the insurers for the solicitor they have stated that my mental state of mind has nothing whatsoever to do with them, which my doctors has said was and is a contributing fact.

 

They have also claimed on reading my medical records, that all the mental issues are down to the breakdown in marrage which is a lie.

 

I have been married 30 years and known my wife for 40 years, to pass the buck and to use my relationship as a reason to defend what they did to me is disgusting.

 

But for them having sight of my medical records and without any legal right they could and would not have been in a position of fabricating the facts contained to suit their own agenda and argument.

Edited April 17, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[honeybee13]

Hello Callum.

 

I've just removed a duplicate post of #53. If you can't see what you've just posted, try clicking the Refresh button on your browser.

 

HB

[callum1999]

Hello Callum.

 

I've just removed a duplicate post of #53. If you can't see what you've just posted, try clicking the Refresh button on your browser.

 

HB

 

My mistake, thanks honeybee13

[Ganymede]

The information was protected, I unfortunately had a serious heart attack which resulted in lasting medical and mental conditions which includes severe PTSD.

 

According to the Councils own solicitor and the insurers for the solicitor they have stated that my mental state of mind has nothing whatsoever to do with them, which my doctors has said was and is a contributing fact.

 

They have also claimed on reading my medical records, that all the mental issues are down to the breakdown in marrage which is a lie.

 

I have been married 30 years and known my wife for 40 years, to pass the buck and to use my relationship as a reason to defend what they did to me is disgusting.

 

But for them having sight of my medical records and without any legal right they could and would not have been in a position of fabricating the facts contained to suit their own agenda and argument.

 

You would have had to disclose your medical records in any event, at which point these same arguments would have been made by the other side.

[callum1999]

But the medical records had nothing to do with the matters that the solicitor or the other side were litigating?

 

I could be requested to disclose my medical records, not made to, but why would i allow this, if it was not relevant to the case, which my solicitor has clearly indicated, were not, as he could not deal with matters that could include requesting my medical records, the fact remains that as the solicitor said he could not represent me on the PI, this again would i assume and prove further that my medical records should not have been an issue, period.

 

In a nutshell, the solicitor on one hand does not want to have anything to do with the PI claim on one hand, even though despite his claims, they could not offer, which evidently was a blatant misrepresentation, but he wants to request that i release my medical records not only for the Council to shift any blame as to compensate for mental/distress based on my marriage, his insurers are also using the same chestnut as a means of denying liability which is complete nonsense, but more importantly they should not have been in a position to assess and thereafter lie on records that were protected under DPA.

 

Just got all the relevant paperwork from Shelter, they referred the matter onto the solicitor stating an injunction was the next step, but they could not enforce that, the solicitor made no attempt to remove the risk by seeking an injunction, they have aso confirmed that they followed the pre-action protocol for disrepair, was the solicitor negligent in not applying for an injunction, after this was referred onto him as being the next steps, because Shelter could not enforce such order, hence why they had to refer it to a solicitor to enforce, thanks in advance.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.